April 24, 2024

News Cymru

Two sides to every headline

An Argument With A Socialist – Consumer Regulation Is Enough, Government Not Required

John Dent October 2, 2012

From socialjusticefirst

senex72 said:
September 26, 2012
11:55 am

A lot of ink spilled here! As onlooker I suggest we stop treating people as if they were members of the cult of “gentleman” when they aren’t – those days are long past, as is clear from previous comments.

Competence would seem an initial touchstone: A Bob Diamond telling a Parliamentary Inquiry that he was unaware of this or that practice should have signed his own death-warrant, and had his assets confiscated, and been driven into exile for good measure! Instead he almost got way with it, and did keep part of his loot. A test of what it is reasonable to expect from a competent administrator would, I suggest, clear out the lot of them – the LIBOR nodders and winkers, regulators with short-sight problems, pushers of criminal (they are not just “toxic”) assets CD’s,securitised mortgage bonds etc,; loan and insurance pushers, infinite re-hypothecators in the City… along with “Ministers” who think their obviously unfit for purpose department is really on the mend.

Another move would be to end the primacy of creditor and shareholder interest in company affairs, and widen the remit of CEO’s to include employee, customer, tax-payer and social – impact liabilities (ie market externalities). Shareholders are supposed to be risk-takers and should be left to it, creditors should watch where they put their money, but present “bail out” practices remove the downside from foolish and fraudulent bank conduct anyway. Instead we have a reported £425 billion being thrown at the finance industry (mainly to support house prices as paper assets) which should have gone to small business and economic regeneration..

Finally, let’s recognise here and in EU the basic economic law: debts which can’t be repaid won’t be. Stop wasting time “fiddling” LIBOR and whatnot and bite the bullet.

Reply ↓
Richard said:
September 26, 2012
2:03 pm

senex – Amen for breath of fresh air. If I was going to pick holes I would say the CEOs already had the customer as top priority, at least they did before the government started back stopping their losses.

Reply ↓
Joshua Mellors said:
September 30, 2012
11:35 am

No, they had themselves as their top priority. Obviously. Which is why many of them were willing to accept massive shareholder and customer (taxpayer) losses while leaving their firms with hundred million dollar bonuses (I believe one of the highest was $313 million). Their interests were in many cases diametrically opposed to those of the firms and the customers.

You can’t divorce ‘Government’ from ‘Government Sachs’ or you would just be left with Sachs. Its a partnership

Of course politicians are corrupt, but remember there’s always a corruptor to any corruptee

Richard said:
September 30, 2012
5:51 pm

Joshua – As I have said before, if the CEO does not have the customer at heart they would go out of business. Unfortunately the government stopped this regulation by the people. The government is the problem, the government has the power. Goldman Sachs cannot force the people to give them money if the government were not assisting them.

You can say it takes two to tango etc etc but the fact is you have to blame the people with the power. If you want to hold CEOs to account for fraud then you have to hold government to account for complicity with the fraud. The party that ultimately has the power to allow the fraud to take place is the one responsible. You disagree?

Alex Green said:
October 1, 2012
10:34 am

Quick thought: regardless of whether or not prioritising the marketability of the service is a guarantee that consumers will be treated fairly, is it only the latter point that matters? Surely we need regulatory bodies of some sort to guarantee that people other than customers are treated fairly? What about the environmental impact of project finance ventures for example? Voluntary standards can only take us so far. As to whether consumer conscience can act as an effective check on such things, surely we can all agree that there is such a thing as market inertia?

Richard said:
October 1, 2012
11:56 am

Hello Alex – You raise some interesting points but they open up vast new subjects! About environmental impact, your moving into the area of socialised healthcare and how it removes the cost factor from environmental damage. if I can give a link for a brief summary of what I mean. http://independence4wales.com/2012/how-private-health-insurance-saves-the-environment-how-obamacare-the-nhs-damages-it

“Voluntary standards can only take us so far” – I would say they will take us as far as we want them to, tell me what the limit would be for your personal regulation of businesses?

“As to whether consumer conscience can act as an effective check on such things, surely we can all agree that there is such a thing as market inertia?” Inertia? If you get screwed by your local electrical store, maybe they sell your favourite mobile phone, does the inertia stop you from finding a different brand of mobile? I would say there is infinitely less inertia with individuals compared to government.

About conscience. Who is to judge what is bad or good? You want other people making that judgement for you through regulations? Or would you prefer to have the power to make that judgment for yourself? I don’t think the answer is “government” imposing their “conscience” on you through regulation. We all think differently, we are all in different circumstances, what is bad for one is not necessarily bad for another, there is no one-size-fits-all answer, even if government tells us that there is.

Alex Green said:
October 1, 2012
12:41 pm

Richard – I have to say that I am not sure this does change the debate that much: project finance is a major way in which national banks deal internationally. The entire point that I am raising is that the customers are not those affected by the action taken. Customers of bank X will not be even slight affected by the financing of a pipeline in another country. We are talking about the regulation of banking practices aren’t we? It is all part of the same problem.

The notion of voluntary standards going as far as we want them to is totally ludicrous. Voluntary standards like the Equator Principles are adopted by banks. Their voluntary nature means that they go as far as the banks want them to.

Of course I will change my telephone company if they screw me over. The point is that I am highly unlikely to change my bank for self-interested reasons if they screw other people over, especially if I cannot be screwed over in the same way. So I will have no selfish reason to drop my bank for financing environmentally or socially irresponsible projects abroad.

In fact, the fact that capitalism treats people’s interests as contingent upon their market impact in itself leads to the courting of politics by corporate interest. Such a relationship is mutually beneficial, as you rightly point out. This in turn leads to the sort of bank bailouts such as those given to Barclay’s. The real problem is putting faith in self-interest in the first place; a mistake upon which your entire consumer-focused approach rests. Only by attempting to recreate business as an exercise of making profit within the bounds of social responsibility can any real headway be made. Falling back on profit as a motivational tool will only lead to a diversity of innovative ways to gain it. The link between politics and profit is a prime example. Such innovation need not be egalitarian, libertarian or socially responsible. The paradigm is all wrong. It cannot be solved by the state simply leaving well enough alone.

Finally, the idea that as a consumer I make choices for myself and that if there is a regulatory body then I do not is a fallacy. Firstly, the presence of regulation does not prevent me from also making a choice as a consumer. Secondly, the idea that a free market promotes individual freedom is pure nonsense. Markets are by their nature majoritarian. I might boycott my bank but if no one else does then I have made a judgment but that judgment has not had any impact. If this is coupled with the fact that the natural goal of every business is to out compete to the point of monopoly, following which market inertia becomes all but insurmountable, a point could theoretically be reached whereby the consumer is screwed over without ever realising it, because the service they are being given is just accepted as ‘the norm’. Wanting to avoid this is one reason why cartels are illegal, why consumer protection laws are enacted, why the entire area of competition law exists and why, finally, we have regulatory bodies that make sure that business methods are both fair and visible.

Richard said:
October 1, 2012
3:23 pm

Hello Alex – Okay I think I see where you are going.

“The point is that I am highly unlikely to change my bank for self-interested reasons if they screw other people over, especially if I cannot be screwed over in the same way. ” – The question you have to ask here is why the “other people” are not changing their bank?

“So I will have no selfish reason to drop my bank for financing environmentally or socially irresponsible projects abroad.” – You could if you wanted to ie you knew what your bank was doing and you decided not to have anything to do with them. Its your choice if you want to stay or go. There is something you can do and if enough people agree with you it will have an effect.

“In fact, the fact that capitalism treats people’s interests as contingent upon their market impact in itself leads to the courting of politics by corporate interest. ” – don’t we all try to have government work for our own interest? Getting regulation implemented for things we don’t like for example? The problem is the concentration of power. When you have concentration of power you are naturally creating a target which people will want to manipulate for their own ends.

“This in turn leads to the sort of bank bailouts such as those given to Barclay’s. ” – The bailouts are anti-capitalism. Bank bailouts have absolutely nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with socialism/fascism. Capitalism is putting the power in the hands of the people, socialism/fascism both stem from centralised government power. Which takes us back to the previous point about the dangers of giving government power rather than the people.

“The real problem is putting faith in self-interest in the first place; a mistake upon which your entire consumer-focused approach rests.” – Sorry, what is wrong with mammals, fish, birds, basically every living creature acting in their own self interest?

“Firstly, the presence of regulation does not prevent me from also making a choice as a consumer” – I don’t think anyone is claiming the contrary.

“Secondly, the idea that a free market promotes individual freedom is pure nonsense. Markets are by their nature majoritarian.” – You have completely lost me here. Markets exist to fulfill needs and wants, majority or minority has nothing to do with it.

“I might boycott my bank but if no one else does then I have made a judgment but that judgment has not had any impact. ” – Again you have lost me. You have boycotted your bank for a specific reason or reasons what difference does it make if other people don’t feel the same way? You have to do what is right for you, just because the majority is not with you does not make your opinion any less valid. If your lucky enough to find enough like minded people then the market will fulfill your needs through niche banks, the market even allows you to start your own business so you can fulfill your own needs and those with the same opinions as you. If others don’t leave then they are obviously happy with the state of play for whatever reason, why do you want to impose your beliefs on them with force, can’t you simply explain to them your thinking?

“If this is coupled with the fact that the natural goal of every business is to out compete to the point of monopoly,” – Yes I agree and they can only do this if they offer what people want.

“a point could theoretically be reached whereby the consumer is screwed over without ever realising it, because the service they are being given is just accepted as ‘the norm’” – you explain the problem of government monopoly and the resulting regulation and institutions *perfectly* – The only thing in your life that is a monopoly is the government. There are no free market monopolies, none.

“Wanting to avoid this is one reason why cartels are illegal, why consumer protection laws are enacted, why the entire area of competition law exists and why, finally, we have regulatory bodies that make sure that business methods are both fair and visible.” – this is definitely the government line. I would refer you to empirical evidence ie countries with high regulation and low regulation and see which people are better off.

The poorest and most oppressed people in the world live in highly government regulated environments where the government is acting for the good of everyone. N. Korea, USSR, DRC to name a couple of obvious examples. You disagree?

Or do you think the people in N. Korea are somehow different from the people in S. Korea and this is why their governments are so different? Do you think the people in N. Korea are the problem or do you at least acknowledge the possibility that the regulations could be the problem?

And please, good and bad regulation comes down to the people creating the regulation which takes us back to people in N. Korea being different from those in S. Korea.

Alex Green said:
October 1, 2012
4:29 pm

Richard – I don’t think you quite understand what I am saying. This is no doubt my fault, so I shall attempt to restate it. But to answer your question, yes I do disagree that acting in the public interest necessarily results in fascism, which you seem to see as similar to socialism. To deal with this point first, I simply do not accept that the countries you cite as having governments that genuinely acted in the public interest. They were or are oligarchies or dictatorships. It would be woefully simplistic to claim that all big government must fall into either of these boxes on the conceptual level.

To start with, I think I need to answer you about selfishness. There is a great deal wrong with acting out of pure self-interest. I would have thought this was rather obvious. If it would make me happier overall and in the long run to play loud music in the middle of the night (“Bugger the neighbours!”) then under a model of practical reason based entirely on self-interest I should just do so. The fact is that in addition to any self-interested reasons I might have for not doing so, I also have altruistic reasons for not doing so. It is altruistic reasons that I suggest profit be subject to. Now we could have an argument as to what these might be (protection of the environment, human rights, some form of distributive equality etc. might be good candidates) but we have to admit that such reasons for action/inaction exist. Humans are different from fish because we can contemplate such things. That is a very good thing.

We do not all try to get governments to act for our own interest, at least not entirely and certainly not all the time. Several charities, pressure groups, public interest law firms and (dare I suggest it?) political parties lobby, sue, argue and promote for altruistic reasons alone. As a man it would hardly be in my immediate self-interest to argue for women’s rights although I have on a number of occasions done exactly that. Basing a theory of good governance on self-interest is therefore an incomplete picture of the human condition and woefully immoral. I hope this makes clearer why I think that business, which helps shape our societies, should be subject to similar principles.

On the project finance point: because the victims of immoral profiteering are not customers of the companies involved, one cannot rely on pure self-interest to get us to the level of consumer regulation required to create an effective disincentive for financers avoiding harmful investments. Very often people do not know that their banks are financing environmentally dangerous projects abroad, or builds that destroy communities in foreign parts. Without non-capitalist collective action, such as radical journalism, protest and regulation, this information would not have been publicised and no first steps would have been taken. Even though certain scandals do come to light, people still do not leave their banks (mainly) because of two factors: market inertia and timidity. Regulation can solve problems faster and save people and environments from harm before consumers attitudes have changed. This is a purely practical point.

On the consumer judgment point: my choice is of course always my choice. However, you agree, I suppose, that some choices are right and some are wrong. I hope you also agree that just because a belief is held by a minority of people that doesn’t make it wrong (the inverse being true as well). If you accept these two things you can see in what sense markets are majoritarian. Individual people make choices and business chooses how to respond to those choices, finding the most profitable root possible. This means that the choice promoting the most economic utility for that business will most often be where the majority of their demographic is going. So numbers count amongst customers. I think you actually argue this yourself. The problem is that sometimes people, especially in large numbers where comfort and denial can play a major role, make wrong choices. Even if I make a right choice, say by boycotting a bank, if no one else does the same then my choice has no impact on the utility equation. Now one a way to address this is to educate the consumers to not behave self-interestedly and to take their duty to respect others seriously. However, this will not help the victims of immoral investment here and now. Personally, I would rather both education and regulation occur together. They often support each other and reduce the need to rely exclusively on one as on the other. Large groups of people tend towards conservatism and tradition, even if that tradition is one of ignoring the suffering of others. It is not always enough to leave this to the chance that the entire market might change its opinion in time. Sometimes, waiting for this to occur causes suffering and death.

On your comparison of my argument against monopoly and the facts of government: I have two points. My first is that to say that a free market is anathema to monopoly is just plain false. The ideal economic situation for any company is a monopoly. Copyright law is an example of this: we reward inventive behaviour by granting monopolies for a while. Monopoly is the promise that the free market offers because it offers the greatest capacity for profit. I accept that monopolies are made rare by competition. However, a great deal of that competition is artificially created by government regulation, especially in modern Europe. Regulation can be the ally of competition in that respect. There is nothing about the free market itself that renders competition inevitable; even Milton Friedman agreed with that.

My second point is this: I agree. Certain modes of government are just accepted as good: democracy is the perfect example. However, denying that the free market can be one of those modalities is desperately and deliberately naive. I would be disposed to question both, not vilify one and deify the other. Just because I am for regulation for instrumental reasons does not mean that I am for big government as a moral necessity. This is a highly complex question of political theory however, and I don’t feel I have the space to do it justice here.

Richard said:
October 2, 2012
8:52 am

Hello Alex – “If it would make me happier overall and in the long run to play loud music in the middle of the night (“Bugger the neighbours!”) then under a model of practical reason based entirely on self-interest I should just do so. ” – But that fact is that you don’t BECAUSE you are acting in your own self interest. Isn’t that so?

About being altruistic, if you don’t think about other people it comes back on you one way or another which is why it is in your own self interest to act altruistically.

“good governance on self-interest is therefore an incomplete picture of the human condition and woefully immoral.” – Please give me an example where governance based on your self interest has been immoral.

“I think that business, which helps shape our societies, should be subject to similar principles. ” – Can you give an example where a local business has not acted altruistically and has gained an advantage?

“On the project finance point: because the victims of immoral profiteering are not customers of the companies involved, one cannot rely on pure self-interest to get us to the level of consumer regulation required to create an effective disincentive for financers avoiding harmful investments.” Can you give an example? I mean who are the victims? And why do they not have recourse to a court of law?

“Very often people do not know that their banks are financing environmentally dangerous projects abroad, or builds that destroy communities in foreign parts. ” – I agree and again I ask why do the people in these countries not have recourse to their legal system and/or why is the government in those countries allowing dangerous and damaging things to happen to their citizens? Only the government can facilitate dangerous behaviour, the legal system is ultimately judged by our peers who would arguably find in favour of the victims unless they were overruled by their government.

“this information would not have been publicised and no first steps would have been taken. ” – Your implying that is not in the interest of a company to advertise the immoral or dangerous actions of a competitor. This is simply not the case.

Having said all that I respect your right to want to regulate anything and everything you want on condition you respect my right not to have to pay for the enforcement and administration of the regulations you want. Do you give me that right?

And more than that, I respect your right to buy products and services from anyone or any company you want regardless of my opinion of that party, on the condition that you respect my right to buy goods and services from people and businesses who do not have the government stamp of approval. Do you give me that right?

Alex Green said:
October 2, 2012
10:11 am

Richard, thank you for your reply.

Please read what I said about altruism again. It sounds like you are selectively reading me. After the section you quote I say that: “The fact is that in addition to any self-interested reasons I might have for not doing so, I also have altruistic reasons for not doing so.” Certainly I have self-interested reasons for not pissing off my neighbors but if a person was to think that those are the only reasons I have for not doing so then that person would be at best shallow and selfish and at worst a truly reprehensible human being. There are altruistic reasons for doing things. These are also (for the most part) good, morally upright and appropriate reasons upon which to base both individual and collective action.

Example 1: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/mar/03/olympic-brands-abuse-scandal

Example 2: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/africa/nigeria/120206/nigeria-news-chevron-fire-niger-delta-enters-week-four, although really any example of an international corporation impacting people other than those who form the majority of their market would suffice. The victims are those people who are not part of the target demographic but lose something as a result of investment. Villagers forced to relocate because of the construction of a dam financed by a foreign bank are another classic example. Recourse to law is not always technically possible for reasons of doctrinal stagnation or remoteness (read my article on financial suicide) and it is sometimes just too expensive for subsistence farmers or fishermen to afford.

The idea that only a government can facilitate dangerous behavior is just silly. What about government makes it susceptible to dangerous behavior that cannot be so of any collective (or indeed any individual)? Power is power, whether it is labeled as public or private. Your comments on this point are beginning to smack of idolatry.

Of course companies can sometimes gain an advantage from showing up a competitor. They can also gain an advantage from not doing it. If the benefit of shielding the competitor outweighs that of exposing them then it would be contrary to self-interest to do so. One example is obvious: if both competitors are engaged in the same immoral activity. Again, this is why cartels and other anti-competitive behavior have been made illegal. If capitalism alone prevented them from occurring then such laws would not exist.

On right one: no I don’t. You pay for the police and I assume that you think the regulation of the criminal law is (at least in part) a good idea. Hyper-liberal cancel-out arguments lead to unworkable and harsh societies. The entire exercise of law is one in deciding what sort of collective action merits coercion. To say that I can regulate anything as long as you don’t have to pay for it totally misses the entire theoretical basis of tax law and collective action in a broader sense. There comes a point when people just need to suck it up and help out others, even if they don’t want to.

On right two: yes I do, as long as your buying of those goods or services does no unnecessary harm. I would not want you paying for sex if the result was the facilitation of people trafficking. Once again, deciding what merits restriction is the point of debates about appropriate regulation. The answer simply cannot be to have no regulation at all.

Your entire approach to this seems too black and white for my liking. It is based on a cynical and incomplete understanding of the moral condition and an unwarranted distinction between public and private power. Having said that, I am prepared to accept that there are plenty of people who agree(d) with your view, including a few reasonably good philosophers like Robert Nozick. I just haven’t heard any convincing arguments as to why I should look at the world in that way.

Richard said:
October 2, 2012
11:21 am

Alex – Your taking us round in a circle now.

Altruism and self interest are the same thing. Unless of course you are acting against your self interest when you are altruistic? I’m assuming conscience and self interest are in the same tent?

About problems in other countries, see my previous comment about law and government. Your whole philosophy is based on the government acting in the greater good so why isn’t the Nigerian government suing Chevron?

“They can also gain an advantage from not doing it. If the benefit of shielding the competitor outweighs that of exposing them then it would be contrary to self-interest to do so. One example is obvious: if both competitors are engaged in the same immoral activity. ” – but you acknowledge the possibility that they might not work together right?

“On right one: no I don’t. You pay for the police and I assume that you think the regulation of the criminal law is (at least in part) a good idea” – We are not talking about the police, buts lets say I would happily have the choice of a private security firm. (Ill ignore the fact that you think it is morally correct for you to be able to force people to do something against their will)

“The entire exercise of law is one in deciding what sort of collective action merits coercion” – Coercion has nothing to do with the law., unless of course the law involves government.

“To say that I can regulate anything as long as you don’t have to pay for it totally misses the entire theoretical basis of tax law and collective action in a broader sense. There comes a point when people just need to suck it up and help out others, even if they don’t want to.” – You are a scary person.

“On right two: yes I do, as long as your buying of those goods or services does no unnecessary harm” – That’s my whole point. I think threatening people with the physical force under any circumstances is harmful. I know, you disagree, people should suck it up.

“The answer simply cannot be to have no regulation at all.” – Absolutely not, like I said, everyone should have whatever regulations they wish as long as the people who want it are the ones paying for it. People who dont want it should not be physically threatened to pay for something they do not want. I dont care what the consequences are, its simply not right. When they wanted to ban slavery some people were asking who was going to pick the cotton, but who cares, slavery is immoral and that is all that counts.

“It is based on a cynical and incomplete understanding of the moral condition and an unwarranted distinction between public and private power.” – I think that is the difference in our opinions. I believe that the vast majority of people are basically good and fair whereas you don’t seem to.

You are the one who appears, to me at least, to have no confidence in people, that people want to screw people over, that people are powerless, that people are unable to look after themselves and that people must hand power over to a smaller group of people who NEED the monopoly on force to make their system work.

This to me displays a complete misunderstanding of the moral condition. It also displays to me the ignorance of the highest order if you cannot see the difference between a group of people who receive money through voluntary exchange and those that can only get money through the use of physical violence.

Alex Green said:
October 2, 2012
1:19 pm

Thanks Richard, that is a very clear position. However I must say that you have misunderstood me on a few points. I am also most flattered that you are afraid of me. I will not address the question regarding whether companies can both support and thwart their competitors, as believe you have answered that yourself.

I do not assume that because governments can act in favor of the general good that they always do, just as I do not assume that all businesses act purely out of self interest. I simply do not know how good or bad the vast majority of people are. My arguments are rather based on the assumption that the vast majority of people are highly complex and can act for both selfish and non-selfish reasons. I also assume that sometimes people do not think that hard about why they do or do not do things. My examples of selfish behaviour were intended to show that people, in both public and private capacities, can act in these ways and how, given that fact, a reasonable society should respond. I think at some point we just have to face the fact that human responses to certain things are not predictable. Most importantly, we do not always do what is right.

It is this unpredictability that links law to coercion. On the abstract level we decide that certain things simply must not occur. Murder is a good example. I think it would be hard to imagine a way to deal with murder that did not allow for coercion. Simply standing there and repeating arguments as to why murder is wrong is clearly not going to prevent it from occurring.

Also, there is nothing about the idea of collective decision making geared towards altruism that requires representative government as it currently exists. Your criticism of me seems to assume that I am defending the status quo. I am not doing so. Instead I am trying to provide an argument for why it is necessary, given the world as it currently exists, that business be regulated to ensure that altruistic reasons play a part in decision making. That does not require me to defend representative democracy. If I gave you the impression that I was, I apologise. My argument is one of policy not constitution, governance and not government. Law, being a collective enterprise, must be linked to some form of governance (because by definition it governs a collective) but not necessarily government. It is governance I would say that necessitates coercion, not government. International law is a good example of this distinction: it governs without a government.

The reason that tax can be justified is that people can cause harm by omission within a social context as, if not more, easily than by action. For example, a person could live their whole life without giving anything to help the poor and just watch them starve, resting on the fact that they weren’t a direct cause of it. They were just ensuring that they made profit for themselves. My point about people being made to help others is aimed at things analogous to that. No doubt you would give to the poor voluntarily. I simply do not wish to assume, in light of history, that enough people would follow your example without some sort of taxation and redistribution. The problem is (or in the domestic context perhaps was?) too pressing.

Based on this, I am not sure that threatening people with physical force in all circumstances is harmful: “Stop threatening to harm that baby with that knife or I am going to force you to stop.” If the harm is bad enough then surely proportionate coercion is justified? Now I am no consequentialist, however I do believe that in order for something to be axiomatically wrong it must have a firm moral basis. I am not sure that private property can provide such a justification for the proposition that taking money away from somebody is always wrong, no matter what. In order to reach that conclusion I would need too see a strong conceptual link between owning any (as opposed to a sufficient) amount of money and being an autonomous individual worthy of respect. I think your example of slavery is good one, in that it shows how ownership can be illegitimate under certain circumstances. (In that case precisely because of individual freedom!) In respect of taxation my claim is that allowing one’s fellow human beings to languish in poverty cannot be justified under a good conception of private property. As to the regulation of business, it is a similar point: profiteering as an expression of freedom must be balanced against more altruistic concerns, such as ensuring that one does not destroy the lives or livelihoods of others.

I hope you can forgive me my high ignorance if you still perceive me to hold it. Certainly there is a moral distinction between voluntary exchange and taxation. The world would be better if everyone volunteered to exchange resources until everyone had a fair share. My concern is that such a view of humanity does not seem to correspond precisely to fact.

One interesting old chestnut that you raise is that altruism is equivalent to self interest. I take you to mean that one’s self interest in a fuller sense will always be served by being altruistic. Whilst I am not sure whether or not this is true (there is a distinction I think between a well lived life and a good life), I am prepared to accept it for the sake of the argument. However, I think that there is a difference between self interest in the sense of living a full and rewarding life and self interested actions that look to short term goals. It is the latter sort of self interest that concerns me. I might want to get rich at the expense of others for various selfish reasons only to realize that this was a deeply unfulfilling course upon my death. That does not establish a link between actions that were clearly selfish and altruism. There is a great deal of argument about this between Aristotelians and Kantians I believe, but I am not sure how it serves us to go into that within the context of this discussion. It is simple self interest that I am talking about.

Richard said:
October 2, 2012
3:17 pm

Alex – “In respect of taxation my claim is that allowing one’s fellow human beings to languish in poverty cannot be justified under a good conception of private property. ” – I do not believe I have met a single person that does not get a feeling of well being when they help someone that is less fortunate than themselves. I am positive you put yourself in this camp as well. In short your statement is a false premise.

About laws and murder – Let me expand my point. Laws in the concept of a free society is to stop one person from restricting the freedom of another or by causing physical, mental or economic harm to another. If your definition of regulation falls under my definition of law then why do you require regulations? Government regulations are pre-crime enforcement.

And about poverty. This argument is an utter non starter because even the poorest people in society don’t have the choice of opting out of receiving government assistance. If it is obviously such a good deal for them then why do they have to be forced to be part of it? Surely they would pay VAT etc voluntarily.

You bring up businesses screwing the environment, screwing their customers, people leaving others to starve, people doing the wrong things, people doing before thinking of the consequences, people acting selfishly, people hoarding their wealth, people exploiting others etc etc. You are free to live in the world where all these things are looked after by government, nobody is stopping you but why on earth do you want to imprison people that want to live outside of this world? (Keep the rich in there if you need them to sustain it)

Get the latest updates in your inbox

Tags:

0 thoughts on “An Argument With A Socialist – Consumer Regulation Is Enough, Government Not Required”

  1. Pingback: Stefan Molyneux – Help Me! I Broke The Cardinal Rule! « independence4wales.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

five + 5 =

More Stories

Why Greeks Want The Bailouts To Stop

October 21, 2012 John Dent

Banking Panics/Bank Runs – Government Created?

October 19, 2012 John Dent

Banks – Have Governments Forgotten Their Purpose?

October 19, 2012 John Dent

You may have missed

Ukrainian men protest Zelensky’s new draft measure in Poland (VIDEO)

April 24, 2024 Angus Charles

Iran: Popular Rapper Sentenced to Death for Dissent

April 24, 2024 Angus Charles

Huge fire breaks out on Welsh hillside with flames visible from miles away

April 24, 2024 Angus Charles

Labour promises publicly owned rail – as Tories slam ‘unfunded nationalisation’

April 24, 2024 Angus Charles
I ♥