Let's blame the fat people for global warming! - Page 4 - Political Fever

Zephyr · #31 (**permalink**) 05-27-2008, 01:57 AM

Nanny state!!!!!11111!!!11eleven

Chan · #32 (**permalink**) 05-27-2008, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oregon Elephant

They eat from a different market and so their food prices are not related to ours.

No, in today's global economy it's all the same market.

Quote:

I find it surprising that you haven't heard of supply and demand. I'll tell you, in this thing, let's call it a free market, where all the goods are traded, when demand for one good goes up, than the price goes up, following that, the increased price causes more people to produce that good, to increase supply, than the price goes down a bit, but not as far as it went up to begin with. So what we have is increased demand, leads to both an increased supply and an increased price.

Actually, I have heard of this so-called "law" of supply and demand. I simply reject it because the rise and fall of prices is the result of people exercising the choice to raise or lower prices. It is damned idiotic of you to suggest (as you have here) that prices somehow just magically all by themselves rise or fall based on supply and/or demand without any human involvement in the process.

Oregon Elephant · #33 (**permalink**) 05-27-2008, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chan

No, in today's global economy it's all the same market.

You're under the false impression that we are in a global market. This is not the case for most nations.

Quote:

Actually, I have heard of this so-called "law" of supply and demand. I simply reject it because the rise and fall of prices is the result of people exercising the choice to raise or lower prices. It is damned idiotic of you to suggest (as you have here) that prices somehow just magically all by themselves rise or fall based on supply and/or demand without any human involvement in the process.

I didn't suggest that it was "magical," that was you. If you don't understand S&D or Price Theory, that doesn't make it magical, that only makes it something that you don't understand.

Technocratic_Utilitarian · #34 (**permalink**) 05-27-2008, 01:18 PM

Who said there's no human involvement in the process? No one. Chan is making an irrelevant criticism. In no way, shape, or form does the fact that suppliers and buyers impact price mean that their choices are not themselves underlying problems, such as---consuming too much, leading to obesity.

Chan · #35 (**permalink**) 05-27-2008, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Technocratic_Utilitarian

Who said there's no human involvement in the process? No one.

It's in the absence of the specific mention of human involvement/direction, e.g. when people say there is this "law" of supply and demand or when they describe it in words that make it seem as if the process is automatic/axiomatic.

Quote:

Chan is making an irrelevant criticism. In no way, shape, or form does the fact that suppliers and buyers impact price mean that their choices are not themselves underlying problems, such as---consuming too much, leading to obesity.

The criticism is entirely valid: prices rise or fall only because people make such decisions and not because there is some law (as in something akin to a law of nature). That people choose to demand more and, thereby, reduce the supply available to others, is just an excuse that greedy people make for choosing to raise prices.

Oregon Elephant · #36 (**permalink**) 05-27-2008, 02:29 PM

Price theory is the theory (not law) that indicates, based on current market levels of supply and demand, where the equalibrum would be, so that you don't run out of stock (and so have to turn away customers) and don't have a surplus of stock (stuff you paid for to get but can't sell). S&D theory (also not law) says that businesses that set their prices to the price set by price theory will maximise profits without being under sold and run out of business. Those that set prices different to this will go out of business when the competitors stict with it.

xjoe3x · #37 (**permalink**) 05-27-2008, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Technocratic_Utilitarian

Freedom was tried. Independence doesn't work for many people. They abuse it, and in the end, you, I, and everyone else pays for their behaviour indirectly, and it's unnecessary. I think it's a perfectly legitimate role of government to influence behaviour by being "unfair" and tricking, coercing, or otherwise encouraging them to eat better. We all save resources, I don't have to see as many fat people, and they feel better. Win/win.

Edit:

People keep saying the "role" of government is this and that or "it has no business" doing something, but there's no proof of this. It's just an opinion Libertarians philosophically treat as some axiomatic, self-evident truth. It's not. You merely presume that's not a legitimate role. The most important ethical concern is the consequences of the action. The consequences are clear. If we go with your opinion, costs pile up, pollution increases, resources are wasted, and more people suffer as fat, unhealthy people. If we go with my solution, you get some whining and a few people who pay more for food they shouldn't be eating in the first place. On the other hand, if smoking is anything to go by, we likely would decrease the amount of obese people, encourage better, healthful diets, and see cost reductions and resource savings. I don't need to appeal to self-evident opinion truths. Empirical testing would reveal whether my way works (and it has worked with smokers!) If so, deliberately choosing the inferior situation with greater weight of harms is both unethical and collectively irrational, especially when you're "sticking with the bad" because of tradition or principle. When your principles don't work and cause more harm than good, it's time to abandon the principle and look for better ones.

They abuse it and it is there right to do so. That is there choice. They work for it and that is what they want.

As for your edit, you have what you think the government should do. If it ever does I will leave. I would hate to live under such an oppressive government. People are free to be fat if they wish. They can waste resources. If smoking is anything to go by I would let everyone smoke as long as they don't blow it at me or in my house. I know your way works I don't want it too. I do not like some jackasses in Washington telling everyone what to eat and drink. I do not care about the collectivity. I care about people making there own lives. I care about freedoms. I care about keeping oppressive government away. It does not bother me in the least that there are obese unhealthy people, that is there choice and as long as they are not stealing the food that is perfectly fine. It causes more good ethically because it allows people the freedom to choose for themselves. Remember your ethics are not the only ethics. I think your ethics are completely unethical.

Technocratic_Utilitarian · #38 (**permalink**) 05-27-2008, 04:32 PM

Quote:

They abuse it and it is there right to do so. That is there choice. They work for it and that is what they want.

1. If they have a right to do something, it doesn't mean they should do it.
2. Rights aren't absolute (when they start to harm others, they cease to be).
3. They only have a legal right, which is only valid because society says it is.

It's time to ignore their right to harm others through irresponsible behaviour. It clearly is a bad idea to let them go unchecked.

Quote:

I think your ethics are completely unethical.

I completely understand you think harming people and wasting critical resources in the name of "freedom", regardless of the consequences to anyone else, is okay. And many serial killers don't see what's wrong with their views either. You are at least honest: you don't care about consequences anyone else, society, or collective needs, as long as you are free to do whatever you want. In LoLbertopia, everyone can keep consuming, consuming, and consuming, destroying the world for everyone else around them, disproportionally sucking up resources better spent elsewhere, and you're all okay with that. WHo cares if society implodes! If we decisions up to Libertarians, there would soon be no world to be free in. It'd have self-destructed by everyone greedily caring only about himself in the short term.

Libertarian ethics is morally reprehensible.

xjoe3x · #39 (**permalink**) 05-27-2008, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Technocratic_Utilitarian

1. If they have a right to do something, it doesn't mean they should do it.
2. Rights aren't absolute (when they start to harm others, they cease to be).
3. They only have a legal right, which is only valid because society says it is.

It's time to ignore their right to harm others through irresponsible behaviour. It clearly is a bad idea to let them go unchecked.

I completely understand you think harming people and wasting critical resources in the name of "freedom", regardless of the consequences to anyone else, is okay. And many serial killers don't see what's wrong with their views either. You are at least honest: you don't care about consequences anyone else, society, or collective needs, as long as you are free to do whatever you want. In LoLbertopia, everyone can keep consuming, consuming, and consuming, destroying the world for everyone else around them, disproportionally sucking up resources better spent elsewhere, and you're all okay with that. WHo cares if society implodes! If we decisions up to Libertarians, there would soon be no world to be free in. It'd have self-destructed by everyone greedily caring only about himself in the short term.

Libertarian ethics is morally reprehensible.

1. Does not mean they should not, it means they should have the choice.
2. Your right there, eating is not harming others. Nor is buying.
3. Philosophical right as well. I think that right is there and always will be there.

They are not harming others by spending and eating.

No they can keep consuming for whatever they can grow or whatever others will trade to them. They worked for those resources or they are paying for those resources. They are there resources to use how they please if they are happy eating there fat *** off then good for them. In your society you want dictate what goes where and when. Ya society will implode because of fat people, lol. There certainly would be a free world to live in a much better world at that. Oh and guess what libertarianism is not just greedy caring about yourself, just the freedom to if you want. Ever hear of charity? I guess we could call your views authoritarian technocratic utilitarianism. I find that view morally reprehensible. But don't worry many serial killers don't see what's wrong with their views either.

Recusant · #40 (**permalink**) 05-28-2008, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Technocratic_Utilitarian

1. If they have a right to do something, it doesn't mean they should do it.
2. Rights aren't absolute (when they start to harm others, they cease to be).
3. They only have a legal right, which is only valid because society says it is.

It's time to ignore their right to harm others through irresponsible behaviour. It clearly is a bad idea to let them go unchecked.

I completely understand you think harming people and wasting critical resources in the name of "freedom", regardless of the consequences to anyone else, is okay. And many serial killers don't see what's wrong with their views either. You are at least honest: you don't care about consequences anyone else, society, or collective needs, as long as you are free to do whatever you want. In LoLbertopia, everyone can keep consuming, consuming, and consuming, destroying the world for everyone else around them, disproportionally sucking up resources better spent elsewhere, and you're all okay with that. WHo cares if society implodes! If we decisions up to Libertarians, there would soon be no world to be free in. It'd have self-destructed by everyone greedily caring only about himself in the short term.

Libertarian ethics is morally reprehensible.

I love you

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

User Name		Remember Me?
Password