Why Is Youth So Left-Wing?

[crystal]

What I really hate is when people like 10seven jump on board a thread after countless pages, and completely disregard the opposite arguments to post their own generalizations.

Its a shame that I have to struggle to take people seriously here now.

So you disagreed with 10seven's political opinions? Oh, the objectivity...

 

[10Seven]

So the commercial pleases them...
The decision of what is good and what isn't should be up to the consumers, not you or the government.

I think you're redefining the limits of the argument.

It might seem most logical to buy from the most pleasing company, but this is not nearly always possible.

That abusive company can have more money, more political clout - it can use that to undermine, out-advertise, and takeover one that is better/faster/sexier.

How did it get to have more money, or clout wasn't even necessarily through better competition - it could simply have inherited the money, it could have ripped enough people off.

 

[Japher]

The youth do too many drugs, and you have to be on drugs to vote for the left

 

[Azadre]

The youth do too many drugs, and you have to be on drugs to vote for the left

I don't use drugs and I vote left... therefore, I resent that.

 

[insurgent]

What I really hate is when people like 10seven jump on board a thread after countless pages, and completely disregard the opposite arguments to post their own generalizations.

Well, that's all he ever does. Bear with him.

Who do you think I am, Noam Chomsky?

Nah. But I still can't help finding it interesting that you don't think that government should necessarily have a monopoly on police and security.

So the commercial pleases them...
The decision of what is good and what isn't should be up to the consumers, not you or the government.

Exactement! The market does not serve any government's or particular individual's understanding of efficiency or purpose - it simply supplies something that people want. Those who are most efficient at that will triumph.

Now, this means that some people's sense of justice will be hurt, as they see some objectives as higher and more justified than those of their perceived intellectual inferiors. This means that the market will be as responsible as the consumers want it to be.

What I don't see, is why you would imply that I am an anarchist because I believe consumer responsibility and choice should take all factors into consideration. If a company is using child labour, then consumers should punish the company, the government shouldn't. As you said, the market is efficient when it comes to its consumers, and it should be like that. But you seem to deviate from that belief when you say that free companies' means should not be judged by the consumers but by the government - by collectivists like Mise, who think their judgment og values and priorities supersede those of others

And though a majority (including me) thinks that child labour is wrong, I think some people would argue that it helps a whole lot of families to survive in the Third World, that an extra source of income is worth a lot in those places. This brings me to the conclusion that the statement "child labour is wrong" is debatable, and as such, government legislation can be harmful to many and to the free choice. You, luiz, made a similar point with the outsourced sweatshops in Third World countries: Banning it would be more harmful than allowing free choice. The people who work in the sweatshops benefit from the jobs, and as voluntary deals between employer and employee, they are not wrong.

As a liberal, I believe it's important to remember that coercion breeds coercion and government intervention is always followed by the same.

Free trade wasn't working. People were choosing to buy packets of 48 because they perceived them as better value. People COULD now buy 3 packets of 16 and kill themselves that way, but they don't, because they don't perceive 3 packs of 16 as being as good value as 48. But for the libertarian CLEARLY government coercion MUST be causing more problems than it solved, whatever the evidence seems to suggest on the face of it.

Is this a real example? I honestly doubt that the connection is so clear and direct between the legislation and the drop in suicide rates. Perhaps the public was alerted to the problem by the legislation, perhaps alerting the problem is in itself effective enough to achieve such results. I can't see people deciding whether or not to commit suicide and base their decision on the size of flu medicine packs. Other factors must be involved.
And if that was the solution to the problem, there are non-coercive ways of achieving the results - people could simply be prompted by popular sentiment not to buy large packs or completely boycotting the drug to make the company do what they want. This may seem a little far-fetched to you, but it's really a matter of responsibility and how we perceive and to whom we attribute which responsibilities. Clearly, the legislature could be convinced to ban the packs, and so in a society where the consumers are expected to yield that responsibility, they could accept the role with the same results but leaving the free choice intact.

 

[luiz]

I think you're redefining the limits of the argument.

It might seem most logical to buy from the most pleasing company, but this is not nearly always possible.

That abusive company can have more money, more political clout - it can use that to undermine, out-advertise, and takeover one that is better/faster/sexier.

How did it get to have more money, or clout wasn't even necessarily through better competition - it could simply have inherited the money, it could have ripped enough people off.

The free market allows people to make a choice.
It's not up to you to say "the people are manipulated".

What makes you think that you know better then each individual what suits their needs?!?

The bottom line is neither the government nor any other group of people can know better then each individual what is best of them. And even if the government did know(and it doesn't) this does not give it the right to dictate consuming habits.

 

[insurgent]

luiz:

 

[10Seven]

Well, that's all he ever does. Bear with him.

yes,yes, if you put someone down, obviously they aren't saying anything worthwhile.

I'm guessing you guys are upset because I have asserted

Was it the comparison to Communism or that I asserted
my opinion that Libertarianism tends toward nonsense - especially at the extreme - because it generally follows shallow argument that is easily discounted through considered counter-argument.

I'm guessing the Communism bit was the one that really got the goat

 

[luiz]

Exactement! The market does not serve any government's or particular individual's understanding of efficiency or purpose - it simply supplies something that people want. Those who are most efficient at that will triumph.

Now, this means that some people's sense of justice will be hurt, as they see some objectives as higher and more justified than those of their perceived intellectual inferiors. This means that the market will be as responsible as the consumers want it to be.

What I don't see, is why you would imply that I am an anarchist because I believe consumer responsibility and choice should take all factors into consideration. If a company is using child labour, then consumers should punish the company, the government shouldn't. As you said, the market is efficient when it comes to its consumers, and it should be like that. But you seem to deviate from that belief when you say that free companies' means should not be judged by the consumers but by the government - by collectivists like Mise, who think their judgment og values and priorities supersede those of others

And though a majority (including me) thinks that child labour is wrong, I think some people would argue that it helps a whole lot of families to survive in the Third World, that an extra source of income is worth a lot in those places. This brings me to the conclusion that the statement "child labour is wrong" is debatable, and as such, government legislation can be harmful to many and to the free choice. You, luiz, made a similar point with the outsourced sweatshops in Third World countries: Banning it would be more harmful than allowing free choice. The people who work in the sweatshops benefit from the jobs, and as voluntary deals between employer and employee, they are not wrong.

As a liberal, I believe it's important to remember that coercion breeds coercion and government intervention is always followed by the same.

The problem with child labour that makes it different from other kinds of low-paid jobs is that it usually involves coercion.

I strongly believe that children are not slaves of their parents, and thus they should not be forced to work. The children who do work, and I say this out of real life observation, are usually coerced by their parents. There's no free will. So a Law banning child labour is actually supporting freedom, as contradicting as it may seem.

Swetshop workers in my other posts made a conscient and voluntary decision to work there, because they figured out that swetshops pay better then the traditional jobs of their countries. So banning swetshops would make them return to their previous jobs that pay less, and everyone loses.
Children, OTOH, do not make, in most case, a conscient decision and as such children labour is slavery sponsored by their parents.

The famous Coase Theorem says that Private enterprise may solve almost all externalities, but there must be consent in order to the Theorem to work.

All said, child labour certainly increases the conditions of certain poor families, but it is a form of slavery and I do not tolerate it.

 

[10Seven]

The free market allows people to make a choice.
It's not up to you to say "the people are manipulated".

What makes you think that you know better then each individual what suits their needs?!?

The bottom line is neither the government nor any other group of people can know better then each individual what is best of them. And even if the government did know(and it doesn't) this does not give it the right to dictate consuming habits.

I think you're ignoring the actual content of my post - consider that at no point did I say 'the people are manipulated'.

My point is that I HAVE OBSERVED a number of efficient companies whose customer records indicates high satisfaction overtaken by another company that was, literally, abusive to it's customers, and actually provided a more expensive and lower quality product.

Thus, while logical, the assertion that, roughly speaking, the company that satisfies best is alway best, isn't always true.

 

[insurgent]

So a Law banning child labour is actually supporting freedom, as contradicting as it may seem.

Well, slavery is already illegal. There's no reason to pass any more laws, which would indeed cause the loss of freedom.

But child labour was just an example. Your answer, it seems to me, doesn't address my main point - that wanting a collectivist government to intervene and impose regulations on the means just means taking what should have been consumer responsibility away and impairing freedom of choice. Instead of letting those, who actually pay for and need the services of companies take responsibility, you want people like 10Seven, who say that "people are manipulated" to impose their perception of morals on others.

As you said, the market is efficient when it comes to its consumers, and it should be like that. But you seem to deviate from that belief when you say that free companies' means should not be judged by the consumers but by the government - by collectivists like Mise, who think their judgment og values and priorities supersede those of others.

 

[luiz]

I think you're ignoring the actual content of my post - consider that at no point did I say 'the people are manipulated'.

My point is that I HAVE OBSERVED a number of efficient companies whose customer records indicates high satisfaction overtaken by another company that was, literally, abusive to it's customers, and actually provided a more expensive and lower quality product.

Thus, while logical, the assertion that, roughly speaking, the company that satisfies best is alway best, isn't always true.

You observed a company that in your opinion was more efficient be overtaken by a company that in the opinion of more people was more efficient.

Otherwise why would they stop consuming from the former company?

 

[luiz]

Well, slavery is already illegal. There's no reason to pass any more laws, which would indeed cause the loss of freedom.

But child labour was just an example. Your answer, it seems to me, doesn't address my main point - that wanting a collectivist government to intervene and impose regulations on the means just means taking what should have been consumer responsibility away and impairing freedom of choice. Instead of letting those, who actually pay for and need the services of companies take responsibility, you want people like 10Seven, who say that "people are manipulated" to impose their perception of morals on others.

But letting the consumers decide means allowing the consumers to decide if child labour is acceptable or not. My point is it's not, regardless of what consumers say.

I don't consider this a regulation of a collectivist government, and I certainly don't agree with 10Seven that the government should tell the people what to consume. I only want to protect the individual rights of the kids.

 

[insurgent]

It is easy to say that you like a company. But the only time you really show what companies you are satisfied with is when you make a choice and put your money where your mouth is. A poll is worth much less than actual free market results as an indication of consumer satisfaction.

 

[insurgent]

I don't consider this a regulation of a collectivist government, and I certainly don't agree with 10Seven that the government should tell the people what to consume. I only want to protect the individual rights of the kids.

Ah, okay, fair enough. You're making an exception, I thought you meant this generally.

 

[insurgent]

Still, isn't it possible that some children want to work out of their own free will?

 

[10Seven]

I think you've redefined the terms of the argument.

We can argue all over semantics, and one of us will be more right than the other, then we can swap.

But referring back to your original statement, while I think it is logical and actually think it would be true in most cases, I don't think it's fair to claim in ALL cases.

It seems plain as day to me that an efficient and customer happy ffying company can still be taken over, or see it's sales and market share decline due to the actions or presence of another less efficient oe less 'good at it's job' company.

There are plenty of methods I could utilise to muscle out my competition that have nothing at all to do with 'fair' competition and even bothering to have a good product at a good price and anyone being satisfied with me in anyway.

 

[insurgent]

There are plenty of methods I could utilise to muscle out my competition that have nothing at all to do with 'fair' competition and even bothering to have a good product at a good price and anyone being satisfied with me in anyway.

Seriously, you seem very confused. In free and legal competition, the company that satisfies the consumer wins. That is the only relevant measure of efficiency. Whether you consider it "fair competition" or not.

 

[luiz]

Still, isn't it possible that some children want to work out of their own free will?

Indeed it is, and if a child is considered mature enough to take such decision I see no problems with this kid working.

But remember, the libertarian arguments always involve "consenting adults".

 

[luiz]

Seriously, you seem very confused. In free and legal competition, the company that satisfies the consumer wins. That is the only relevant measure of efficiency. Whether you consider it "fair competition" or not.

Well said.