SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Anita Makri argues that the form of science communicated in popular media leaves the public vulnerable to false certainty.
What is truth? How do we find it and does it still carry weight in public debate? Given recent political events, these are important and urgent questions. But of the two industries I work in that are concerned with truth — science and journalism — only the latter has seriously engaged and looked for answers. Scientists need to catch up, or they risk further marginalization in a society that is increasingly weighing evidence and making decisions without them.
[...] What's overlooked by many is how science is losing its relevance as a source of truth. To reclaim this relevance, scientists, communicators, institutions and funders must work to change the way that socially relevant science is presented to the public. This is not about better media training for researchers. It demands a rethink about the kind of science that we want to communicate to broader society. This message may sound familiar but the new focus on post-truth shows there is now a tangible danger that must be addressed.
[...] If the public is better equipped to navigate this science, it would restore trust and improve understanding of different verdicts, and perhaps help people to see through some of the fake news that circulates on scientific matters.
http://www.nature.com/news/give-the-public-the-tools-to-trust-scientists-1.21307
What do you think, will the general public trust these tools, if available ?
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @05:03PM
There is nothing stricter than a Free Market (a market based on voluntary trade); through the interactions, a robust framework of contracts will inevitably develop, which will always be far more fine-grained, resilient, and sophisticated than anything that could be produced by know-nothing paper-pushing bureaucrats who allocate resources at the the point of a gun.
Every so-called "market failure" has its origin in government meddling.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @05:21PM
I'll take market failures over company towns that like to dress up slavery... A system of contracts, uh huh. Care to address how such contracts will be enforced?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @05:46PM
Contract enforcement is not magical; the "justice" industry is not magical. Such a service must be brought into being as with any other service in the free market: Through voluntary association.
The nature of contract enforcement is necessarily something that is specified in the contract itself, and is therefore subject to voluntary agreement ahead of the interactions in question; you must agree to the rules up front, or otherwise face the frightening prospect of engaging in behavior that is not well defined and which could therefore have any sort of consequences.
The Law is just the collection of contracts between individuals, and it evolves by variation and selection along with every other aspect of the complex system known as "society".
Why in the world would you prefer a blessed, ordained monopoly on violence? Well, you wouldn't; that's why there's never been One World Government, and that's why there never will be.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @05:52PM
We're still yammering on about this magical world where men are angels who respect contracts.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @05:58PM
I... just... cannot fathom why you are so blind to what is being said!
There is NO requirement that men be angels; if anything, the ones who rely on men being angels are the ones who propose a blessed, ordained monopoly on violence that is called "government".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @07:58PM
Yeah, you're right, men aren't angels. So when the contract enforcer comes to force me to uphold my end of the contract, I'll just blow his head off.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @05:55PM
It is amusing that you cry about the big evil government (which is basically a massive system of contracts defined in these weird social contracts called "laws") and then promote some service brought into being by the free market. So lets all trust this one organization over here, but not the one over there. There is no blessed and ordained monopoly on violence, that capacity is given to local police, state police, federal agencies, and then the military. The system you are looking for already exists, and frankly I will not advocate for a return to the wild west. We can barely control corporate activity as it is, your imaginary free market would have zero control beyond the specific language of a contract. How do you propose to handle environmental pollution? How do you prevent collusion and artificial monopolies / cartels from being developed? We have laws against them now yet it still happens (yay corruption) but in your future it would be so easily done over one dinner party. The return to dictatorship and monarchy would happen faster than you think.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @06:09PM
Legislation is not a contract; it is a dictate.
Get it yet?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @06:16PM
You don't get it. You're trying to reinvent human society but all you have is a new buzzword and the magic idea of the "free market". Legislation is a dictate in the same way a contract is a dictate. They both have clearly defined expectations and consequences. If you do away with all government, to be replaced by profit motivated organizations, how do you handle murders? There are plenty of human activities that have no profit built into them, and trying to apply a profit motive will result in corners being cut to save money. If law enforcement is a for-profit agency then your new world becomes a playground for the rich. Dystopian future FTL.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @06:28PM
It is in my self-interest to live in a community where murder is not tolerated, and where murderers face the well-defined consequences of their actions.
Get it yet?
Self-interest is everything.
(Score: 1) by charon on Wednesday January 18 2017, @06:38PM
... You mean in a place where there are laws against murder and a police force charged by the government to apprehend criminals and a judicial system to try them and a prison system to prevent them from killing again?
I guess I'm not sure which AC you are, but if you're the one who is obsessed with anarcho-libertarianism, I hear it's boom times in Sudan. If you're hard enough, that is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @06:54PM
Legislation produces dictates; the market produces law (e.g., contracts).
For hundreds of years its OK to brew, sell, buy, and drink beer; then, one day, it isn't—and you'll be thrown in a cage for noncompliance. Then one day, it's OK again. (This isn't fantasy; it really happened in "The Land of the Free", among many other dictates).
(Score: 1) by charon on Wednesday January 18 2017, @07:17PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @07:32PM
See here [soylentnews.org].
The "Justice" industry is not magical; contract enforcement is just another service in the market.
(Score: 1) by charon on Wednesday January 18 2017, @07:46PM
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @08:05PM
"Blow their head off" and "if men were angels" AC here. Good, I'm glad somebody gets it. I've played out this little thought experiment and as a post above indicates, I just end up re-inventing government in an effort to prevent my warlord caricature from just blowing the head off the contract enforcer when he comes for the cow.
I call the guy blowing the contract enforcer's head off a warlord because no matter how many guns this contract enforcer has, the warlord as n+1 guns fanatically devoted to him and his cause. Well, at least until the contract enforcer finally has enough guns to overcome the warlord, but at that point I believe we usually refer to such a contract enforcer as a "government."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @10:58PM
That's the nature of evolution by variation and selection: You escape the "turtles all the way down" by realizing that it's an iterative process, not a recursive process; the old modes of organization are used to construct new modes of organization, and often all traces of the older modes dissipate and are forgotten.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @11:58PM
Except you are describing a simplified version of "government". You can come up with new methods of organizing and running a government, but don't fool yourself that you're breaking out of that concept.
You're like the theoretical mathematician talking to a bunch of engineers. Sure, your version of reality is theoretically possible but the chances of it coming true are the same as you randomly teleporting across the room. Quantum mechanics says your subatomic particles could do it, but the odds are slightly against you.
(Score: 1) by charon on Thursday January 19 2017, @01:08AM
Ah, I think I see where the misunderstanding lies. You are taking the theory of evolution, which says creatures will (over a span of time) adapt to become successful in their environment, as a direct and predictive analogy for human styles of government. The problem with this idea is that evolution is a dumb process. Millions of creatures die, either through unfitness of the original state or mutation in a wrong direction. Humans, on the other hand, are not so dumb. They will try lots of things and remember the results and, yes, iterate.
Since your motto is self-interest first, guess which way the iterations move? In a power vacuum, those who are willing to take what they want without fear will iterate their way into being a defacto government in weeks, if not sooner. And I dare say no government has ever iterated in a direction of less power without revolution because the humans involved have a gravy train they will not give up.
I don't dispute that most people think of themselves first; I don't dispute that governments tend towards tyranny over time; I don't dispute that reform would be a great thing for everyone except the current governmental officers and their billionaire owners. I do, however, dispute that any other way is better. The fairy tale of strict free market Libertarianism leads only to anarchy, local strongmen, and eventually feudalism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 19 2017, @03:04AM
>"anarcho-libertarianism, I hear it's boom times in Sudan"
Have you ever bothered to look up the obvious rebuttal to this argument? I ask because most people won't bother continuing the conversation once something on that level is brought up, so it is possible no one has ever pointed it out to you.
(Score: 1) by charon on Thursday January 19 2017, @03:19AM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 19 2017, @05:35AM
Tell me why people who claim to want to live in a place that has no government
The obvious rebuttal is that Sudan does have a government, a particularly ugly and broken one. You're probably thinking of Somalia which has almost nothing beyond a bunch of local-scale governments. Let us note that Somalia is better off than when it had an official national government. But maybe if Somalia had a government, it would be doing stuff like flying arcologies, right?
Also, if you use the phrase "obvious rebuttal" too much, you turn into khallow.
Good that this phrase is annoying you. I use it when people spout stuff with blatant problems that they could have addressed with a little thought ahead of time. I use that phrase a lot because there are a lot of people here doing that.
(Score: 1) by charon on Thursday January 19 2017, @06:08AM
The evident rejoinder is that you dodged the question I asked. I made an error (hey look, I admitted it) when saying Sudan was at the forefront of ungoverned lands. The question was: tell me why the people who say they want to live in a place that has no government don't live in a place that has no government? I said nothing about arcologies or other fictions.
My prediction came true, you said it again and turned into khallow!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 19 2017, @07:30AM
The question was: tell me why the people who say they want to live in a place that has no government don't live in a place that has no government?
Probably because they want other things as well. And you can make the good point that places with government seem to provide those other things much better than the places without governments.
I agree that elsewhere the assertions that somehow people without backbone or organization are going to magically figure out how to appropriately respond to externalities. The anti-government ideologies are incomplete. Which is why I'm an advocate for government reduction rather than government elimination.
My prediction came true, you said it again and turned into khallow!
I'm sure the process is reversible. I'm only meddling a little in God's domain. Let me twist some more knobs.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @06:54PM
Your basic concept is deeply flawed. Its an intriguing idea that could be applied in various places / manners, but that is all. Like the hippy communes back in the day it is an idealistic fantasy that will not survive reality. Do you get it yet? Self interest isn't everything, that statement alone shows how blinded you are by the ideology. Plenty of examples of altruism exist, and you have to dig really hard to come up complicated excuses as to why they are really just examples of self-interest at work.
Nihilism, Self interest / preservation, Pure Virtue, these are all philosophical extremes that can't survive on their own. But some people have their minds broadened by one of these topics and then they close back up around their newfound Truth. They all go together, focus on one only to the detriment of yourself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @07:00PM
Self-interest does not preclude altruism; it is in your self-interest to live in a community where there is altruism; it is in your self-interest to feel good about being altruistic, etc.
Self-interest is everything. Embrace this fact of existence, so that you can help build society in a way that works with the Universe rather than against it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @10:06PM
1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species
The definition actually does preclude self-interest. It does not exclude it however, you can have an act that is altruistic and self centered, which then means your motivations are a mix of both. "Self interest" is not a universal law and you sound more like a Social Darwinist. You are suffering from hubris, you've seen/read some stuff about self preservation being biologically programmed into us (probably a Dawkins fan) and you've fallen for the seductive theory that reduces all behavior to selfishly motivated game theory.
Self interest is what leads to warlords and dictators, they believe they have the right to force their will upon others. The strong eat the weak, eugenics, slavery. Yes, that is where your path leads when you put self-interest above all else. What's the point of paying people if you have the means to force them? Save more resources for yourself and the chosen elite...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @10:22PM
Ah yes, you sound like a more scientific version of satanism. The strong eat the weak. At least you're more of a zen version with "self-interest".
Altruism is not a part of self-interest, it is in fact the complete opposite. Its up to you to untangle your neural pathways, just realize a lot of people have already thought about this and altruism has not yet been merged with self-interest. You are simply doing mental gymnastics to make the world fit your internal viewpoint.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 19 2017, @01:34AM
Jesus Christ. I hate it when these college freshmen who just found Ayn Rand show up in the interwebs.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by NewNic on Wednesday January 18 2017, @06:50PM
That may be true, but it misses a key point: the issue with free markets is that they don't concern themselves with externalities. For example, climate change. Free markets will tend to push costs onto other people if possible. Unrestricted free markets can also result in monopolies.
As a society, we need to be concerned with those costs and monopolies. That's why unrestricted free markets are a bad idea.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 3, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Wednesday January 18 2017, @07:06PM
Correction: Unrestricted markets over the long run naturally develop into monopolies.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Wednesday January 18 2017, @11:35PM
Correction: Unrestricted markets over the long run naturally develop into monopolies.
If only we had evidence to support your empty assertion. Somehow restaurants have never developed into monopolies. You have to take into account things like barrier to entry.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by aristarchus on Thursday January 19 2017, @03:09AM
Bell Telephone, Standard Oil, Micro$erft, Google; need I go on?
.
And what is it with the flood of libertariantard ACs posting against a weary and lone charon? Is there a libertarian conference in town, or did mothers everywhere suddenly turn their no-good sons out of the basement?
.
And finally: Goverment, as a service, by contract? Oh, I get it! A joke! So, I enter into a free contract with government to enforce my other free contracts with all my like-minded libertariantards. So far so good. But what guarantees that that contract will be respected? So we need to contract with a higher body to enforce our contract with a government! Problem solved? No likely, since that same applies to that contract as well, so we will need another, higher, one. And another, and another, and, as someone said already, it is turtles all the way up. So, what all this means is: libertarianism is dumb. But hardly something that needs proving, that is.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 19 2017, @05:27AM
Bell Telephone, Standard Oil, Micro$erft, Google; need I go on?
You sure do. The first one is the only actual persistent monopoly on that list and it was government enforced. The thing people don't get is that monopolies are ephemeral, except when enforced by a government. For example, Standard Oil only achieved its market dominance for a short time. By the time of the break up in 1911, it had already lost considerable market share to competitors and actually became more profitable through the break up (which incidentally .
We similarly see Microsoft's market share declining from its highest market share in the 1990s - not only due to competition from other systems, but also from its own older products (Windows 7, which is no longer sold, has larger market share [netmarketshare.com] than its two successors combined).
And Google has the most ephemeral market of all. It only has dominant market share because it has the best search engine product, which includes a particularly unobtrusive advertising system (which is its actual product).
(Score: 2, Insightful) by aristarchus on Thursday January 19 2017, @06:45AM
Oh, khallow! Oh my dear and fluffy khallow! Oh my khallow that exists in a dimension that ordinary mortals cannot possibly comprehend! Yellowstone! Coulter's Hell! Everyone thought Coulter was lying, and so by the principle of internet over generalization, khallow must be lying. Unless, of course, he has ever run the Coulter Run. Has to be naked and barefoot through prickly pear cactus, I am lead to understand.
But monopolies. Yes, all capitalism tends to monopoly. We do not even need to produce evidence! True by definition. Take any successful business, one that has eliminated all its competitors: monopoly. Even in, as you mentioned, restuarants: have it your way? Over one Billion plus served? Did you not see all the Sly Stallone movies where Taco Bell ends up being the only restuarant? No? One has Wesley Snipes and Sandra Bullocks in it, quite good, for the genre. But that only makes the point.
The only thing that can stop a bad monolopy is a good monopoly! (Feel free to substitute "guns" in this scenario. So we need the Good monopoly of the "Social Will" or as Rousseau termed it, the "General Will", to counteract those selfish, greedy, life-extending, heterodox sciencing Trump-advising "tech" Captains of InternetIndustry. Rockefeller, in his dotage, used to hire mothers who had just given birth, that he might suckle at their breasts and imbibe the first milk (stealing it from their babies, no doubt) and thus live forever. Didn't work. Peter Thiel is engaged in much the same endeavor now.
.
With great wealth comes great insanity. Citizen Kane. And great wealth only comes from monopoly. And great wealth always accumulates in a capitalist system. Ergo, my Dear Dr. Khallow!!! Capitalism tends toward monopoly. Deny it at your peril. I have another tarbaby for you, B'rer Fox!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 19 2017, @07:31AM
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday January 19 2017, @07:39AM
Back atcha, bro!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 19 2017, @07:53AM
Yes, all capitalism tends to monopoly. We do not even need to produce evidence! True by definition.
is blatantly false. One merely needs to read an actual definition of capitalism:
An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state:
Your proof by Sylvester Stallone movie is a waste of time.
So we need the Good monopoly of the "Social Will" or as Rousseau termed it, the "General Will", to counteract those selfish, greedy, life-extending, heterodox sciencing Trump-advising "tech" Captains of InternetIndustry.
Do you even think with that mind? Without competition, how are you going to find out whether this part of the social will is better than that part?
Rockefeller, in his dotage, used to hire mothers who had just given birth, that he might suckle at their breasts and imbibe the first milk (stealing it from their babies, no doubt) and thus live forever. Didn't work.
No doubt because he was doing it wrong. You have to pick the right mothers, of course. It's a process that is guaranteed to eventually succeed.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Thursday January 19 2017, @08:37AM
Fine. I'll note that the line
Yes, all capitalism tends to monopoly. We do not even need to produce evidence! True by definition.
is blatantly false. One merely needs to read an actual definition of capitalism:
No, it is true by definition! Do you actually thing you can get away with supplying the "khallow" modified libertarian definition of "capitalism" and have that actually make any difference to the argument? Fie! Fie! Yon uncouth lickspittle of grevious men! Knave of the idols of moneybags! Mendacious toady of mercantile swindlers! (This is the part where I resort to namecalling, but in my defense, if all you can do is assert my definition is false, well, because it is, what do you expect me to do?) The public might be able to trust scientists at some point, but economists have sold their soles to the dark snide.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 19 2017, @09:03AM
Do you actually thing you can get away with supplying the "khallow" modified libertarian definition of "capitalism" and have that actually make any difference to the argument?
Sure can. Because it's the Oxford Dictionary definition of capitalism. And why in the world are you even bothering with this semantics argument? Your time might not be valuable, but it is a waste of my time to have to copy/paste a dictionary definition just because your brain worms are acting up.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Friday January 20 2017, @04:38AM
Bambridge scholars, as Rachel Weiss puts it, in her role in "The Mummy"?
Sure can. Because it's the Oxford Dictionary definition of capitalism.
Why, you pathetic colonial, stuck in the nether (excretionary?) regions of the Rocky Mountains, would you accept a British Imperialist dictionary as your authority? Do you have "royalty" issues"? Those of us (not me) who might be "Americans", would no doubt prefer the Webster's definition. Or perhaps, the original auf Deutsch? Oh, Americans. There is only one language, and one economic system, and one President, and one source of equality (Sam Colt), and one arbiter of the meanings of words: khallow. Oxford is Brit, and they cannot even manage to be enough of a country to stay in the European Union. Reminds me of Texas. Hey, khallow, you got a Texan dictionary handy? What does it say capitalism is?
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Friday January 20 2017, @12:42PM
Why, you pathetic colonial, stuck in the nether (excretionary?) regions of the Rocky Mountains, would you accept a British Imperialist dictionary as your authority?
Why ask a question that isn't worth answering? You have a brain, you don't need me to provide you with obvious answers. And if your ideas are worth anything, they will retain that worth when shifted into a semantics system/ontology that people other than yourself actually use.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 19 2017, @02:54PM
Let's rub a little salt in the tender anus, alright?
http://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/Texas-to-observe-Confederate-Heroes-Day-6767626.php [expressnews.com]
Confederate Heroes' Day commemorates those who died fighting for the Confederate States of America during the American Civil War. An official state holiday in Texas, Confederate Heroes' Day has fallen annually on January 19—the birthday of Robert E. Lee—since its approval on January 30, 1931.
Confederate Heroes' Day: Texas - Infoplease
www.infoplease.com/us/states/confederate-heroes-day-texas.html
https://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/us/confederate-memorial-day [timeanddate.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 20 2017, @06:07AM
Why is it, and I am just asking, that all Confederate celebrators and re-enactores, are so gay? Why would they associate "butthurt", who both is an esteemed Soylentil and a euphemism for a "spanking", with anal sex? Unless, they really wanted to hear another man "squeal like a pig". This, of course, raises the further question, "How do they know what a pig squeals like, when it is being . . . " [Decency limit reached. For more information, either view the movie "Deliverance", or ask Runaway1956 about animal husbandry. In Arkansas, they know about these things.] So, today, January 19, I have symbolically fucked Robert E. Lee in the ass. And, he liked it.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday January 19 2017, @02:11AM
Ok, show me a monopoly that doesn't have the government mixed up in it. Yes private entities do achieve monopoly status, but the government is almost always mixed up. Railroads? Government grants of eminent domain to only ONE company gives a monopoly on all transport between the nodes of the rail line. Other modes of transit were hopelessly impractical compared to the cost of shipping by rail. Occasionally a town would end up serviced by two railroads and one would buy up the other, again with government approval since they permitted the monopoly they granted to be bought out. Banks are basically indistinguishable from the government; only question is does the government run the banks or is it the other way around? Is there a distinction worth arguing about? Microsoft? Artificial scarcity created by government grant of monopoly plus more government in creating a legal environment that essentially forbids creating clones.
Counter examples? The closest I can think of is Apple, but they are down to way under 50% in the U.S. and more like 10% worldwide and falling. They are a cult, people in it will buy their stuff regardless, no government force or meddling needed. But monopoly they ain't, their brief near total market share was fixed by the marketplace.
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday January 19 2017, @04:34AM
The reason that the government is always involved in monopolies is that Capitalism rewards the most efficient and it is more efficient to form/manipulate/bribe/employ a government to enforce your monopoly.
Using the railroad example. Businessman sees this new thing called a railroad and wants a monopoly in it as then he can make maximum profits for minimal work. Best way to do this is to get the government on his side, then the government can give him the land, including using imminent domain, the government can make it hard or impossible for competitors to get anywhere and all the other things that government does to support the monopoly.
The governments powers exist to help the monopolist and capitalism is always going to lead to tyranny as it is in the interest of the capitalist to have a tyrannical government enforcing his monopoly. Remove the governments powers and they'll come right back as the powerful want a strong government to protect their interests.
Funny enough, capitalism will also lead to a certain amount of socialism, as getting society to pay for stuff is also more efficient. Look at the case of the fire insurance industry. They quickly discovered it was way more efficient to have society to pay for fire departments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 20 2017, @06:33AM
But that's not capitalism! Forcing someone to allocate capital in a certain way (e.g., enforcing a monopoly) is in contravention of the primary principle of capitalism: Voluntary trade.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday January 20 2017, @07:15AM
Sure, because everyone who has a shitty job does that job voluntarily. Right.
The need to eat in order to live, the need to have some place to live in, and a few other needs are not negotiable; they simply exist. You cannot voluntarily decide to evade the laws of nature. Therefore the whole idea that there can be a real world economy where everything is done voluntarily is an illusion. Yes, on paper it may be voluntarily. In reality, it isn't.
You know what the closest to pure capitalism in the Western world is? The Mafia!
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by dry on Saturday January 21 2017, @02:13AM
Capitalism is about using your capital to leverage acquiring more capital, and sometimes using the capital to acquire other forms of power, including political power.
(Score: 1) by charon on Thursday January 19 2017, @06:36AM
You're soooooo close, jmorris. So close it hurts. The only piece you're missing is why the government is mixed into these monopolies. Why did the government sell railroad right of ways to only one company? Why did the government mandate use of Microsoft Windows on their computers (and everyone else's by way of compatibility)? Why did the government allow Bell to shut customers out from using competing hardware? Why were the banks allowed to play three card monte with the world economy?
The answer is money. Either through campaign contributions, lobbying, revolving door jobs, or regulatory capture, companies that want to keep competitors out of their playpen pay off the people who make the regulations. Your argument is not against regulation, it is against corruption.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 19 2017, @12:59PM
You're soooooo close, jmorris. So close it hurts. The only piece you're missing is why the government is mixed into these monopolies. Why did the government sell railroad right of ways to only one company? Why did the government mandate use of Microsoft Windows on their computers (and everyone else's by way of compatibility)? Why did the government allow Bell to shut customers out from using competing hardware? Why were the banks allowed to play three card monte with the world economy?
The answer is money. Either through campaign contributions, lobbying, revolving door jobs, or regulatory capture, companies that want to keep competitors out of their playpen pay off the people who make the regulations. Your argument is not against regulation, it is against corruption.
Erm, I don't think it primary has to do with money, although it is plausible that some buttering also takes place. Most often it is combination of simplicity through delegation, or mere blindness and enchantment with novelty. Granting a monopoly simplifies regulation and loads burden of learning about the nature of new phenomenons off legislators' shoulders. It is similar to feudalism or Mandarin system - give some of your problems to someone else and let that someone reap the rewards as long as you get your share. Monopolies break usually only when a challenger contestant appears on the horizon, after masses get disgruntled with exploitation and restrictions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @07:15PM
But, your thinking makes no sense... If people are being imposed upon (i.e., they are suffering externalities), then it is in the self-interest of those people to push back, and thereby protect themselves; it is in this struggle where there is born the solution that works for everyone, at least in the long run!
You completely neglect that side.
This is evolution by variation and selection, and the most robust implementation of this process is a free market. The key is to make sure that, as much as possible, the interaction is based on voluntary association (e.g., voluntary trade), and this sort of interaction is only really possible when there is as much competition as possible (including in the "Justice" industry), for it is through such competition that society as a whole cooperates to find workable (if not the best) solutions to problems of which people aren't even aware.
Also, The Short Term often funds the Long Term [soylentnews.org]; if it weren't for the "abuse" of fossil fuels, then perhaps civilization will have never progressed enough to develop the cold fusion that will deliver humanity safely and healthfully to the end of time.
(Score: 1) by NewNic on Wednesday January 18 2017, @08:09PM
You show a complete lack of imagination.
A manufactures and sells a product to B. However, the manufacturing process harms C. Without the influence of government, C has no leverage to push back and protect him/herself. You completely neglect that side.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @10:09PM
They'll band together with the 50 other people in their town to fight back! Annnd they get slaughtered by 200+ trained soldiers with superior firepower. Or hell, 5 people running a single tank. Its amazing that the AC can't wrap their mind around this simple fact which has been historically documented for thousands of years....
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday January 19 2017, @03:14AM
You show a complete lack of imagination.
Really? I thought s/he was quite imaginative, especially with this:
But, your thinking makes no sense...
Do you see that? Right there! Imagining that jmorris is actually thinking! That is some serious, and strong, imagination. Almost too much imagination.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 19 2017, @06:02AM
But, your thinking makes no sense... If people are being imposed upon (i.e., they are suffering externalities), then it is in the self-interest of those people to push back, and thereby protect themselves; it is in this struggle where there is born the solution that works for everyone, at least in the long run!
Sorry, that is profoundly stupid. The problem of externalities is one of the reasons I'm not purely libertarian. There are a variety of problems you are completely blowing off.
For example, externalities can be incurred due to the fault of the people suffering from the externality ("coming to the nuisance" [ucsc.edu]). If I build my house next to the asphalt factory, then I incur the same externality as if the asphalt factory moved next to me. Yet the fault here lies in who creates the situation rather than who is generating the externality. Assembling a posse (which is your blanket proposal for either situation) to deal with the asphalt factory doesn't make my side right.
Another is that it requires effective positive action from the parties that are subject to the externality. If they don't have that power, then it's tough luck. If they aren't alive to exercise that power, then it's even tougher luck. The consequences to externalities need to be baked into the system from the start rather than expected to spontaneously evolve after the fact.
Libertarianism also has the problem that there is a considerable portion of humanity which not only doesn't get libertarianism, but are so fundamentally miswired or incompetent that I don't think anything can do more than shift that ignorance a little. Ultimately, I think libertarianism will be for most societies, stuck in a reactionary mode, resisting a flood of bad ideas and ill-conceived top-down controls.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Wednesday January 18 2017, @09:42PM
No, the free market doesn't solve all problems. Toxic waste for example. Companies DID just dump it wherever, KNOWING it was toxic and that the local population would get sick and/or die. Then, if the local population does figure out what the cause of their illness is, and where it came from, then the companies would first lie about doing it, then lie about knowing it was bad, then just drag out the lawsuit until the local residents were out of money. And that's just now. In the good ole days, the companies would hire people to assault and/or kill anyone who complained, let alone tried to sue.