[QUOTE=torero;29125102]I think your feeling is that because the government regulates economy, our social freedoms are also being repressed. I just don't see how they are connected.[/quote]
Well to some people the freedom to trade has a lot to do with their freedom, it effects workers, employers and many more. Let's forget those people though, my main problem with being involved with trade is mostly that it gives the government the [i]means[/i] to control your life.
It may not seem like it but controlling the market can have deadly consequences and can also drastically effect people's social lives. Look at the drug war, that's about as anti-free market as you can get (complete prohibition of the use of a product for sale or consumption), look what happened to Chicago (where i live) or Mexico. It effects people lives in tremendous ways. Just because a little regulation here or there might be negligible or all around not noticable, it builds up on top of itself. Prohibition is the extreme, granted.
You're also forcing people to act a certain way through government regulation. So that's a point worth mentioning.
[QUOTE=torero;29125102]
I don't have an opinion on the matter of the packs, but I'm leaning to agree with it. If anything, it might cause some would-be smokers to reconsider, which is a good enough result.
I don't see how the Australian government is attempting to force anyone to stop smoking.[/QUOTE]
Well first, what business does the government have in your life? It's something you should consider. You make choices in life, some might be good and some might be bad but they're yours to make. Anything else to me is a form of control, even if it's for your own good and even if it supposedly benefits society as a whole.
The packs, well, like i said practically they're useless. It isn't like people don't already know the dangers of smoking since they're already plastered all over the pack.
I smoke, HumanAbyss smokes as well as i recall. We're literate, we can read the package. We know the risks and we've decided to consume the product anyway. It might be illogical to some and if that's your opinion then fine, you can have it. You can never smoke in your entire life, however, you have no right at all in telling me how i should be living mine (through government, anyway). Even if it's for my own good. My body is mine.
while i'm late to the topic of education, heres a very good special on the failed government monopoly on it (known as public schooling) and how it fails to compare to better, privately owned schools at home and abroad:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw[/media]
it should also help some of you gain a clear, concise concept of basic free market principles and practices.
jon stossel is the man
[QUOTE=s0beit;29125208]
It may not seem like it but controlling the market can have deadly consequences and can also drastically effect people's social lives. Look at the drug war, that's about as anti-free market as you can get (complete prohibition of the use of a product for sale or consumption), look what happened to Chicago (where i live) or Mexico. It effects people lives in tremendous ways. Just because a little regulation here or there might be negligible or all around not noticable, it builds up on top of itself. Prohibition is the extreme, granted.
You're also forcing people to act a certain way through government regulation. So that's a point worth mentioning.
[/quote]
These labels don't stop anyone from buying the tobacco, so I don't see how it gives the means to control your life. Only a daft person wouldn't notice being unable to purchase something they used to be able to purchase before.
The only "forcing" is in the pack warning labels. Since this company's product is harmful, it is in the law that they must have a label warning of the dangers of this product. In my view, it's only fair. Were there no such law, which cigarette company would put such labels on their products?
[quote="Sobeit"]
What business does the government have in your life? It's something you should consider. You make choices in life, some might be good and some might be bad but they're yours to make. Anything else to me is a form of control, even if it's for your own good and even if it supposedly benefits society as a whole.
You can never smoke in your entire life, however, you have no right at all in telling me how i should be living mine (through government, anyway). Even if it's for my own good. My body is mine.[/QUOTE]
The government doesn't tell you how you should live your life. It doesn't say explicitly "Don't smoke", and if it does, in my view it shouldn't. However, it should put pressure on the companies to inform people that their product is bad for your health, because it is.
It should work almost like a sieve, you aren't being forbidden to buy it, but only after sufficient information has been at your disposal to consider your choice.
"Smoking Kills" isn't your government taking your body, it's your government doing its best to inform you of the consequences.
[QUOTE=torero;29126114]These labels don't stop anyone from buying the tobacco, so I don't see how it gives the means to control your life. Only a daft person wouldn't notice being unable to purchase something they used to be able to purchase before. The only "forcing" is in the pack warning labels. Since this company's product is harmful, it is in the law that they must have a label warning of the dangers of this product. In my view, it's only fair. Were there no such law, which cigarette company would put such labels on their products?[/quote]
correction, they aren't meant to stop people from buying tobacco. they are there to warn users of the health risks associated with such. regulation in the name of public safety warrants that we must know, beforehand, the consequences of consuming whatever it is we buy on the marketplace. as the constitution grants us life, liberty, and happiness, the government assumes the responsibility in that respect to protect the basic welfare of consumers, just as it defends the rights of the people through the military (albeit poorly today, in that respect). this is such regulations in practice, and simply a label is informative and not coercive, and is therefore okay with me.
[quote]The government doesn't tell you how you should live your life. It doesn't say explicitly "Don't smoke", and if it does, in my view it shouldn't. However, it should put pressure on the companies to inform people that their product is bad for your health, because it is.
It should work almost like a sieve, you aren't being forbidden to buy it, but only after sufficient information has been at your disposal to consider your choice.
"Smoking Kills" isn't your government taking your body, it's your government doing its best to inform you of the consequences.[/QUOTE]
i dont see what your point is considering it does not differ from the status quo.
it is completely in the interest of (most) libertarians. when i refer to (most) of them, i refer to those who are strict constitutionalists.
[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29126334]correction, they aren't meant to stop people from buying tobacco. they are there to warn users of the health risks associated with such. regulation in the name of public safety warrants that we must know, beforehand, the consequences of consuming whatever it is we buy on the marketplace. as the constitution grants us life, liberty, and happiness, the government assumes the responsibility in that respect to protect the basic welfare of consumers, just as it defends the rights of the people through the military (albeit poorly today, in that respect). this is such regulations in practice, and simply a label is informative and not coercive, and is therefore okay with me.[/quote]
Who are you correcting here? From what you said, I think we agree.
[quote="Alucard"]
i dont see what your point is considering it does not differ from the status quo.
it is completely in the interest of (most) libertarians. when i refer to (most) of them, i refer to those who are strict constitutionalists.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't making a point against the status quo, at least in regards to the warnings on Tobacco packs. I was just responding to Sobeit.
[QUOTE=torero;29126114]These labels don't stop anyone from buying the tobacco, so I don't see how it gives the means to control your life. Only a daft person wouldn't notice being unable to purchase something they used to be able to purchase before.[/quote]
I was responding to government regulation in general and you know that. Please don't switch the topic up mid-discussion. If you want me to respond to the labels specifically:
[QUOTE=torero;29126114]
The only "forcing" is in the pack warning labels. Since this company's product is harmful, it is in the law that they must have a label warning of the dangers of this product. In my view, it's only fair. Were there no such law, which cigarette company would put such labels on their products?
[/quote]
[QUOTE=torero;29126114]
The government doesn't tell you how you should live your life. It doesn't say explicitly "Don't smoke", and if it does, in my view it shouldn't. However, it should put pressure on the companies to inform people that their product is bad for your health, because it is.
It should work almost like a sieve, you aren't being forbidden to buy it, but only after sufficient information has been at your disposal to consider your choice.
"Smoking Kills" isn't your government taking your body, it's your government doing its best to inform you of the consequences.[/QUOTE]
First of all, its [b]my money[/b] and the money of other smokers you're doing this with. History has proven to us that information shouldn't be doled out by the government, that information is often subject to the principles of the few or even the majority (political pressure) and will often not respect the views of the very individuals paying for it and more often then not (not exclusive to this specific example) is actually less beneficial to society, such as illegal drug propaganda.
Why aren't there PSAs on letting people know what their rights are in a free society, you know, just in case you weren't aware since this information seems much less important to the government than letting you know your free choices are killing you.
Why aren't there warning labels on the building of congress? I think these might be far more effective and beneficial to society at large, but then that's just my opinion, after all.
The government is prioritizing with [i]my money[/i], people don't need the dangers of smoking shoved into their face by anyone. If they want to know, they're free to know, it isn't a conspiracy or a cover up.
You're also ignoring the point that yes, they are telling you "Don't smoke" (as they wouldn't be trying to dissuade you if they didn't, the reasoning you're presenting me is strange), they aren't respecting your free choices, and you also didn't address my point of it being ineffectual in nature. That it will solve no problems whatsoever.
[editline]e[/editline]
[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29125742][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw[/media][/QUOTE]
That's funny, this is the exact type of system i advocated earlier (vouchers), I've never even seen this episode.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29126786]
its [i]my money[/i],[/QUOTE]
AND I WANT IT NOW!!!
Dude, you post walls of text every page. Get over it. This is the FP and the rst of the internet. We don't care.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29126786]
First of all, its [b]my money[/b] and the money of other smokers you're doing this with. History has proven to us that information shouldn't be doled out by the government, that information is often subject to the principles of the few or even the majority (political pressure) and will often not respect the views of the very individuals paying for it and more often then not (not exclusive to this specific example) is actually less beneficial to society, such as illegal drug propaganda.
The government is prioritizing with my money, people don't need the dangers of smoking shoved into their face by anyone. If they want to know, they're free to know, it isn't a conspiracy or a cover up.
[/QUOTE]
Who will pay for distributing this information then? Certainly not the tobacco companies.
The government should protect its citizens' rights. I would say that is its main function.
If the dangers of tobacco aren't high on your priorities list, write your congressman a letter.
[quote="Sobeit"]They aren't respecting your free choices.[/quote]
How are they not respecting your free choices?
[quote="Sobeit"]You're also ignoring the point that yes, they are telling you "Don't smoke" (as they wouldn't be trying to dissuade you if they didn't, the reasoning you're presenting me is strange), they aren't respecting your free choices, and you also didn't address my point of it being ineffectual in nature. That it will solve no problems whatsoever.[/quote]
[url=http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0325.pdf]It isn't ineffectual according to this article.[/url]
[QUOTE=Lone_Star94;29126989]
Dude, you post walls of text every page. Get over it. This is the FP and the rst of the internet. We don't care.[/QUOTE]
I care.
Lets skip to the point that will be reached eventaully, shall we?
Corporations don't care about you, they care about your money
Government doesn't care about you, they care about your vote
Done and done.
[QUOTE=torero;29127061]Who will pay for distributing this information then? Certainly not the tobacco companies.[/quote]
Who pays for distributing any information? I've seen more ads by the "truth" group then truthful ads from the government all combined.
Who distributes information about everything else? Everyone else. The government isn't needed to get information out, it just isn't. You ask any smoker today, [i]every single one you've ever met or will meet[/i] if they know the dangers of smoking. Of course they know, they just made a decision you (and the government) disagree with. Get the hell over it, it isn't your life.
I also find it funny that you'd say the tobacco companies aren't distributing the information because it isn't like the government are paying for these labels, they'll just force the companies to pay and pass the price on to the consumers.
[QUOTE=torero;29127061]The government should protect its citizens' rights. I would say that is its main function.[/quote]
Right you are but information by the government isn't a right. Being alive might be, however, that isn't the issue. If you want to use government force to keep people alive then just ban smoking, i don't know what else to tell you.
[QUOTE=torero;29127061]
If the dangers of tobacco aren't high on your priorities list, write your congressman a letter.[/quote]
I'm sure they'll care about the rights of the minority in society, you know, the primary thing democracies are so often well known for.
[QUOTE=torero;29127061]How are they not respecting your free choices? [/quote]
They're telling you what to do, i don't know how it could be any clearer. Take into consideration that there's many things people do in life that are unhealthy.
They eat McDonalds, they drive vehicles, they drink beer and do other drugs (on the black market, which don't necessarily come with warning labels either, the government also has been less than forthcoming with actual facts about drug use).
What would your ideal society look like? Billions in taxpayer or business money (which could be allocated elsewhere) to provide safety padding for the entirety of the marketplace? How do you deal with the fact that there's many other things that kill people in society that they choose to do that aren't scrutinized like cigarettes are?
[QUOTE=torero;29127061]
[url=http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0325.pdf]It isn't ineffectual according to this article.[/url][/quote]
Without even reading the article the content of that site wants to make me vomit. There's also critiques of the very studies they cite since they've all taken the studies after the labels were implemented. There's no way to know, unless you're conducting a closed study with a control group if they're effective or not. Since it's a government mandate they can't necessarily hand out label-free cigarettes like candy, could they?
Look, even if i concede to you it makes a bit of difference it's totally irrelevant. Your way of thinking is, if somebody is doing something unhealthy the government must stop them. This can not work in a free society, it isn't the line of thinking i would use.
I would try to inform the masses without using their money to do it, without marking up the prices for those products and passing it on to the people i wanted to help (you know, stealing for them in more ways than one to fund [b]my[/b] campaign against smoking), i would try to convince them that smoking is bad, harmful to your health and they probably shouldn't smoke if they want to live a long life.
In a moral society that is all you should be able to do.
If you do something i disagree with, I'm not going to petition the government to attempt to stop you from doing it. I won't impose unfair taxes on you to coerce you into stopping. I can try to convince you with all of the information at my disposal and with all of my might, but i shouldn't use the force of the government to influence your decision.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29127555]
Who distributes information about everything else? Everyone else. The government isn't needed to get information out, it just isn't. You ask any smoker today, [i]every single one you've ever met or will meet[/i] if they know the dangers of smoking. Of course they know, they just made a decision you (and the government) disagree with. Get the hell over it, it isn't your life.
I also find it funny that you'd say the tobacco companies aren't distributing the information because it isn't like the government are paying for these labels, they'll just force the companies to pay and pass the price on to the consumers.[/QUOTE]
Calm down, this might be exciting, but there’s no need for hostility.
I asked the three people in my house if they knew of the dangers of smoking, and where they had received this information. All of them said the warning labels on the packs. Don’t you see that they know the dangers of smoking [u]because[/u] of the warnings?
[quote=”s0beit”]
I also find it funny that you'd say the tobacco companies aren't distributing the information because it isn't like the government are paying for these labels, they'll just force the companies to pay and pass the price on to the consumers. [/quote]
If the companies are passing the price on to the consumers then neither the companies that are paying nor the government’s fault.
[quote=”s0beit”]
Right you are but information by the government isn't a right. Being alive might be, however, that isn't the issue. If you want to use government force to keep people alive then just ban smoking, i don't know what else to tell you.[/quote]
It’s protecting the right to life and happiness, since no one is born learned. If people want to smoke, they still can. They don’t even have to listen to the information by the government.
[quote=”s0beit”]
I'm sure they'll care about the rights of the minority in society, you know, the primary thing democracies are so often well known for.
[/quote]
I don’t see how your rights are being infringed here. You aren’t even spending money on the labels, if, as you said, the tobacco companies are the ones paying for the warnings. That is, unless you’re talking about sales tax, but I wouldn’t know about that.
[quote=”s0beit”]
They eat McDonalds, they drive vehicles, they drink beer and do other drugs (on the black market, which don't necessarily come with warning labels either, the government also has been less than forthcoming with actual facts about drug use).
[/quote]
In my country, I see a respectable amount of ads on public TV talking about the need for a balanced diet and regular exercise. McDonalds and Beer ads also talk about the need for these things. I don’t know what are these “truth” groups you talk about, but I see enough information in public TV to keep the general public informed of these things.
[quote=”s0beit”]
Look, even if i concede to you it makes a bit of difference it's totally irrelevant. Your way of thinking is, if somebody is doing something unhealthy the government must stop them. This can not work in a free society, it isn't the line of thinking i would use.
[/quote]
Again, the government isn’t stopping them. Do you feel like the government is stopping you from smoking?
[quote=”s0beit”]
I would try to inform the masses without using their money to do it, without marking up the prices for those products and passing it on to the people i wanted to help (you know, stealing for them in more ways than one to fund [b]my[/b] campaign against smoking), i would try to convince them that smoking is bad, harmful to your health and they probably shouldn't smoke if they want to live a long life.[/quote]
The government’s money [b]IS[/b] the masses’ money. The government needs to protect its citizens' rights, because who else would?
[quote=”s0beit”]
If you do something i disagree with, I'm not going to petition the government to attempt to stop you from doing it. I won't impose unfair taxes on you to coerce you into stopping. I can try to convince you with all of the information at my disposal and with all of my might, but i shouldn't use the force of the government to influence your decision.[/QUOTE]
You are trying to turn this into a smokers vs. non-smokers. It’s not, it’s about informing people that this habit is harmful to them, and I think the government should be a role model in protecting its people.
I still don’t understand how you feel you are being “stopped” by the government.
EDIT: I just realized this quoting and replying stuff is not only a pain in the ass to actually write, it's kind of annoying to read afterwards, so sorry about that.
[QUOTE=Glorbo;29127376]Lets skip to the point that will be reached eventaully, shall we?
Libertarianism is fucking retarded.
Done and done.[/QUOTE]
Fix'd
[QUOTE=torero;29128256]Calm down, this might be exciting, but there’s no need for hostility.
I asked the three people in my house if they knew of the dangers of smoking, and where they had received this information. All of them said the warning labels on the packs. Don’t you see that they know the dangers of smoking [u]because[/u] of the warnings?[/quote]
Even prior to the warnings people knew, it was pretty well public information once the studies were conducted. It was the demand from the public that put them on the box in the first place, not the other way around. The labels were put on the packs [i]because[/i] people knew.
[QUOTE=torero;29128256]
If the companies are passing the price on to the consumers then neither the companies that are paying nor the government’s fault.[/quote]
It is the government's fault, how isn't it? They enacted the legislation which put the practice into motion.
[QUOTE=torero;29128256]
It’s protecting the right to life and happiness, since no one is born learned. If people want to smoke, they still can. They don’t even have to listen to the information by the government.[/quote]
Granted, but they still have to pay for things they don't want to pay for.
[QUOTE=torero;29128256]
I don’t see how your rights are being infringed here. You aren’t even spending money on the labels, if, as you said, the tobacco companies are the ones paying for the warnings. That is, unless you’re talking about sales tax, but I wouldn’t know about that.[/quote]
It depends on how it works in your country, i suppose, i just couldn't imagine the government actually paying the the labels. Mostly, because they are generally printed on the packaging in our country.
[QUOTE=torero;29128256]
In my country, I see a respectable amount of ads on public TV talking about the need for a balanced diet and regular exercise. McDonalds and Beer ads also talk about the need for these things. I don’t know what are these “truth” groups you talk about, but I see enough information in public TV to keep the general public informed of these things.[/quote]
It's an anti-smoking group called "truth" which spouts all kind of information about smoking on the multiple mediums, last i checked they weren't government funded. At least i hope like hell they aren't. There's many interest groups like this who talk about general health issues without the help of government.
[QUOTE=torero;29128256]
Again, the government isn’t stopping them. Do you feel like the government is stopping you from smoking?[/quote]
When the price of cigarettes rises and they become less affordable? Yes, i do. When they raise taxes for everyone to pay for the message that i don't agree with, yes, i do. They aren't actively stopping me in the sense they aren't yanking a cigarette from my mouth and banning it outright, that doesn't mean they can treat me unfairly to the point i am forced to stop.
[QUOTE=torero;29128256]
The government’s money [b]IS[/b] the masses’ money. The government needs to protect its citizens' rights, because who else would?[/quote]
The "masses" in my example were smokers, even in your example when you asked your family they all knew the risks. Why should they have to pay the government to spout things on the air waves or television or what have you, in effect, speaking [i]for[/i] them when it's something they don't find at all relevant?
[QUOTE=torero;29128256]
You are trying to turn this into a smokers vs. non-smokers. It’s not, it’s about informing people that this habit is harmful to them, and I think the government should be a role model in protecting its people.
I still don’t understand how you feel you are being “stopped” by the government.[/quote]
No, you're right, it isn't about smokers vs. non-smokers, it's about smokers vs. government. The government is using it's might to try to coerce me and convince me what i have decided for myself personally, is wrong. That either I'm stupid or need to be punished for conducting myself in a fashion i choose, worse, they're using the money of smokers to do it.
[editline]e[/editline]
[QUOTE=Taishu;29128535]I don't have to mental capacity to present my argument[/QUOTE]
Fix'd
The Libertarian Party is the best party.
Better dead than red.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29128755] The labels were put on the packs [i]because[/i] people knew.[/quote]
I find that very improbable.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29128755]
It is the government's fault, how isn't it? They enacted the legislation which put the practice into motion.[/quote]
But (to my knowledge) they don't dictate the prices.
Anyway, it's my view that you think Progress should be in the hands of the individual, without any interference from the government that could possibly hinder it, at least that's how I see it.
Maybe, if society were more advanced and educated, that would work. But I doubt it. Your position that any government interference gives them the means to limit your freedom seems almost stupid to me. Why would the government enslave its own people?
[QUOTE=ShivanCommander;29129448]Better dead than red.[/QUOTE]
And you're still a douche.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29124724]Well beer itself is a horrible example of monopolies, since it has many restrictions of entry. Safety regulations are fine, however, just to get a license to sell some of those products you have to spend money just to have the right to make it and sell it (as well as sell it as an establishment like a store or a bar), so right there, that's a problem.
72% of the market is fine if consumers are absolutely fine with their products and services, if they overcharge they'll buy another brand. Advertising might help to get the brand known but if people feel it tastes like shit, charges too much or otherwise prefer another brand, they'll just buy that.
I used to like Corona, can't drink anymore though (stomach issues). Plus i have a lot of Mexican friends and the choices they often gave me were Modelo, Corona, or go away, lol. (Although i have been able to drink stuff like Miller before)
Sure advertisers can sell a product but only to a point. If consumers feel they're being ripped off or that they're being sold an inferior product they won't keep buying it. I don't know how much advertising would solve that problem.
Advertising alone, to me, doesn't seem like an appropriate means to gain a monopoly. Consumers have to enjoy that product or else they wouldn't ever buy it.
Let's say Budweiser held 100% of the market share, all of it, their advertising has quadrupled in expenditure and it's all over the place, there are no regulations on where to advertise so you're being bombarded on all fronts.
What about the people who think they're charging unfair prices or the people who think it tastes like shit as a personal preference? More companies will pop up to cater to those people, I'd think even those businesses understand that especially in a market of taste buds it's impossible to hold the entire market down.[/QUOTE]
But the thing is, they aren't nearly as aware of other products, so quality isn't the issue. For other people to be able to buy another brand of beer, well, every mainstream brand is basically the same one way or the other, Anheiser Busch markets at least 20 different beers, they take up 80% of the beer wall at most liquor stores, that alone doesn't given much ability to other companies to have their products even noticed. Without being noticed, they won't be sold. What are the odds of someone being lazy and sticking with a familiar massive brand or being actually angry enough to take a risk on a new beer? Many companies have popped up for that demand, but they're still suffering under a huge burden of only being able to occupy a small fraction of a percentile of the demand.
[editline]12th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=s0beit;29126786]I was responding to government regulation in general and you know that. Please don't switch the topic up mid-discussion. If you want me to respond to the labels specifically:
First of all, its [b]my money[/b] and the money of other smokers you're doing this with. History has proven to us that information shouldn't be doled out by the government, that information is often subject to the principles of the few or even the majority (political pressure) and will often not respect the views of the very individuals paying for it and more often then not (not exclusive to this specific example) is actually less beneficial to society, such as illegal drug propaganda.
Why aren't there PSAs on letting people know what their rights are in a free society, you know, just in case you weren't aware since this information seems much less important to the government than letting you know your free choices are killing you.
Why aren't there warning labels on the building of congress? I think these might be far more effective and beneficial to society at large, but then that's just my opinion, after all.
The government is prioritizing with [i]my money[/i], people don't need the dangers of smoking shoved into their face by anyone. If they want to know, they're free to know, it isn't a conspiracy or a cover up.
You're also ignoring the point that yes, they are telling you "Don't smoke" (as they wouldn't be trying to dissuade you if they didn't, the reasoning you're presenting me is strange), they aren't respecting your free choices, and you also didn't address my point of it being ineffectual in nature. That it will solve no problems whatsoever.
[editline]e[/editline]
That's funny, this is the exact type of system i advocated earlier (vouchers), I've never even seen this episode.[/QUOTE]
I could go for warning labels on political buildings, sounds like a good idea, if a little a gaudy.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29130076]But the thing is, they aren't nearly as aware of other products, so quality isn't the issue. For other people to be able to buy another brand of beer, well, every mainstream brand is basically the same one way or the other, Anheiser Busch markets at least 20 different beers, they take up 80% of the beer wall at most liquor stores, that alone doesn't given much ability to other companies to have their products even noticed. Without being noticed, they won't be sold. What are the odds of someone being lazy and sticking with a familiar massive brand or being actually angry enough to take a risk on a new beer? Many companies have popped up for that demand, but they're still suffering under a huge burden of only being able to occupy a small fraction of a percentile of the demand.
[editline]12th April 2011[/editline]
I could go for warning labels on political buildings, sounds like a good idea, if a little a gaudy.[/QUOTE]
that is the the responsibility of the individual/consumer when they willfully choose to ignore all the other brands at the liquor store for the mainstream brand. mainstream brands got to where they were by satisfying the most customers.
[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29130137]that is the the responsibility of the individual/consumer when they willfully choose to ignore all the other brands at the liquor store for the mainstream brand. mainstream brands got to where they were by satisfying the most customers.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but why do you imagine they satisfy when they're a monopoly? if a monopoly gets to be a monopoly through once great service, or at least good enough service on top of advertising to be a monopoly, does that make it okay? Not really. Just by being there doesn't mean they've earned anything, if a company is in that position and isn't satisfying people particularly, then what is the benefit?
See, libertarianism expects the average joe to actually use his brain 100% of the time. That's not how the world works, though I dearly wish it was. I only expect more exploitation of that group from libertarianism
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29130454]Yeah, but why do you imagine they satisfy when they're a monopoly? if a monopoly gets to be a monopoly through once great service, or at least good enough service on top of advertising to be a monopoly, does that make it okay? Not really. Just by being there doesn't mean they've earned anything, if a company is in that position and isn't satisfying people particularly, then what is the benefit?[/quote]
again, youve misinterpreted the very definition of a monopoly. s0beit had this explained very well so i suggest you read previous posts to follow up on this discussion as it was already addressed.
[quote]See, libertarianism expects the average joe to actually use his brain 100% of the time. That's not how the world works, though I dearly wish it was. I only expect more exploitation of that group from libertarianism[/QUOTE]
so you believe that it is the governments responsibility, morally, to decide what is best for the individual? do you underestimate the average person's intelligence or ability to lead their lives? this isnt a very good way to look at the situation. sure, you can avoid "exploitation" but it will always exist.
if you don't put faith in the individual, then freedom is meaningless.
[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29130608]
if you don't put faith in the individual, then freedom is meaningless.[/QUOTE]
Please, expand this reasoning.
Libertarianism always works by putting faith in the individual. "Less government", "the people will sort themselves out". It just turns out that people are assholes.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29119469]Have you watched the video? [/QUOTE]
Here is the thing. The video talked against monopolies charging more and I guess an example would be apple ipods because of how good there advertising is they are really the only mp3 players around even though they cost so much. In fact I could argue thats the whole reason why any apple product sells. But the problem im talking about is things like walmart that can keep prices low and stop all competition and use that to keep prices low by either using sweet shops or paying there workers very little. How will a business compete if it has to charge more? it also assumes that if a product cost more everyone else will just stop buying it. I wish this were true but if you look at starbucks its not. It charges way more and got away with it because it was able to buy everything up real quick so its pretty much the only place to get coffee.
[editline]12th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=s0beit;29119469]Well people would have the means to learn more[/QUOTE]
Maybe they would when they are older but like I said children learn faster then adults which means that not only will kids spend there childhood not understanding the world but also when they do become adults they wont be able to retain information faster grow up with a lot worse social skills and when they are adults how will they find time to go to school? I mean if they have a job they cant spend another 6 hours a day learning.
[editline]12th April 2011[/editline]
ALso again this super free market will and has shown to cause stresses which cause many health problems and is the main reason behavior biologist believe causes drug addiction and weight gain.
[editline]12th April 2011[/editline]
Even though I will admit your definitely better then strider or any libertarian I seen when it comes to arguing.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29132386]stuff[/QUOTE]
a bit off topic, but i would appreciate it if you would type in a more clear and understandable manner. right now, your writing structure is hard for me (or anyone) to follow.
[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29130137]that is the the responsibility of the individual/consumer when they willfully choose to ignore all the other brands at the liquor store for the mainstream brand. mainstream brands got to where they were by satisfying the most customers.[/QUOTE]
Mainstream brands got to where they were through advertising.
[QUOTE=torero;29124758]To be honest, I don't see how any one could proudly call themselves Conservative. Here's the wikipedia definition:
If there's any pretty way of saying ass-backwards, that would be it.
[highlight]Also, I don't get how Progressive can be used negatively over there in America.[/highlight] It's so 1984-ish.
Though, I'm pretty sure S0beit isn't conservative, maybe just in a Fiscal sense.
S0beit, what's your opinion on the new Tobacco packs they have in Australia? [url=http://www.deccanchronicle.com/channels/world/europe/australia-unveils-tough-new-cigarette-pack-rules-416]Article with picture[/url][/QUOTE]
:doh:
Please, if you don't live in America don't start trying to tell us what's good for us.
[QUOTE='[GRiM];29134099']:doh:
Please, if you don't live in America don't start trying to tell us what's good for us.[/QUOTE]
He clearly stated he doesn't get how it's possible, so perhaps rather than chastising him, you could answer his question?
[QUOTE=Taishu;29134028]Mainstream brands got to where they were through advertising.[/QUOTE]
guess how they got the money for all that advertising :downs:
[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29133965]a bit off topic, but i would appreciate it if you would type in a more clear and understandable manner. right now, your writing structure is hard for me (or anyone) to follow.[/QUOTE]
Strangely I knew if I put the word stuff someone would complain. Sorry it gets hard to after you wrote for a few pages. Sides I wish you didn't believe that Obama was a jewish devil but we all cant get what we want.
[editline]12th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29135525]guess how they got the money for all that advertising :downs:[/QUOTE]
Most of the time by being with a bigger company like how games make partnerships with EA.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;29134625]He clearly stated he doesn't get how it's possible, so perhaps rather than chastising him, you could answer his question?[/QUOTE]
Well, people in the Progressive party try to tell us what to eat, how to act, and how to think. Basically they try to slam bullshit down everyone's throat.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29130076]But the thing is, they aren't nearly as aware of other products, so quality isn't the issue. For other people to be able to buy another brand of beer, well, every mainstream brand is basically the same one way or the other, Anheiser Busch markets at least 20 different beers, they take up 80% of the beer wall at most liquor stores, that alone doesn't given much ability to other companies to have their products even noticed. Without being noticed, they won't be sold. What are the odds of someone being lazy and sticking with a familiar massive brand or being actually angry enough to take a risk on a new beer? Many companies have popped up for that demand, but they're still suffering under a huge burden of only being able to occupy a small fraction of a percentile of the demand.[/quote]
Quality is always an issue, if people didn't want that beer people wouldn't buy that beer. Let's put this into another scenario, let's say some game sells a ridiculous amount of copies (wow, sounds familiar), the company holds a gigantic share of the market (heh, on a roll here) and start charging higher prices for an inferior product (yeah, that's activision alright). People will become disillusioned with that company and just stop buying products either of that line or from that company. Competitors will pop up (much like after MW2) and try to gain a percentage of that market share (Medal of honor, BFBC2, BF3, BREACH, ARMA2, Bulletstorm) and so on. Yes, it's true many people still buy the "Call of Duty" brand, there is no shortage of competition to fill that gap though.
If you went to the store and you hated Anheiser Busch, you couldn't find any of their beers you actually liked you would do one of two things. One, you'd stop buying beer altogether. Who the hell wants to buy marked up shitty beer, nobody, more money for the coat man, shoe man, car man and less money to the beer man. Two, you buy one of the many other competitors in the market by going to a completely different store. People want to spend their money wisely, rarely ever will i see somebody be totally indifferent about the product they're buying. While you might think 72% is a lot, it really isn't that much, since the other companies obviously find it profitable to continue making their beer.
Even if they could find a way to capture 100% of the market it would be purely temporary if they couldn't provide a better service than everyone else for a cheaper price. Some people would buy beer just because it's cheap (I've seen it happen, many, many times) or some people would buy the better tasting beer.
Because people crave alternative and can never be satisfied with one label it will never be possible to gain a monopoly in those areas.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29130454]Yeah, but why do you imagine they satisfy when they're a monopoly? if a monopoly gets to be a monopoly through once great service, or at least good enough service on top of advertising to be a monopoly, does that make it okay? Not really.[/quote]
If they aren't getting help from the government to secure that monopoly, it only makes sense that they're satisfying people or else people wouldn't be buying it.
You're giving far too much credit to advertising. I think it's alright if a company is charging low prices and giving out good products, it's maximum efficiency. Now, once they start overcharging or making shit products and actually start making things worse for the consumer, that's when i care. Nothing needs to be done however as i explained earlier since the very act of abusing it's position is the very reason competition must start.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29130454]Just by being there doesn't mean they've earned anything, if a company is in that position and isn't satisfying people particularly, then what is the benefit?[/quote]
If it isn't satisfying people it's the very reason their monopoly will fail, once there is people to market a product to (the dissatisfied) there will always be somebody else there ready and willing to take their money, even if they aren't as big as the company before it and even if they aren't making as much profit as the company before it.
From there they will use their earnings to try to gain even more of a market share over existing customers of competition.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29130454]See, libertarianism expects the average joe to actually use his brain 100% of the time. That's not how the world works, though I dearly wish it was. I only expect more exploitation of that group from libertarianism[/QUOTE]
I don't see it as a critical thinking problem, it's used more often than you would think. The reaction is purely visceral in that it doesn't require you educate yourself deeply in the process, especially when it comes to the market.
You could be the most rock stupidest son of a bitch in the world, but if you understand "this tastes like shit" and if you also understand "this costs too damn much" then you've just become a productive person in the marketplace.
[QUOTE=torero;29130723]Please, expand this reasoning.
Libertarianism always works by putting faith in the individual. "Less government", "the people will sort themselves out". It just turns out that people are assholes.[/QUOTE]
Hobbes used this very same argument, turns out he was pretty damn wrong about that.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29132386]Here is the thing. The video talked against monopolies charging more and I guess an example would be apple ipods because of how good there advertising is they are really the only mp3 players around even though they cost so much. In fact I could argue thats the whole reason why any apple product sells. But the problem im talking about is things like walmart that can keep prices low and stop all competition and use that to keep prices low by either using sweet shops or paying there workers very little. How will a business compete if it has to charge more? it also assumes that if a product cost more everyone else will just stop buying it. I wish this were true but if you look at starbucks its not. It charges way more and got away with it because it was able to buy everything up real quick so its pretty much the only place to get coffee.[/quote]
Apple is a horrible example of monopoly, primarily because Apple was competing against many existing monopolies at that time. Namely, [b]Microsoft[/b]. Apple is one of the arguments against monopolies, not for monopolies.
The reason people pay more for apple products than they do for windows products is because to them they have a superior product. I'm not going to argue that they're right, hell, i love windows. I hate apple, that doesn't mean they aren't free to disagree with me and sustain apple.
If you're talking about MP3 players specifically, Apple did seem to have a short lived "monopoly" (not really a monopoly since mono implies one, there were many competitors with often inferior products), many other companies have since stepped to the plate and you can have MP3 players in your car radio, Microsoft MP3 players, Sony MP3 players and so on.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29132386]ALso again this super free market will and has shown to cause stresses which cause many health problems and is the main reason behavior biologist believe causes drug addiction and weight gain.[/quote]
Life causes stress, not the free market. Even if you removed the supposed stresses of the free market there would be plenty of other venues of stress for people to get freaked out about.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29132386]Even though I will admit your definitely better then strider or any libertarian I seen when it comes to arguing.[/QUOTE]
Thank you, that's because in this political climate of today i think, there's a lot of hatred. I try not to bring any of that stuff into it, a lot. Sometimes (not pointing any fingers) people's ideologies don't make any sense and the only thing they do is hate and target their opposition instead of presenting their viewpoint to others (mostly because they don't really have any ground to stand on, you know who I'm talking about right, right?).
There should be less hate in politics and more need to understand.
OH GOD this really is a wall of text, I might just start replying sparingly but then it'll just grow bigger and bigger forever like the blob
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
