Everything the market does as a byproduct of maximizing profits is fine, but all other intervention with provably better mental and physical health outcomes is authoritarian. Did I get that right?
First we have to all agree on what this means, which I'm quite sure is impossible. Everything the free market does is voluntary by definition. Every "intervention" is by definition not. That is exactly the basis for my opposition to authoritarian paternalism.
Also I disagree that corporations are "enacting control" - they are merely exerting influence. There is a world of difference.
In some ideal world, where both parties of an exchange hold equal bargaining power, the "free" market might be "voluntary".
This is certainly not the current state of affairs, though. Being able to "choose" between a crappy option and a horrible option is anything but voluntary: "you can choose to work for me for little to no money... or you can choose to starve to death. it's your 'free' choice."
The very premise of what would make a free market efficient in the real world simply doesn't exist, but we keep trying to convince ourselves that it does because we don't know or aren't used to anything different.
To protect people, against their will, from the consequences of their own misfortune or inadequacy is fundamentally paternalistic. The goal isn't efficiency, but the primacy of agency and consent.
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...
I think we're going to have to disagree for good here. I much prefer living in a country where radically free markets are substantially toned down.
FWIW, I wouldn't want to prescribe a particular habit of eating healthy or not binging media, but I also don't consider the current status quo neutral. It is true that it is simply a product of profit incentives, but that doesn't mean the outcomes are good, desirable or natural.
What is being sacrificed? Equal starting conditions to start with. Wealth in capitalism tends to concentrate. Social mobility exists, but it is severely limited. Exploitation through holding capital is mandatory. I'm feeling this right now, I am in the top 25% income bracket overall and much better if accounting for age, yet I will never be able to do such trivial things regular workers could do just a few decades ago such as build a house, thanks to the freedom afforded to the absolute top end to turn housing into a speculative commodity. If I lived in the US, a considerably "freer" society than mine, my entire wealth would be consumed by healthcare, a result of the freedom of hospitals and insurers to charge arbitrarily high fees for maximum extraction.
> Equal starting conditions to start with
Equal conditions are not a prerequisite for liberty. They are in fact impossible to define and impossible to impose. You can be destitute and free, and you can be pampered and enslaved. The Darwinian nature of a free economic system isn't imposed, it's an emergent property of any system where scarce resources are competed for by living beings. As in any Darwinian system, the optimal behavior for the successful is to maximally exploit their success, to pull-up the ladder, so to speak.
Everything else you've said just betrays your religion: "Workers should be able to build houses". "Healthcare should be regulated so people can afford it". I don't think it's unreasonable to disagree here. In my religion, I'd prefer to die in agony rather than pry greedily into the pocket of an unwilling stranger. Why is your religion better than mine?
- The internet is a common shared environment, so its maintenance should be regulated like other environments to manage externalities.
These points seem consistent with your philosophy and also permit regulation of social media companies.
I agree we shouldn't let people physically destroy internet infrastructure. I don't think this is controversial. I don't think we should regulate how people peacefully interact.
Violence is fundamentally preventable because people have agency in ways that animals do not. You'll note that only violence with knowledge is considered horrific. For instance, being attacked by a person with the mind of a 4 year old isn't considered nearly as bad as being attacked by an otherwise normal adult. The adult knew what they were doing and did it anyways.
> I see you've also added property rights now, which are a totally separate category from violence
I suppose it stems from the idea of natural rights - ie. what would you be able to do if there were no other people around? Would you be able to put something down and expect to find it where you put it? If so then you have "property rights": the reasonable expectation that your material activities will not be interfered with. The rest of it is mediating how your property rights interact with those of others.
Liberty is basically the idea that you should be able to do anything at all as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others to do the same. The legitimacy of government is derived from its defence of liberty. It's not about preventing "bad things".
The prohibition by the government of the physical force requisite to deprive people of their freedom.
> the legal framework should permit nullification and redress
It does already. Contracts have disclosure clauses all the time.
To bring it back to the article at hand, did social media and other tech companies disclose the negative effects of the use of their products in their EULA?
The prohibition by the government of the use of physical force requisite to deprive people of their freedom.
If a distributor of an addiction-forming substance engenders an addiction in customers, is that not utilizing physical force to deprive them of their freedom? Especially if the addictive properties were not disclosed ahead of time.
What do you mean "negative"? Why do you consider captivating people negative? Do you think this view is universally held?
I think people should be able to distribute any substances or provide any services "as is", without implied warranties of any kind. Offering such goods and service does not constitute physical force.
without implied warranties of any kind. Offering such goods and service does not constitute physical force.
Then there simply should be more powerful NGOs rooted in civil society that can advise consumers on potential negative effects, to protect against information asymmetry, and so users will understand the full freedoms they have at their disposal for redress if a business happens to provide poor, injurious service.
All of these actions are done with the threat of fines for noncompliance, and the threat of imprisonment for noncompliance with the fines. They are also financed by taxation, which is involuntary and redistributive by nature.
> Then there simply should be more powerful NGOs
If these NGOs do not occur naturally, then there's clearly not enough demand for them. This is supported by your proposal to use authority to force them into existence. I'm opposing the use of authority to intervene in peaceful interaction between citizens.
Instead of forcing the issue, why not just be content with the fact that most people are not interested in forming voluntary collectives, even when it is in their interest, and in spite of the fact that they are free and entitled to, and allow them to suffer the consequences?
How is filing an amicus brief or funding third party groups in danger of anything like that? There’s no regulation involved.
> If these NGOs do not occur naturally, then there's clearly not enough demand for them.
They already do, e.g. https://www.ofsms.org/
> why not just be content with the fact that most people are not interested in forming voluntary collectives
Why are you insistent on claiming the nonexistence of information asymmetry?
> They are also financed by taxation, which is involuntary and redistributive by nature.
Ah if we go down that route of normative woolgathering then we can next call property theft and even land (or at least rent) theft, and continue this endless wheel of rhetorical Samsara.