Comment by anoncowherd | Hacker News Reader

Comment by anoncowherd | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>> I'm torn here

That's good. You're sensing that something is wrong.

>> If you insist everyone make every moral choice for themselves, then we will be unable to maximize the "right" choices

Why would "we" need to "maximize" the right choices? Who's we anyway? Aren't we all just individuals, with our own goals and desires that are constantly changing anyway? Who's anyone to "maximize" the "rightness" of your choices, as long as you don't harm others? How bad should you want that bar of chocolate tomorrow at noon? What about in the evening?

See, economies consist of exchanges between people, and whenever an exchange is voluntary, it leaves both parties better off.

There's no "optimization" necessary there. It's all based on each individual's subjective preferences. If you want an apple, and have a dollar, you can give that dollar to someone in exchange for an apple. If you do this, it means you valued the apple higher than your dollar, and the other guy valued your dollar higher than his apple! -Bam. Both are better off. No "maximizing" necessary.

>> In a libertarian society, every person would need to be educated on food systems, why some are ethical and why some aren't, etc

Really? Is it really unclear to anyone that treating animals well is better than treating them horribly? Why would anyone prefer the meat that's produced through treating animals horribly, or even badly, compared to a more "organic" alternative?

Sure, prices are a factor, but just about everyone would like to support treating animals well, right? So if organic production is increased, those prices will fall. It may still be a bit more expensive, but organic, non-GMO food comes with the additional benefit of not being harmful to your health, and that's quite valuable too.

>> nevermind the 3 year study and expert panel that analyzed the issue and recommended process/measure/regulation X.

Who are the "experts"? -Where do they come from? What are they affiliated with? Who paid for the study? What kind of regulation are we talking about? Why would it be good? What's the alternative? How often is coercion better than no coercion? (Pro-tip: never)

.. And so on.

How about when someone doesn't support treating animals well. Or values your apple more than your life? Or decides they have this million tonnes of toxic gunk and decides that instead of paying someone who knows how to deal with it he's just going to dump it all in your lake? Or when someone realises that you value organic produce more, and decides to lie and say that their produce is in fact organic?

What happens when someone realises your house is on top of a nice mineral deposit but can't give you sufficient value to vacate your property and decides to burn it down in the middle of the night?

What happens when one person pays another to kill you? It's a free and voluntary exchange. And you're dead. Everyone is better off, right? Right?

>> What happens when one person pays another to kill you? It's a free and voluntary exchange. And you're dead. Everyone is better off, right? Right?

I'm sensing a reluctance to process ideas here. Bad stuff is going to happen regardless of how our societies are organized. That doesn't mean it's alright to take someone's property by force, nor that voluntary, "market solutions" to real problems would not emerge.

> That's good. You're sensing that something is wrong.

Please stop coercing him using appeals to emotion and false authority. It's paternalistic and condescending.

>> Please stop coercing him using appeals to emotion and false authority. It's paternalistic and condescending.

Tell me, do you think that when say, 330 million people are systematically punished for attempting to keep their property, something just might, in fact, be wrong?

What about 7 billion people?

Still with the emotional arguments. Which part of "don't force me" was unclear?

Still with the mental gymnastics. Which part of "taxation is extortion" was not clear?

The part where you have to do semantic contortions in order to make it a true statement. If anyone's guilty of butchering everyday language in order to make an obscure academic edge case, it's your redefinition of extortion to include taxation. Common sense does not make people think "extortion" when they hear "taxation".

>> The part where you have to do semantic contortions in order to make it a true statement. If anyone's guilty of butchering everyday language in order to make an obscure academic edge case, it's your redefinition of extortion to include taxation

Actually, the definition of "extortion" is not controversial, and needs no twisting to fit taxation: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extort

to wrest or wring (money, information, etc.) from a person by violence, intimidation, or abuse of authority; obtain by force, torture, threat, or the like.

When a mafia threatens people with violence to make them pay "protection money", it's clearly extortion and clearly immoral.. but when governments threaten people with violence to make them pay taxes, that's.. perfectly fine?

>> Common sense does not make people think "extortion" when they hear "taxation".

Actually, it's brainwashing that prevents people from connecting these dots.

Wake up.

> Actually, it's brainwashing that forces people into making up connections between these dots.

> Wake up.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com