Ian: > (1) we ARE "the government". Nick: No I am not. The government is a coercive territorial monopoly. I want no part of that. I'm for liberty.
Ian: > (2) we SHOULD "mold a bias on human (and wider ecosystem) flourishing" Nick: No I don't need to mold anybody outside of proscribed actions to handle criminals. You can reasonably persuade all you want, but to do it by the point of a gun will not stop any problems YOU find the need to mold. I call that criminal and unjust and that is a "might makes right" approach. Ian: > ie we should "regulate" what we want for future good.[/quote] Nick: You can't regulate what you want for future good, if by regulation you mean coercive intervention. Nobody can know what millions of consumers spontaneously desire. To try to come up with a model to know the exact actions of individuals is to not recognize value. This has been the repeated failure of a socialist system for a near century in the U.S. and other countries too in their timetable. It's the very regulations themselves that lead to unintended consequences repeatedly. The government has interfered in the economy exasperating the economic hardships by growing them larger and larger. Each bubble is a continuation of the last bubble that wasn't allowed to fully purge the malinvestments. And so the burdens shift in the economy as new dollars are printed by the Federal Reserve and the lowering of interests to provide easy credit sweeps under the rug the dirt but eventually if you don't want visitors to see the dirt under the rug it would be easier to use a dustpan and just throw it out. If this was accomplished long ago, then the house would always look tidy except the occasional light sweeping. That's how the free market works, but socialist regulations pile up the harm and don't sweep often enough causing large disruptions in the economy that would have been whispers if left up to the free market. Ian: > Regulation > doesn't have to force or prevent anything, just encourage > (incentivise, manage) what is for the best - the moral thing to do. Nick: Nobody can regulate value preferences that's totally counter to the MOQ. That's trying systems analyze the economy without understanding the individuals day to day value preferences. It can't happen and it's been proven for decades that it doesn't work. And no, it's not the moral thing. It's quite immoral to think you can model human action and make regulatory policy decisions based on such disregard of a value based experience that humans are. This is why every action since the Federal Reserves inception has caused the Great Depression, the 70's 'depression' 'recession' (I've heard it labeled either one of these), Enron, Dot.com bubble, Housing bubble. These socialists programs don't work. Humans are not mathematical models that have predictable, mechanical actions. Logical positivism doesn't work due to its nil considerations of free-will, value, and spontaneity. value, Ian, value. Nick -- Be Yourself @ mail.com! Choose From 200+ Email Addresses Get a Free Account at www.mail.com Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
