The Price of Oil

[F&L]

Originally Posted by Vautrin

In capitalistic societies, yes. Human rights are a bourgeois concept. You are again applying the standards of a different type of society to a feudal society.

Human rights have nothing to do with economic systems. Have you ever heard of inalienable rights?

Where is the dividing line?

The dividing line is when injury or property damage is caused by a companies products.

It only took 50 years. In those same 50 years we have gone from a computer the size of a large room, to tiny laptops that are thousands of times more powerful that the first computers. How many deaths due to the companies neglect to inform the consumers of the truth? But if that is inconsequential, as per your argument apparently it is ...

And the deaths have continued even with knowledge. You can't keep people from harming themselves.

Seeing that most of the media is already owned by the big companies, and heavily skewed in the nonsense it puts forward, I can't see how there would be nothing remniscient from the North Korean State television or Fox News.

In it is current format the media happily accepted billions to promote the health benefits of smoking, as per the tobacco industry's wishes. They are doing the same with aspartame at the moment. So, where is the truthful information? Where is the creating an informed public? Oh yes, that is detrimental to the companies, so we can't be too bothered by that.

As for the medical community worrying about the differences. YOU need to make an informed choice, that means YOU have to have the information what is good and what is bad for you. Individual responsibility means you cannot rely on some external body by proxy. So YOU need to be aware of the differences. Can't default on that one.

And where has government regulation gotten us? If the FDA says it's okay, there's no way it could possibly harm anyone, right? Millions, perhaps billions have been spent to test and verify the efficacy of drugs and provide safe food and still people are harmed. When enough people are harmed proof is gathered and it become a news story and the world becomes aware. Surely you're old enough to have seen this happen many times, despite government regulations.

You prefer people dying because they are not sufficiently informed. You are a big proponent for the Freedom to Die because of Ignorance, and Dysinformation.

I don't prefer to see people die, but regulations aren't informing anyone or stopping this from happening. No one ever said freedom was safe.

TNT
Microsoft
Where is the spontaneous rise of competition?? Where is the lack of abuse of market power? Where is the superior quality of the Microsoft operating systems?

If you don't like Microsoft products, buy an Apple or use Linux, etc. Again, you have choices.

Where is the spontaneous rise of competition? About 200-300 people worldwide have enough money to start a microchip factory. Out of 6.5 billion people, I guess that means about 6499999700 people are too poor.

Pfffft, get real. People pool their money to start companies all the time. Hundreds of thousands of people own a piece of Microsoft.

Government doesn't need to regulate business in a capitalist environment. When it does, it removes freedom from consumers and business. Regulation doesn't build quality into goods or accuracy into information. All regulation does is substitute force and fear for incentive as the protector of the consumer.

"Capitalism is based on self-interest and self-esteem; it holds integrity and trustworthiness as cardinal virtues and makes them pay off in the marketplace. It is this superlatively moral system that the welfare statists propose to improve upon by means of preventative law, snooping bureaucrats, and the chronic goad of fear." Alan Greenspan

[Vautrin]

Originally Posted by boedicca

How about the concept of Valuing Life? Which system has proven better for improving the quality and span of human life?

Capitalism has been the most effective system of destroying life. Unrivaled by feudalism. It is gains are as spectacular as is its inability to organize that the people (remember the Utilitarian greatest good to all) can benefit from these gains.

Capitalism led to trade, manufacturing, and modern industrialization, technology, and advanced health care.

Please hold your lecture in some small village in Afghanistan where they have seen none of the benefits of capitalism, and they have seen the enormous potential to kill, organised to perfection.

No, Capitalism is not about doing the same thing over and over again at the highest possible speed. It's about producing something of value which one exchanges for things of value produced by others.

Do your job in 24 hours instead of 2, and see how long you can last. I am guessing it is a week.

I do, and the moral relativism is very telling. To equate Slavery with Freedom is one of the most horrible things a person can do, imho. But that is a Value Judgment on my part.

To purposely misread an argument, not answer legitimate questions is one of the most horrilbe things a person in an argument can do; insisting on arguing lines that have been demonstrated false, in the course of this thread. Putting words in my mouth in the process. You have been doing that repeatedly, it is not appreciated, and then you end your posts with these lovely biased value judgements on my morals - if you want me to I can dredge up various psychological theories, to explain to you why you may feel the need to do so.

Just a series of observations on my part. Oh, and by the way, you have already pretended that ethnic cleansing / slaughter of the original populations of various countries in the world, under colonial rule is perfectly permissible if commited by colonising countries. Way to go to prove the superiority of "Freedom".

The moral relativism was started by F&L, and he still has not raised himself in a convincing fashion from that quagmire.

[Vautrin]

Originally Posted by F&L

Human rights have nothing to do with economic systems. Have you ever heard of inalienable rights?

Go to the Aborigines and other "primitive" societies, and explain the concept of property. They will not understand it, simply because their society does not have such a concept, or anything resembling that. Most languages of the world do not even have a world for "have". So, what is so natural about rights? What is so natural about property?

The dividing line is when injury or property damage is caused by a companies products.

So, if I put any substance in the microwave, and heat it up, to the point of causing an explosion, I can sue the substance maker, and the microwave maker for faulty products? Remember the infamous drying dog / cat in microwave cases? What is the dividing line? Common sense? What is common sense to you is not necessarily common sense to me.

And the deaths have continued even with knowledge. You can't keep people from harming themselves.

Partly because addictive substances were added to the tobacco products, that are not naturally part of cigarets at all; again with full knowledge of the tobacco firms. Is it not funny how the tobacco industry tries to squirm itself out of paying damages, by suddenly claiming that people should not have relied on the tobacco industry for information on their products??

And where has government regulation gotten us? If the FDA says it's okay, there's no way it could possibly harm anyone, right?

Not true. Even if it is FDA approved it can be harmful. They only see no evidence of harmful effects. Which is fundamentally different from proving that a substance does no harm, which is scientifically impossible (science works by disproving, not by proving).

Surely you're old enough to have seen this happen many times, despite government regulations.

Yes. But would you think the companies would withdraw the products, if there were no indications that it does not work as advertised? Why would you put the onus of proof on the consumers, instead of the companies?

"Capitalism is based on self-interest and self-esteem; it holds integrity and trustworthiness as cardinal virtues and makes them pay off in the marketplace.

Ford Ethel. Saving a buck is a cardinal vitue. Getting caught is the cardinal sin.

[F&L]

Originally Posted by Vautrin

The moral relativism was started by F&L, and he still has not raised himself in a convincing fashion from that quagmire.

If you ever present some facts that prove capitalism is less moral than any other economic system, I'll admit I'm wrong. Until then, accept the fact that your inabilty to deal with freedom has placed you in the awkward and embarrasing position of dependence on government. The choices you've asked government to make clearly offer no more and perhaps less protection than the choices you could have made yourself. Is this really what individual responsibility means to you?

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Pharmgirl

Sure it will. It always does during election time. Everyone knows that . It will go right back up after the election though, just as always.

"Everyone?"

Wow....based on what "everyone knows" doesn't look like there were any elections in the USA between 1946 and 1972.

[Duke]

Man that's just bl00dy nonsense. I can't believe how much we've been gouged in such a short amount of time.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Duke

Man that's just bl00dy nonsense. I can't believe how much we've been gouged in such a short amount of time.

Heh....I'm not sure we're being gouged, as much as being spoiled for the past 20 years.

See the increases from 1972-1980?

I remember going to college between 1981-1986 with a bunch of guys that were learning how to find new sources of energy, including oil.

When they graduated they couldn't find jobs. They (and I) spent 15 years bouncing from one job to another trying to make our education revelant.

Then a couple of years ago, I walk into a job fair with a two page resume that has a one sentence description of refinery work on the SECOND PAGE and land a job a week later.

Long-story short, I think the price today is reasonable. The price for the past 15 years has been too low.

[Vautrin]

Originally Posted by F&L

f you ever present some facts that prove capitalism is less moral than any other economic system, I'll admit I'm wrong.

I did not defend the position that capitalism is worse than other economic system. Socialism does not exist, so we can speculate whether it would be more moral or not, but we would be speculating on a utopia, much like we are speculating about what "Pure capitalism" would be.

You defended the superiority of capitalism with a relativistic argument. Until you are willing to prove you have demonstrated the freedom to adequately deal with philosophical holes in your arguments, I see no reason to accept that capitalism is superior based on a relativistic argument. Burying one's head in the sand and repeating the same argument over and over again does not mean you are actually able to deal with that freedom.

The choices you've asked government to make clearly offer no more and perhaps less protection than the choices you could have made yourself. Is this really what individual responsibility means to you?

What did I ask of government?

That there might actually be protection for the individual to protect the individuals, and their best interest? Instead of risking death by cost efficient poisoning? I have presented half a dozen of cases where lack of protection has proven to be quite lethal, including a few cases where the individual had no recourse to any government agency, and thus was solely reliant upon the capitalist.
That is something different than saying that there is a way of ascertaining there are no holes in the protection.

I simply fail to understand how the lack of protection whatsoever leads to less harm. Any regulation by government is an infringement on pure capitalism. Seeing that it thus is impossible to protect consumers, I fail to see how pure capitalism does a better job at protecting people.

After all it is your personal responsibility to be informed, so happy hunting for the information. Given that people have to make hundreds of decisions on a daily basis, every time you do not defer responsibility to some expert you are fully responsible to the extent of the copyright and theft laws (since other laws cannot exist).

Enjoy your diet soft drink, but don't complain that you suffer the ill effects, simply because you could not be bothered to research the harmful effects of any / all of the listed substances. If you are lucky enough that all the ingredients have been listed ...

So that is what "Freedom" is: the ability to defer responsibility to an expert, so you are not legally liable for doing something that might be harmful in the long run.

[boedicca]

After reading through the plethora of Vautrin's responses, I can best sum up his position as:

Individuals are both too inept and too EVUL to be trusted with making their own decisions on how to live, but if a whole bunch of them are conglomerated into something called Government, somehow they are transformed into benevolent genii who can take care of the rest of us (for which we should happily pay them most of our productive output).

[F&L]

Originally Posted by Vautrin

Go to the Aborigines and other "primitive" societies, and explain the concept of property. They will not understand it, simply because their society does not have such a concept, or anything resembling that. Most languages of the world do not even have a world for "have". So, what is so natural about rights? What is so natural about property?

When the Aborgines have a bloated government they can use to avoid individual responsibility, let me know. Until then, the Aborigines have nothing to do with a discussion of economic systems.

So, if I put any substance in the microwave, and heat it up, to the point of causing an explosion, I can sue the substance maker, and the microwave maker for faulty products? Remember the infamous drying dog / cat in microwave cases? What is the dividing line? Common sense? What is common sense to you is not necessarily common sense to me.

If there's a warning, you'll have no recourse. Common sense says to obey all product warnings. You're becoming increasingly obtuse.

Is it not funny how the tobacco industry tries to squirm itself out of paying damages, by suddenly claiming that people should not have relied on the tobacco industry for information on their products??

Do donut makers or McDonalds tell you their products will make you fat? No, it's a given. Does it really take that much common sense to realize that inhaling smoke a hundred times a day is bad for you? This information has been available for decades now, why are there still millions of informed smokers?

Yes. But would you think the companies would withdraw the products, if there were no indications that it does not work as advertised? Why would you put the onus of proof on the consumers, instead of the companies?

There are some products that companies don't know have problems until the consumer consumes them. For example - There was a Peanut Butter salmonella recall here about 6 months ago. The company had no idea until people started getting sick. The onus of proof should be on the consumer.