Mike Lee wrote:
>
> David Hobby thinks I've mischaracterized his position:
>
> > > David Hobby thinks that workers are coerced into taking
> > dangerous jobs
> > > and that government can make us all safe:
> >
> > Mike-- If you mischaracterize my position, I won't discuss
> > things with you. Basta.
>
> I'll address both of my characterizations of you and demonstrate their
> accuracy.
>
> First, I said that you believe workers are coerced into taking jobs. Quoting
> you:
>
> > When the market messes up, and people start dying from risks they
> > did not have a chance to freely accept, then Government SHOULD intervene.
>
> Do I have to get out the dictionary, or will you freely accept that I
> characterized you accurately?
No. You found a characterization that would give you a good
position to argue from, and decided that it fit what I said well
enough that you could use it.
I submit that your characterization is half-right, and that you
know it. It's partially right because people are in a sense
coerced into working since nobody is prepared to pay them for
not working. The problem is that there aren't enough jobs to
go around, so some people wind up in dangerous jobs. Did they
VOLUNTARILY choose those jobs? Technically, yes. But they didn't
have enough other choices for it to really be a free choice.
Metaphorically, I said it was gray. You simplified my position
to your choice of black or white in the way that suited you. I
don't like partisan arguments that reduce complex issues to
simplistic statements, since I find they are not useful.
> I also said that you think government can make us all safe. Quoting you:
>
> > Intervening when markets malfunction is an integral part
> > of what Government should do.
What I had in mind was that the Government would modify
the market to include an appropriate price for maintaining an
unsafe workplace. I would be happy to then let the market find
a safer solution. Companies should not be allowed to profit by
acting in an unethical manner; failure to provide (cost-effective)
safety measures is unethical.
Government would be indirectly contributing to safety,
so you are partially right here. But I just KNEW that you were
trying to paint me as being for the creation of some huge govern-
ment safety bureaucracy, which I am not.
> First, though, let me say that when people of your ideological stripe talk
> about "markets" malfunctioning, that's not what you really mean.
PLEASE. I know what I meant, I did study Economics.
> You mean
> every institution and association except government. You hubristically plan
> to interfere in the voluntary relationships and associations people enter
> into, and to impose your own view of what outcomes should be. To provide
> moral cover for this arrogance, you literalize metaphorical references to
> coercion. For example, you pretend that an employer who offers a deal to a
> freely consenting adult is engaged in "coercion" by mere virtue of the fact
> that no better deal is being offered elsewhere.
No. The employer is not the one engaged in "coercion", the system is.
But there should be some method to insure that employers are not risking
their employee's lives to save a few dollars!
> Clearly, you believe that government is *capable* of correcting "market
> malfunctions" (whatever the hell those are), or you wouldn't be advocating
> government intervention in the first place. The particular issue under
> discussion in this thread has been workplace safety. Therefore, your
> argument is obviously that government intervention is an effective way to
> achieve workplace safety. Or are you saying that you don't believe that
> government intervention is an effective way to achieve workplace safety? You
> have to pick one or the other.
Some government interventions would be effective ways to increase
workplace safety. Some would not. There, I picked.
As for "market malfunctions" I meant when the market does not
find the optimal solution for any of a variety of reasons. One
example is when the market ignores externalities, so that it
solves the wrong problem. The "tragedy of the commons" is a
well-known example of a market malfunction, which could be cured
by simply charging users a price to use that commons.
> Finally, while I'm still in logical vivisection mode, I feel *compelled* to
> comment on this:
>
> > Mike-- If you mischaracterize my position, I won't discuss
> > things with you. Basta.
>
> Now, I'll admit that this statement is not inherently incoherent. Perhaps it
> could be taken as you warning me that, up till now, I have not
> mischaracterized your position, but you suspect I might start soon, so I
> better not or you'll give me the silent treatment. But we both know that's
> not what you meant. You obviously believe that I have already
> mischaracterized your position. But you still kept discussing things with me
> anyway, didn't you? Bitcha.
I saw that you were starting, and warned you. Vivisection does
not give accurate results.
---David
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
