For madnak/borodog/etc

[bunny]

I thought you might enjoy this:

US bans import of vegemite as it contains folic acid...

...CDC promoting the consumption of Folic acid.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Is this a specific example where states have served us better than AC would have?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a problem. And yes, I'd say this "tip" of the problem does support statism, at least in theory. BUT... Well, I don't have time for a long post, I'll get back to it.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
f the state has the power to unilaterally coerce entire industries into not using CFCs, what else does the state have the power to unilaterally coerce?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why assume that the "state" has all those other powers?

If just one problem can be solved more effeciently via a universal communal approach, why not just have one institution to solve that one specific problem and so on.

Once you have allowed for just one such instution then the AC position is moot. Which is the central thematic problem with AC, in that to remain integral to its own discourse it must rabidly defend against any such possibility for greater effeciency via universal communal arrangements.

If the ideas behind AC had as their trajectory the criticism of universal communal arrangements then those ideas would be extrmely valid and pertinent. However the trajectory chosen is the complete destruction of universal communal arrangements and thus eventual absurdity is the only destination possible.

Which ironicaly is exactly the same thematic fault with Marxism, as a critique of capatalism some of its ideas are valid and peritinent, when it uses those ideas to approach the destination of the complete destruction of capatalism, it then becomes abusrd.

[bkholdem]

Isn't AC for universal communal arrangements that maximize efficiency? Why would a group of AC 'ers go against an arrangement that maximizes efficiency if they are for the end result of said arrangement?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
f the state has the power to unilaterally coerce entire industries into not using CFCs, what else does the state have the power to unilaterally coerce?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why assume that the "state" has all those other powers?

If just one problem can be solved more effeciently via a universal communal approach, why not just have one institution to solve that one specific problem and so on.

Once you have allowed for just one such instution then the AC position is moot. Which is the central thematic problem with AC, in that to remain integral to its own discourse it must rabidly defend against any such possibility for greater effeciency via universal communal arrangements.

If the ideas behind AC had as their trajectory the criticism of universal communal arrangements then those ideas would be extrmely valid and pertinent. However the trajectory chosen is the complete destruction of universal communal arrangements and thus eventual absurdity is the only destination possible.

Which ironicaly is exactly the same thematic fault with Marxism, as a critique of capatalism some of its ideas are valid and peritinent, when it uses those ideas to approach the destination of the complete destruction of capatalism, it then becomes abusrd.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again you've shown that you understand little of the theory that you are arguing against. You can have all the "universal communal arrangements" you want in AC. Just as long as you convince every single person to voluntarily agree to each of them.

The thing that is wrong with Marxism is that Marxists do not understand time. With that one profound error corrected, most of Marxist class analysis is perfectly correct; it simply becomes clear that the parastic class is not the capitalists who increase the supply of consumer goods and increase the demand for labor and wages, but rather the state that taxes and regulates away prosperity in exchange for subsidized poverty, protectionism, and warfare.

And I thought the main problem with AC was it's lack of a theory of power. Oops, that's right; it has one. What will it be next week?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]


There was a recent article here (in Australia) about the hole in the ozone layer - which is the biggest it has ever been this year, but is nonetheless shrinking over the long term. It struck me that this was a problem that states dealt with "better" than an AC world would have. What I mean is, AC would have waited until many people had suffered skin cancer and been able to sue for damages from those (users? producers?) responsible for the harm inflicted on them. States imposed rules by force. It didnt seem like an onerus burden on business to switch to non-ozone damaging products yet it wasnt happening until it was legislated into effect.

Is this a specific example where states have served us better than AC would have?

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering that the most powerful state in the world is run by big energy businesses that make every effort to further the distribution of their product, I don't see how this has any merit at all.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
Once again you've shown that you understand little of the theory that you are arguing against. You can have all the "universal communal arrangements" you want in AC. Just as long as you convince every single person to voluntarily agree to each of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

So turkeys will agree to the universal communal arrangement of Christmas? The whole point of UCA is that there must be some enforcement to put it in place because they attempt (successfully and unsuccessfully) to put the needs/intrests of the many ahead of the needs of a few. There will nearly allways be some few who would never voluntarily agree to whatever UCA is being proposed as it is blatantly against their intrests. Would CFC corp aggree to the banning of CFSs?

Thus UCA are immpossible under AC as UCAs must nearly allways be imposed. As soon as you have a single imposed UCA then Anarchy is impossible.

As for AC having no theory of power it dosnt. I have been AWFK for several days so will revist that thread if I can find it.

[CallMeIshmael]

boro,

[ QUOTE ]
Factories belching smoke and dumping waste into streams is extraordinarily bad for business.

[/ QUOTE ]


I think this is the part of your argument with which I have some issues.


If, for example, a consumer is presented with 2 products A and B, with identical function, but since the manufacturer of A pollutes more heavily in its production, A costs 25% less, how do you feel most consumers are going to react?

Do you think the average consumer will conduct the research necessary, and will choose the lower polluting B?

In general, I feel most consumers (and I will certainly include myself in this group) have some level of detachment from the ethics of the companies that make the products they buy. For example, I have some ethical problems with severe mistreatment of animals, but admit that I do absolutely no research into the food products I buy, and may very well be supporting one of these companies.

It's for this reason that I have my doubts that polluting is bad for business.

(also, we've been down this road before, but to each consumer, the gain from A (money) is solely their benefit, but the cost (pollution) is spread over the entire population... im sure you know the logic of the rest of the argument, so I wont include it)



Im assuming at some level of pollution, consumers will begin to conduct the research needed, Im just not sure that that level of pollution is adequately low, since many forms of pollution arent *that* noticeable at dangerous levels (take ozone depletion for example)



Also, if you are going to reply with the argument that, since pollution was on its way down, the market will keep pollution low, then Im curious as to your thoughts on the current max-level pollution laws (ie. limits on emissions of certain chemicals)

Specifucally do you agree that one of the following must be true:

a) The market equilibrium is lower than the laws set as a max, and therefore the laws do nothing

or

b) the equilibrium is higher, and therefore you advocate that we should accept a higher level of emissions than laws allow now



EDIT: perhaps a better realworld example is the use of sweatshops by companies like Nike and Walmart. The use of near slave labour should be 'bad for business,' (I have my doubts that people are any more against pollution of their air than they are of sweatshops in other countries) but there seems to be a huge difference between buying shoes and supporting sweat shops in the minds of the consumer.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

If, for example, a consumer is presented with 2 products A and B, with identical function, but since the manufacturer of A pollutes more heavily in its production, A costs 25% less, how do you feel most consumers are going to react?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the problem- When company A creates more pollution under the Gov they don't have to pay for it, and are given a free pass up to a certain amount X. If there was no free pass they would have to pay the owners of the stream they dumped waste into or would have to buy the stream themselves and then dump into it (devaluing the worth of the stream). Pollution is a cost of business, if the cost of that pollution (ie the effect on other people's lives) is less than the greater profits the company will pull in then that company will be more successful. Overall the general welfare of the consumers will increase in quality and economic damages will be given to those whose welfare is negatively impacted.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's the problem- When company A creates more pollution under the Gov they don't have to pay for it, and are given a free pass up to a certain amount X. If there was no free pass they would have to pay the owners of the stream they dumped waste into or would have to buy the stream themselves and then dump into it (devaluing the worth of the stream). Pollution is a cost of business, if the cost of that pollution (ie the effect on other people's lives) is less than the greater profits the company will pull in then that company will be more successful. Overall the general welfare of the consumers will increase in quality and economic damages will be given to those whose welfare is negatively impacted.

[/ QUOTE ]


What about the air?


This seems to imply everyone who breathes the air that is being polluted by a company is going to be paid for the pollution, right?

Beyond that, ozone depletion can affect huge populations, so the fees for that are going to be paid to many.


If Im correct in my assumption that this is how it would work, who/how are we deciding what pollution is worth?