Sure, that’s a totally fair question of course, i.e. “Hey, you need to see a therapist, and I juuuust happen to know one…”
No, my wife has never seen a listener as a client.
Tell that to Joseph Goebbels’ kids.
Yes, because the nature of man is best discovered by studying its most freakish specimens.
In terms of voluntary interactions, culture sets the ambiance of how such interactions take place.
So assuming that the seller states that the bag is healthful, the individual buyer assumes its healthful:
A.) If it is healthful then no issue.
B.) If it isn’t healthful but no side effects then maybe a case for fraud/negligence. It would depend on the situation. I mean was the buyer actually buying on the condition that it would bring positive effects?
C.) If it isn’t healthful and there are harmful side effects then you have a case for fraud or negligence.
AC, why did you bring banning back into a discussion which had clearly become about condemnation?
? I haven’t said anything about banning.
I should have said, “criminality”, which you bring in when you talk about fraud, etc.
Because when a title-transfer occurs, specifically the example you are giving, and the product is not inline with the specifications given by the seller then it is an act of fraud. If it is ‘buyer beware’ then there is no case for fraud since it is on the shoulders of the buyer to discover the validity the the claims that the seller is making.
Also if Stefan is telling people ‘Hey I promise you will live a better life if you leave your family’ [ not saying that he is or isn’t actually saying this, this is just a hypothetical situation I am using to elucidate the dividing line between just and unjust interaction ] and people act on those promises but discover that life isn’t so great, then it is not fraud since there was no title transfer. Stefan could of just been lying to get a laugh which probably is horrible but not criminal or he could be inept at disseminating the actual states of being that people prefer. If someone tells you that life would be great if it were all milk and cookies and you decide to test that state of being only to discover it is not so great then you can hardly blame the person for the decision you made to test such a state.
Would you find the powder salesman condemnable or not?
Of course, you conveniently define him as freakish. Ever noticed how “paternalism” is used to describe the state on this site, which is to say, equating the willingness to kill to achieve obedience with parenting? Is crazy also a part of human nature? It is not a deduction that parents and children need a harmony of interest for the species to go on. They only need to somehow survive despite each other for that end. This is called parsimony.
How does this work for you? When I have kids I’ll threaten them, beat them, psychologically reduce them to “pliable” putty and in every way immiserate them in order to pigeonhole them into some schematic, whether normal or freakish. When they talk to Stef and break up with me I’ll place the back of my hand on my forehead weeping to all of you and claim to not know what it was that they needed from me, that I tried my best to make them happy and that Stef is an abominable bad guy. The perfect Darwin-Lilburne parent, I guess.
Condemnable for what?
For the dangerous way he conducts his business.
He was a mass-murderer, McKibbin. Of course he’s freakish.
You know, some members, when faced with such nonsense as this, would huff and puff about you not using reason or not being intellectually honest. That’s my first impulse too. But I’m not going to give into it. You can just keep lobbing these eristic softballs all you like; it only makes your case weaker in the eyes of readers, as each one gets smashed.
Or you could drop your “resist all points by any means necessary” stance and we could have real conversation. Either way is fine with me.
That’s a completely twisted characterization of the derivation. The state is considered “father-like” insofar as it gives commands and punishments, not insofar as it kills.
Species the children of which can only survive in spite of their parents would perish in biological competition with species, the children of which are actually aided by their parents.
That was entirely incoherent. What are you trying to say?
Children are often downright horrible to their parents and other figures of authority, why is nobody sticking up for them? Believe it not after many years of life experience parents often tend to know more about the ways of the world than their children who tend be arrogant and overconfident in their knowledge and reasoning abilities. I have a simple piece of advice to all of you who don’t like the “abuse” you allegedly receive from your parents, man up and act like an adult, eventually you’ll be treated like one.
As a more general note, I think there’s something very troubling about the amount of hubris involved in believing one can rationally design institutions such as the family, I would have hoped that many of you might agree. The fact of the matter is that the family is a very robust institution that has withstood the test of time, it has changed to fit the conditions of time and place and yet it still remains. There’s a vast amount of trial and error that has gone on to make the institution what it is now and there’s a great deal of knowledge embodied in all social rules and norms, including those associated with parenting, a lot of people here would do well to understand. I don’t believe that it’s any accident that familial bonds are some of the strongest that exist and at the same time some of the most necessary to society, Mises didn’t either.
Dondolee, I’ll get to your post tomorrow.
Wowzers, this thread exploded.
Well is he conducting business under the impressions that you gave before? That he thinks it is healthy?
The customer thinks it is. The salesman knows he’s uncertain what kind of powder he’s selling, but he acts like he’s certain that it’s healthy.
No, I don’t condemn that. For there to be a trade, the customer must want what the salesman is selling.
Okay, then just to put it together again (which is kind of frustrating, because I thought the original example was completely clear):
A salesman with a supply of indistinguishable ziplock bags, each filled either with health-promoting vitamin powder, health-neutral cereal powder, and health-destructive cocaine, offers random bags for sale, and advertises them all as being health-promoting.
Let’s say this salesman comes into a town, and sells 30 of his bags. 9 customers get vitamin powder, and enjoy a boost to their health. 11 of them get cereal powder, and they undergo no change in health. 10 of them get cocaine, and become addicted. Then the salesman skips town.
So, regardless of whether you think it should be punishable, you wouldn’t find what he did condemnable?
No because he supply what people wanted. Now if what he supplied wasn’t actually what he was promoting then we go back to fraud but you stated that it is regardless of punishment.