Anti-THR Lies: Ecig proponents need to learn lessons from other activists

[caramel]

Invoking actual 'free market economy' without the grants and subsidies and regulations is like this:

... to them.


Again, showing either your bias against or ignorance of what free market economics actually is. I'd say a bit of both.

And where's that piece of regulation saying that one is allowed to bark only anti-vaping?

You're free to bark both way. Except only one pays good money. And, as rational participants to the "free market", the antz elected to do what's in their best financial interest.

 

[Kent C]

And where's that piece of regulation saying that one is allowed to bark only anti-vaping?

You're free to bark both way. Except only one pays good money. And, as rational participants to the "free market", the antz elected to do what's in their best financial interest.

People will act in their own self-interest whether in a free market, mixed economy or socialism. But to say that mere acting in one's self interest is the free market, is categorical error, mixing a moral category with an economic one. So I'll change my 'a bit of both' to just the latter.

 

[caramel]

People will act in their own self-interest whether in a free market, mixed economy or socialism.

Except only the "free market" is "anything goes if it makes $$$". The others define some limits beyond which things become illegal (and not "immoral" as you suggest).

Read again my previous post - barking for money is perfectly "free market", invoking "free market" does nothing but confirm the "legitimacy" of said barking.

 

[Kent C]

Except only the "free market" is "anything goes if it makes $$$".

No it isn't. Again, you show ignorance of what a free market is. It's the free exchange between individuals where no third party intervenes with grants, subsidies, regulations.

All of what you say is the "barking" involves those 'extras' which are no part of the free market. And most involve force or the threat of force to be applied - iow, the opposite of 'free'. You are 'free' to define the free market in that manner, but you are wrong about. Saying it's something else, is a strawman argument. I know it's easier to attack that way and many will go right along with your notion of it being that, but that isn't what it is. Just as 'crony capitalism' has nothing to do with capitalism but instead fascism, calling it that doesn't really inform anyone.

Again, you'll get agreement from socialists and fascists (they don't want anyone to know what they're actually doing) but again, you're conceptually/definitionally wrong. Even Marx, Keynes, Galbraith accepted that.... they didn't like it, but at least they knew what it was.

Now... back to the lies of the anti-ecig/anti-free market ANTZ. lol

 

[caramel]

No it isn't. Again, you show ignorance of what a free market is. It's the free exchange between individuals where no third party intervenes with grants, subsidies, regulations.

All of what you say is the "barking" involves those 'extras' which are no part of the free market. And most involve force or the threat of force to be applied - iow, the opposite of 'free'. You are 'free' to define the free market in that manner, but you are wrong about. Saying it's something else, is a strawman argument. I know it's easier to attack that way and many will go right along with your notion of it being that, but that isn't what it is. Just as 'crony capitalism' has nothing to do with capitalism but instead fascism, calling it that doesn't really inform anyone.

Again, you'll get agreement from socialists and fascists (they don't want anyone to know what they're actually doing) but again, you're conceptually/definitionally wrong. Even Marx, Keynes, Galbraith accepted that.... they didn't like it, but at least they knew what it was.

Now... back to the lies of the anti-ecig/anti-free market ANTZ. lol

Well, "free market" definitions are like holes, everyone has a few....

Let's accept yours for a while. Barking is the industry in America closest to that concept. Done via the "free press", "think-thanks", "charities", "advocacy groups" or whatever, it's well protected by the 1st Amendment. You may pay someone to bark and (s)he can freely accept (or reject) your offer, and freely do the barking if that was the option.

As for your objection against "grants subsidies and regulations". It's stil dollars, no matter how you call them, you can take them or leave them, and there's no regulation to silence or force you barking.

To sum it up, barking for money is the perfect example of a "free market" at work. And this by your own definition.

 

[Kent C]

As for your objection against "grants subsidies and regulations". It's stil dollars

Dollars taken by force or threat of force. Regulations that are enforced by force or threat of force. Subsidies that are paid as quid pro quo for votes/support - not 'freely given' to anyone - (it's ludicrous that one has to point this out to you, but again, expected)... that are offered to some groups but not others - iow, inequality before the law. And all of this affects that actual free market - it can stop people (us) from purchasing in the legal market what we want. It can stop vendors to sell those things. It can force vendors to sell altered goods. There's nothing about it that even smells of 'free exchange'.

An analogy by your definition would be a crook with a gun, asks for your money and so according to your definition - you have a 'free choice'. You can give them your money or your life - and then you say, whatever the result - that was your choice. There is no 'choice' at the end of a gun, only force - which is what you and your side advocate - while wearing a peace sign or Che on your t-shirts.

 

[caramel]

Dollars taken by force or threat of force. Regulations that are enforced by force or threat of force. Subsidies that are paid as quid pro quo for votes/support - not 'freely given' to anyone - (it's ludicrous that one has to point this out to you, but again, expected)... that are offered to some groups but not others - iow, inequality before the law. And all of this affects that actual free market - it can stop people (us) from purchasing in the legal market what we want. It can stop vendors to sell those things. It can force vendors to sell altered goods. There's nothing about it that even smells of 'free exchange'.

An analogy by your definition would be a crook with a gun, asks for your money and so according to your definition - you have a 'free choice'. You can give them your money or your life - and then you say, whatever the result - that was your choice. There is no 'choice' at the end of a gun, only force - which is what you and your side advocate - while wearing a peace sign or Che on your t-shirts.

I think you're mistaken in a way I was too for some time. You're probably assuming that the government is at the throat of the tobacco industry trying to shut it down. Is this why you refer to "force"?

 

[Kent C]

I think you're mistaken in a way I was too for some time. You're probably assuming that the government is at the throat of the tobacco industry trying to shut it down. Is this why you refer to "force"?

Any intervention that involves force or threat of force into a consensual exchange between two people that harms neither, is not a 'free market'. A cop intervening into the crook/victim analogy is perfectly legitimate - it upholds the rights of the individual being accosted. It's basically why we created this gov't but now the gov't (because of socialist programs) has become the highwayman in many cases. All the cases that you cite.

 

[Kent C]

At this point I'll invoke the wisdom of Andria:

"You cannot fight irrationality with rationality."

 

[nicnik]

Any intervention that involves force or threat of force into a consensual exchange between two people that harms neither, is not a 'free market'

What if it harms everybody but them?

 

[caramel]

Any intervention that involves force or threat of force into a consensual exchange between two people that harms neither, is not a 'free market'. A cop intervening into the crook/victim analogy is perfectly legitimate - it upholds the rights of the individual being accosted. It's basically why we created this gov't but now the gov't (because of socialist programs) has become the highway man in many cases. All the cases that you cite.

Ok, then you're doing the same mistake as I did.

Let me explain: at some point I realized that whatever the government is doing is not geared to shutting down the tobacco industry, but on the contrary, they're working to help them survive.

If they really wanted to shut it down, it was sufficient for them to do nothing. Yes, NOTHING.

At some point some people figured out that they can make good money through liability lawsuits against the tobacco companies. The government could have done nothing, just sit with a pina colada in hand and watch how BT is driven into bankruptcy. No one would had dared to ever again sell cigarettes, smokers would have gnashed their teeth, gone through some withdrawal symptoms, curse, and voila, end of smoking in America.

Yet things have played out completely differently. The tobacco industry cannot be succesfully sued anymore, and on top they make the same profit as before (regardless of the diminished customer base). How did we get there? A chain of payments which I'll let you the pleasure to identify and list. hint: it starts with the consumers. and is purely "free market" since all the parties involved have agreed at some point to the amount. And any party can leave this deal at any moment if they think it would be in a better interest to them.

 

[nicnik]

oops, to late.

 

[Kent C]

What if it harms everybody but them?

See my post above yours :- ) PM an example of what you mean if you want an answer....

 

[Rossum]

At some point some people figured out that they can make good money through liability lawsuits against the tobacco companies. The government could have done nothing, just sit with a pina colada in hand and watch how BT is driven into bankruptcy. No one would had dared to ever again sell cigarettes, smokers would have gnashed their teeth, gone through some withdrawal symptoms, curse, and voila, end of smoking in America.

I don't think so. A constitutional amendment couldn't end drinking. The better part of a century of bans with extremely harsh penalties for violating them on a commercial basis hasn't stopped the consumption of various other substances, but you believe that a few bankruptcies would end smoking?

 

[nicnik]

I don't think so. A constitutional amendment couldn't end drinking. The better part of a century of bans with extremely harsh penalties for violating them on a commercial basis hasn't stopped the consumption of various other substances, but you believe that a few bankruptcies would end smoking?

Good point, but the government went into a partnership with BT, benefitting BT and BG. Not doing so, might've wiped out everything except a black market much bigger than it now is.

 

[caramel]

I don't think so. A constitutional amendment couldn't end drinking. The better part of a century of bans with extremely harsh penalties for violating them on a commercial basis hasn't stopped the consumption of various other substances, but you believe that a few bankruptcies would end smoking?

That's some sort of strawman you're building there, we were not discussing prohibitions but a situation where the players arranged so that a particular commerce could be done in the open and at profit. You could dismiss it as collusion, but collusion is perfectly fine though in Kent's definition of "free market".

The alcohol industry never had the problem where their customers sued them back for hangovers. If that starts to happen, you'll shortly see "graphic warnings" on the bottles too. Plus assorted restrictions.

 

[Rossum]

You're completely missing the point. As long as people wish to consume something and are willing to pay for it, someone will supply that thing. It the threat of immediately going to jail for several decades doesn't stop suppliers of Other Stuff, then the threat of product liability lawsuits several decades in the future certainly won't stop new tobacco suppliers from replacing the old ones that were driven into bankruptcy in your scenario.

 

[caramel]

You're completely missing the point. As long as people wish to consume something and are willing to pay for it, someone will supply that thing. It the threat of immediately going to jail for several decades doesn't stop suppliers of Other Stuff, then the threat of product liability lawsuits several decades in the future certainly won't stop new tobacco suppliers from replacing the old ones that were driven into bankruptcy in your scenario.

No one will "supply that thing" at a net loss.

The "other stuff" is again a strawman, there is no going to jail for selling tobacco. The only argument with tobacco is the economic one: can we sell it at a profit or not. With the lawsuits in place there was no profit on the horizon.

 

[Rossum]

Yes, the argument IS economic. As long as tobacco users have a desire to consume it and are willing to pay for it, there are profits to be made right here, right now. If you eliminated all traces of BT right now, you'd see a cottage industry spring up to replace them almost immediately. Where there's a demand for a product, it WILL be filled.

 

[caramel]

Yes, the argument IS economic. As long as tobacco users have a desire to consume it and are willing to pay for it, there are profits to be made right here, right now. If you eliminated all traces of BT right now, you'd see a cottage industry spring up to replace them almost immediately. Where there's a demand for a product, it WILL be filled.

BT's problem was their own profits, not the "cottage industry's" ones. Once you get accustomed to operating a trillion dollars per year industry, all in the open with legal profits that you can use as you see fit, selling a few pouches in a dark alley ain't looking like a good alternative.

As for the "cottage industry" - it cannot fully replace a big, official one. Try to get some authentic Cuban cigars there and tell me how it went, both in price and availability. If those cigars were the only tobacco available in US, how many smokers would you think there would be?

BTW the "cottage industry" for the "other stuff" is currently imitating BT - they are "working" (aka paying for) a legal framework that would allow them more profits on a larger scale. Barkers and all the jazz.