Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 26 Jan 2000 21:11:54 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpieniazek@#Spamless#novera.com
|
Viewed:
|
2305 times
|
| |
|
|
<FoyED8.8A8@lugnet.com> <FoyJxA.Kqw@lugnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Richard Franks wrote:
> > The marketplace has the power (or would have the power under Libertopia).
>
> It does in theory, but in reality the market isn't educated to the level this
> requires - everyone would have to research which toothpaste, which
> dye-companies contributed to which t-shirts, which rainforest their toothpicks
> came from etc etc. Not that it couldn't or won't happen - it is just hard to
> envisage at the moment!
>
> I can't imagine a society where people take an interest in more than a small
> proportion of the products they use, and in that situation the companies
> manipulate the market (advertising, marketing tactics), rather than the market
> wielding the power conciously.
You raise a good point, one which is often raised, and one to which
considerable thought has been given. The stock answer is as follows.
It is not required that everyone be an expert on(or even take an
interest in) EVERYTHING. It is sufficient that some people take
interests in some things. Look at the diversity of interests out there
now. Someone will want to be the High Toothpaste Geek, there is prestige
in having unmasked high toothpaste crimes, and so forth for all the
other products out there. If that someone actually discovers something,
some publication will publish it. If it's egregious enough, before you
know it, it's common knowledge.
Specialization saves the day. Perfect? No. But a diversity of interests,
pursued by people who are truly geeked out about their interest, is
likely to produce better regulation than rules promulgated by drudges
who are working for pay. Consider the wealth of knowledge about various
aspects of our fair brick as an example. We know more about many aspects
of TLC than TLC itself does. Interest is why.
Note the parallel in the argument here with that about carrying. The
argument advanced there is that it is not required that EVERYONE carry
in order to deter crime, merely that some small percentage (and you as
the criminal are not sure who is in or out of that percentage today)
does.
But just note that parallel, don't actually go down there if you don't
mind...
--
Larry Pieniazek - larryp@novera.com - http://my.voyager.net/lar
http://www.mercator.com. Mercator, the e-business transformation company
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
Note: this is a family forum!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) Using a country in the middle of ethnic cleansing as a comparison is hardly flattering. You can get shot in any country, but it's more likely to happen if you live in the US than say the UK. (...) I find it easy to believe, however I would (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
473 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
