To be fair, I think one could argue with a straight face that if we’re still buying the products, then we really don’t care that much. Why should a company be motivated by morality if we as a society collectively aren’t?
We should hold ourselves to the same standards or we’re just hypocrites.
If the only fridges on the market contain CFCs then people are going to buy them because they need fridges. If the only CFC-free fridges are more expensive than CFC ones then only affluent people, at most, are going to buy them.
It’s called a market failure: There are costs associated with a product that are not taken into account because the regulatory regime doesn’t make sure they are. In the case of CFCs we went even further than making fridge producers pay up for the externalities they cause (which would’ve been an astronomical sum) and right-out banned that stuff. The consumer, after all, is still saving money with CFC fridges (their food doesn’t spoil as easily), they’re not paying for the ozone hole, either.
See the free market is a theoretical model, it indeed promises prefect results given that all actors are perfectly rational and act on perfect information, the maths makes sense. Perfect rationality and information don’t exist in the real world, though (and in fact ads and company secrets exist to degrade the information available to everyone) so we need regulations to fix market failures so that the real-world market comes closer to approximating the free market. Misunderstanding of this point brought to you by peddlers of institutionalised market failure equivocating “free market” and “unregulated market”.
The EU tends to have a good grasp on it, the US, boy oh boy.
In principle I’m inclined to agree, however isn’t this glossing over the degree to which markets are consolidated?
You try to opt out of products/services and choose more ethical alternatives, but it turns out the most readily available alternatives are in some way connected to the same unethical parent company. Ultimately the individualistic approach to addressing these matters is untenable and requires collective action in some form (ideally it would be leveraging a government that reflects the interests of the people).
And those companies have spent a ton of time and effort discouraging and preventing people from collectivizing via union busting. There’s a huge power asymmetry at play here, an individual should not be held to the same standard of accountability as the people who literally control the economy through non-democratic or straight up unelected positions of leadership (board of investors or private CEOs respectively). They can, at any moment, choose to reduce their profit margin for the betterment of the planet - but they don’t, because as a small group of owners, they exist to profit so they would never agree to do so in a meaningful way*. And because they’re collectivised and we’re not (just look at the swathe of antitrust cases where businesses that are supposed to compete, have instead chosen to act like a cartel), they hold almost all the power. Let’s focus our attention away from blaming the average person, and onto the real root cause so that we can actually collectivise against that root cause rather than fight amongst each other.
*: without the state straight up socialising their risk, for example the green tech grants and loans we have been and are giving out, all over the world. Something Elon Musk is very familiar with, given that Tesla might not have existed today without the generous $465 million government loan they got in 2009.
“Opting out” doesn’t mean you “opt in” to whatever forced you to “opt out” to begin with.
If I give you a choice between being punched in the face or getting kicked in the crotch, it’s not moral acquiescence to either regardless which you choose.
Your argument rests on a fallacy- “vote with your wallet”. This presumes that we don’t vote with our voice anymore, so it supersedes a democratic system of governance.
Consider: “if you oppose slavery, just don’t buy slaves, and we’ll let the market sort out who’s right and wrong”
Your argument rests on a fallacy- “vote with your wallet”. This presumes that we don’t vote with our voice anymore, so it supersedes a democratic system of governance.
Meaning this genuinely, not in a snarky way: did you read to the end of my comment? My phrasing may have been poor or a tad wordy, but I recognize what you’re describing and advise collective, political action instead of voting with one’s wallet.
The parenthetical at the end wasn’t to suggest otherwise, only that doing so via one’s existing/current government may not be a readily available option, demanding one change their government so as to make it work to those ends. I should have been clearer on that point.
To be fair, I think one could argue with a straight face that if we’re still buying the products, then we really don’t care that much. Why should a company be motivated by morality if we as a society collectively aren’t?
We should hold ourselves to the same standards or we’re just hypocrites.
If the only fridges on the market contain CFCs then people are going to buy them because they need fridges. If the only CFC-free fridges are more expensive than CFC ones then only affluent people, at most, are going to buy them.
It’s called a market failure: There are costs associated with a product that are not taken into account because the regulatory regime doesn’t make sure they are. In the case of CFCs we went even further than making fridge producers pay up for the externalities they cause (which would’ve been an astronomical sum) and right-out banned that stuff. The consumer, after all, is still saving money with CFC fridges (their food doesn’t spoil as easily), they’re not paying for the ozone hole, either.
See the free market is a theoretical model, it indeed promises prefect results given that all actors are perfectly rational and act on perfect information, the maths makes sense. Perfect rationality and information don’t exist in the real world, though (and in fact ads and company secrets exist to degrade the information available to everyone) so we need regulations to fix market failures so that the real-world market comes closer to approximating the free market. Misunderstanding of this point brought to you by peddlers of institutionalised market failure equivocating “free market” and “unregulated market”.
The EU tends to have a good grasp on it, the US, boy oh boy.
In principle I’m inclined to agree, however isn’t this glossing over the degree to which markets are consolidated?
You try to opt out of products/services and choose more ethical alternatives, but it turns out the most readily available alternatives are in some way connected to the same unethical parent company. Ultimately the individualistic approach to addressing these matters is untenable and requires collective action in some form (ideally it would be leveraging a government that reflects the interests of the people).
And those companies have spent a ton of time and effort discouraging and preventing people from collectivizing via union busting. There’s a huge power asymmetry at play here, an individual should not be held to the same standard of accountability as the people who literally control the economy through non-democratic or straight up unelected positions of leadership (board of investors or private CEOs respectively). They can, at any moment, choose to reduce their profit margin for the betterment of the planet - but they don’t, because as a small group of owners, they exist to profit so they would never agree to do so in a meaningful way*. And because they’re collectivised and we’re not (just look at the swathe of antitrust cases where businesses that are supposed to compete, have instead chosen to act like a cartel), they hold almost all the power. Let’s focus our attention away from blaming the average person, and onto the real root cause so that we can actually collectivise against that root cause rather than fight amongst each other.
*: without the state straight up socialising their risk, for example the green tech grants and loans we have been and are giving out, all over the world. Something Elon Musk is very familiar with, given that Tesla might not have existed today without the generous $465 million government loan they got in 2009.
“Opting out” doesn’t mean you “opt in” to whatever forced you to “opt out” to begin with.
If I give you a choice between being punched in the face or getting kicked in the crotch, it’s not moral acquiescence to either regardless which you choose.
Your argument rests on a fallacy- “vote with your wallet”. This presumes that we don’t vote with our voice anymore, so it supersedes a democratic system of governance.
Consider: “if you oppose slavery, just don’t buy slaves, and we’ll let the market sort out who’s right and wrong”
Meaning this genuinely, not in a snarky way: did you read to the end of my comment? My phrasing may have been poor or a tad wordy, but I recognize what you’re describing and advise collective, political action instead of voting with one’s wallet.
The parenthetical at the end wasn’t to suggest otherwise, only that doing so via one’s existing/current government may not be a readily available option, demanding one change their government so as to make it work to those ends. I should have been clearer on that point.
No, I don’t think you could, because you don’t really have a choice.
I find this naive cynicism exasperating.
“Let’s improve society somewhat.”
“Yet, you partake in society! Curious! / sent from my iPhone”
Sent from graphene but sure