[Myrmornis]

> Capitalism is tasteless, then, right?

Oh, I don't think I'm well-informed enough to answer that question properly. Let's suppose by "capitalism" you meant allowing market forces to operate freely. No, I wouldn't say that's entirely tasteless, but yes it has tasteless aspects.

And a principle one is advertising, i.e. standing up and saying "Hey, I suggest you buy this, and here's why" when

(a) you have a financial motivation to encourage the sale

(b) quite obviously, that motivation corrupts your role as the recommender

(c) despite being educated people you make no acknowledgement of that corruption.

Ideally, the best way for consumers to choose between competing products would be for them to read peer-reviewed scientific literature comparing the merits of the products and their suitability for the intended use. That again is basically definitional -- that's what science means.

Now, do you think science should be conducted by people with a financial interest in the conclusions of each paper? No, you don't. And that's why you shouldn't have a hard time accepting that advertising is inherently undesirable.

> As a matter of principle, if you have something and don't need it, and someone else needs it, you should give it to them, right?

Yes.

> I'm just trying to understand your principle and where the boundaries of it are

Sure, happy to continue the discussion.

[VikingCoder]

>> As a matter of principle, if you have something and don't need it, and someone else needs it, you should give it to them, right?

> Yes.

So, is property tasteless?

Why are people trying to sell something? Shouldn't they just give it to me?

And then scientists should determine which products should be made.

And scientists should determine who is the best at making those goods and services.

And scientists should decide who doesn't deserve to live or reproduce.

... So... I purposely tried to go too far. At which point do you think I went too far?

[Myrmornis]

> So, is property tasteless?

Owning something which you do not make use of and denying access to others who would make good use of it is not a good thing to do.

> Why are people trying to sell something? Shouldn't they just give it to me?

I'm not arguing against the whole of free market capitalism, just advertising. We can still have a free market without advertising. A bit like how we can and do have democracies while severely restricting political campaign funding.

> And then scientists should determine which products should be made.

> And scientists should determine who is the best at making those goods and services.

> And scientists should decide who doesn't deserve to live or reproduce.

Scientists provide information. They do not enforce anything; they are not an executive branch of government.

"Science" is the word we use for the process of rationally answering questions about the universe. That includes comparing products. And comparing who is best at making goods and services.

If it were the case that there were a subset of people who didn't "deserve" to live or reproduce (for some definition of "deserve") then yes, we would want scientists to be involved in identifying that subset of people. The obvious example is criminal punishment. The USA and other countries decide that some people no longer deserve to live. (Other societies in history have sterilized people). Yes, of course we would want those decisions to be based on science -- science as the provider of information and as the process for arriving at conclusions from data; the legal system and government to actually execute and enforce things.

> ... So... I purposely tried to go too far. At which point do you think I went too far?

You didn't go too far. I think you confused two things: (1) scientists making information available to society, and (2) some group of people enforcing a policy.

[VikingCoder]

How.

Free Market good? Free Speech good?

So why can't I pay someone to help me spread the word about how good my product is?

> A bit like how we can and do have democracies while severely restricting political campaign funding.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I do not believe any democracy has actually limited political campaign funding. There have been limits, but they have all had loopholes that have made them completely ineffective.

> Scientists provide information. They do not enforce anything

But, it's scientifically proven that if I only do business with science-based companies, that the products and services I get are better and safer. I therefore boycott all other businesses.

Then, scientists absolutely do enforce everything.

> And comparing who is best at making goods and services.

Actually, no, that's economics. And economics say the best solution is the free market. Not a body of decision makers. Because each person measures their own utility. People can provide evidence and opinions. But each person makes their own decisions.

There's no accounting for taste.

Which movie is scientifically proven to be the most enjoyable by people who like Quentin Tarantino movies, but hate Oliver Stone movies?

Oh, scientists hadn't even gotten to review Snatch yet. If only some advertiser enticed me into giving it a try, I would find out that my opinions change over time in unpredictable and unique ways, that no science board could ever predict.

> some people no longer deserve to live. (Other societies in history have sterilized people). Yes, of course we would want those decisions to be based on science

Science is a tool. Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Science is not humanistic, any more than Capitalism is. That's why science must be regulated. Otherwise, we'd be cloning people with no brains, so we can harvest their organs. We'd instantly kill everyone with an un-treatable infectious disease, because the good of the many outweigh the good of the few or the one. We'd set up a surveillance state to enforce our laws, because it's scientifically proved to be the best way to enforce laws.

Opinions and ethics are human factors you are not accounting for.