Does your autism impact your political views?

Post Reply New Topic

What??!

No one's trying to eliminate markets, but mixed economies are undeniably a superior alternative to laissez-faire capitalism.

just suspend your disbelief for a moment. Let's say that the automated hitting of old ladies with cars is how you get money. Each old lady hit is +1000$. You're already a billionaire. Yet still, instead of considering the community ethics, you choose to line your pockets just that little bit more.

An extreme, to be sure, but the concept is not different from what corporations do to their workers when they have absolute power over them.

Thats illegal. You will end up in jail. You and your associates. Your analogy is not correct.

i said

suspend

your disbelief

pretend hitting old ladies with cars is legal but harmful to society in the long-term and heavily frowned-upon

The answer is obviously no. But what does that have to do with the free market?

But it has truth.

I smell a strawman argument. And if anything, saying the left is decent and the right is not or evil is a very big oversimplification.

The only way that either side of the political divide starts "giving a damn" about anything is if (1) enough rich people pour money into the issue, and/or (2) a much larger number of ordinary people engage in grassroots organizing around the issue, including both political activist groups and other, larger, mutual aid groups of various kinds.

The latter is one of the reasons why I keep saying that the autistic community needs to become a lot better organized than it is now.

Anyhow, if and when the autistic community does become sufficiently well-organized, which side of the political divide do you think we could more easily convince to give a damn about autistic people?

The point is that there need to be safety regulations for car manufacturers.

Libertarians often oppose government regulation of consumer goods, on the alleged grounds that the free market is sufficient to solve all problems with commercial products. It isn't, as in the example of car safety.

Of course the safety regulations need to be made by people who know enough about the car industry, and about how cars work, to be able to make sensible regulations. One problem that some U.S. government regulatory agencies have is that too many of their regulations don't make much sense. I'm not sure what's the best way to solve that problem, but simply getting rid of all regulation of business is not the answer.

Yes we oppose regulations for some good reasons. First it's the disbelief that the car manufacturing companies have any incentive at all to produce substandard cars. Consumer demand and competition will orient manufacturers towards ever better quality of production. Have you ever tried to run a business or service? Do you know how difficult it is to please customers?

Second argument is that regulations require a vast number of bureaucrats to check every product. It's basically impossible to check every product circulating in the market.

Third argument is who gets to decide what is the quality of an aprooved product and that of another one that it's not approved? Do the bureaucrats on their ivory tower know better than the consumer what works for him/her?

Fourth argument is corruption. Lobbying being the legsl form of corruption. Big companies are usually the ones lobbying for regulations because usually they are the only ones that can pay the extra costs that compliance to those regulations requires. This is a way to put out of competition smaller companies and start-ups. Ultimately the consumer pays those
extra costs and simultaneously cannot choose another company for the same services since the other company cannot pay for the extra costs that the regulation requires. An example was how big social media companies supported the legislation for fact checkers because in this way they eliminated any possible start-up from growing and out competing them. Because the startups wouldn't be able to pay for services from fact check companies.

There is also the possibility of other forms of corruption. Like paying government employees for not approving a product from a competitor or aproove yours.

the video game crash of 1983 proves that a free market cannot be relied on to always make quality products. It arose from an oversaturation of various companies making low-effort cheap games. Of course, Nintendo essentially saved video games, and it is a company, but take a look at modern video games: some would say they're stagnating again, but on a genre scale. (not to mention Nintendo's greediness lately.)

Anyhow, to answer the O.P.'s question:

Ever since age 20 or so, I've been aware of the need for a social safety net. I didn't suspect I was autistic until age 50 or so, but I knew throughout my adult life that I am generally a weirdo and that this has made it more difficult for me than for most people to find jobs.

IMO we need the 599 Program to be much better-funded and to stop being the unemployment office's best-kept secret, so that more people who lose jobs in shrinking industries can re-train for better jobs. (I was once very lucky to have a friend who was able to tell me about this little-known program at a time when I needed it.)

And I have long been appalled at the utterly cruel attitudes many Americans have toward homeless people. Luckily I have never been homeless but I can easily see myself being in danger of same under the wrong circumstances. In any case we desperately need looser zoning laws and more government incentives to build affordable housing.

It's a gross oversimplification and claiming it is true when it typically is not true is dishonest.
Claiming it to be true because you'd like for it to be true doesn't make it true but does undermine the credibility of the person claiming it.

It's the other way around. It's you who like it not to be true. But that doesn't make it not true it just undermines your credibility as a person. You already provided a source that admits that research on the topic shows it to be true. Go figure out.

We are being a little ungrateful here. It's not that the video games were invented by government bureaucrats. The video game companies created them and the consoles in order to profit from the sales. You are complaining about the companies greediness while the same greediness is the one that has brought to existence video games to begin with.