10-17-2015, 05:36 PM -
(10-17-2015, 05:28 PM)Donald Dank Wrote: Whether it's to directly restrict or is indirectly coercive as a means of bringing change it is still restrictive. You're saying that being more content helps bridle greed, all I've argued is that all consuming greed is a matter for the individual and may not even be apparent to them when in the pursuit of such unbridled greed, therefore awareness of unbridled greed is likely to only come about from outside influence and would therefore be considered coercive.
Unbridled means unrestricted, as soon as you say greed can't be unbridled you are saying that greed must be restricted. I'm not saying you've suggested to what extent this must be done or what methods would be used (something that libertarian parentalism might cover).
My view is that if someone wants to act entirely within self-interest and act with unrestricted greed they should be free to do so and will have no choice but to deal with the consequences of such behaviour.
Bridled doesn't mean to restrict, but to steer. What you're saying isn't correct. You've chosen to change the word I used to something similar but different. It's a false equivalence.
Libertarian paternalism leaves people free to make any choice they want. There is no restriction whatsoever, so even by the standard that you've created there's a solution.
Sorry if i'm curt. I'm tired and try and hold off on the flowery language when trying to make a point.
This post was last modified: 10-17-2015, 05:40 PM by 2NaFez.