The basic problem is that a legal individual, the corporation, has all the democratic rights of expression that a real individual has. Real individuals are born, die, get married, have children, have compassion, ideals and morals and have all the other attributes of humanity. Corporations exist to make money. One way they make money is by advertising. There is no reason corporations should have the rights that a real individual has.

The Australian Constitution should differentiate between a real and fictitious individual. Only a real individual should have full rights.

What should also be called into question is the huge number of advertisements in the media and on shop front windows. This is becoming a form of visual pollution.

Unfortunately, self regulation has not worked in the advertising industry. Over 90% of complaints made to the ASB are rejected, and many ads are approved by the ASB if they are deemed to be “funny”, and not necessarily because they present the truth about a product.

Humor (or someone’s attempt at humor) is deemed more important than truth in advertising.

The pinnacle of disgrace would probably be the ads for “Girls night in”, run by the Cancer Council. These ads featured a male tied by the hands and feet, gagged about the mouth and left in a cupboard, while the “girls” had their night in.

In a feminist state, a male was portrayed as being cancer in women, but tying up someone and leaving them in a cupboard is an illegal act. Although the ad portrayed an illegal act, (and actually encouraged an illegal act), the ad was approved by the ASB because they said it was “funny”.

Tying up someone and leaving them in a cupboard also has nothing to do with cancer, and there is now no correlation between the contents of an ad and what the ad is actually for.

I have often wondered why advertising has such an impact. For the last 30 years I have always done my best to avoid it. I can't understand why people watch it or read it and are influenced by it. All it does is raise the eventual cost of the product and try to appeal to base emotional instincts which are always prejudicial and usually misleading. I automatically record any commercial television that I want to see (except perhaps the news) so that I can fast forward the ads and it saves so much time. 60 Minutes becomes only about 45 minutes for instance. I never read the advertisements in papers or magazines, particularly the full page ones and yet I feel that I miss out on no salient information about a product. I have become so naive that on the odd occasion when I have actually seen a commercial, I sometimes haven't even understood what it is that it is selling. It appears that the product has to be sold through some kind of obscure representation that is lost on me. I refuse to listen to commercial radio and always have my finger on the mute button when trying to catch a very short episode of TV that is not worth recording.

My choice of products is usually based on advice from professionals in a particular area. For cheap consumables, my own trial and error. If for instance I know a product has excessive marketing that I have been unable to avoid, then I refuse to buy it. What percentage of an expensive hair spray for instance is contained in the production of the actual contents.... a few cents ? I actually came across a facial spray that contained only water that was selling for several dollars. Are people crazy to believe the advertising industry. Just ignore it and teach your children the same thing.

Sarah,
A good article one criticism , I would be happy to fore go humorous ads if it meant there were no ads, the ads were *informational* or certainly without the hyped spruiking.
Advertising is neither informative nor honest it's simply a dishonest/devious way of perverting the demand side of "supply and demand" for profit.

A survey showed that out of two ( identical) cans of baby food except one red one blue and priced different. The richer, educated area patrons chose the cheaper where as the opposite applied in the less well off areas .They believed the price was a determinant of quality.

I dispute that the average buyer, *can*, make informed choices on products.
Advertising clearly includes labelling, fliers, in store signage etc.
e.g.
- Who can decipher the contents in small print on consumables? Many generic products don't list any, asking is futile.

- Front load washing machines advertise a capacity. What *most* mean is on one cycle only, usually the least economic one.

*Many* are designed for sub zero temps in Europe and don't have cold water washes.
This moves the electricity cost from the machine to your hot water system.
To cover this they cite the hotter water is necessary to activate the enzymes in the soap powder. NB. There are cold water powders for front load washers here.
.
- Roof membrane says up to 4-5 degrees differential
What they don't tell you is that this range was achieved once on a house with specific aspect in a different climate.

-The list of weasel words included 'amazing additive X' when in reality the additive is in most of opposition products.

"Bigger family pack" can simply means more fillers.

20 cleaning products when 3-4 will suffice

As for magic mops and wipes....under independent tests they prove to be little *day to day* value.
- Of course there's the allowable puffing products best on the market better than brand 'z'
ask under what circumstances? And will it effect me? Probably not.

Advertising is one facet of our parasitic laden feral capitalist system that needs controllin

Read any book on marketing and you will see it is all based on manipulation. We can all manipulate others(and probably have) . From telling lies little or otherwise. What you dont tell people. Misrepresenting your own feelings on something. Its not hard to do. But most of us refrain because we know it is wrong to manipulate and deceive people. But where business and its god money is concerned anything is ok.

Hence our descent into the cesspit of degradation and slime that is todays advertising industry. They use sex to sell to children for f#@%s sake. They are partly responsible for so many obese people who cant walk by a maccas without going in. They turn children into pester machines designed to annoy and badger parents until they get what they want. And they have convinced parents that they are bad parents if they dont give in.
They use scare campaigns filled with lies to sell products we dont need. Like the new deodorant stickers for your dunny, because the ones in the cage are filthy ffs. What crap. Or all the "disinfectant" sprays/wipes/gels/etc etc because we are "covered in germs and all going to infect each other and die" What self serving rot. Funny how our parents and grandparents didnt die from all those germs. Its only us "unclean" modern folk who need to spend hundreds of dollars on sanitising ourselves. Probably to death.

Advertising is ok when it is restricted to informing the populace of what is available but when it becomes marketing and uses human psychology against us then it should be stopped and restricted.

What a bunch of whingers.

If the population is a bunch of mindless cretins that gorge themselves to death on big macs and prostitute their children just because of an ad they saw then they deserve what they get.

The advertising standards ensure that there is no deception in the adverts, what is left is for consumers to use the few brain cells left between their ears to work out what they really need.

Mikk and others would like advertising reduced to a level of simplicity suitable to the lowest common denominator (Village idiot) so no one is startled by the bright lights or loud music.

For god's sake get a life.

Democritus, I would say to you - for god's sake get a brain.

The idea of people working out 'what they really need' is a joke. The whole of modern post-industrial civilisation, if you can call it that, is based on the mass creation of wants that are perceived as needs - false needs. The idea of blaming the individuals who 'prostitute' their children 'because of an ad' is so simple-minded as to be ludicrous. We are all to blame, even you. Yet by your tone you seem to think that there is nothing to blame anyone for.

What child-like faith you have in the 'advertising standards'.

You say, 'Mikk and others would like advertising reduced to a level of simplicity suitable to the lowest common denominator (Village idiot) so no one is startled by the bright lights or loud music'.
The whole point is that advertising ALREADY treats people like village idiots, constantly insulting their intelligence, if only they would see it; the entire vast edifice of advertising/marketing/fashion/hype/consumerism is devoted to bypassing, breaching or corroding the intelligence of the populace

When Sarah Burnside consumes things, that’s fine, but when other people consume things, it’s because they’re too stupid to understand what they want or need. Sarah exercises autonomy, and when she buys clothes, or shoes, or shampoo, or bread, or skin lotion, or a computer, or a plane ticket, obviously it’s because she wants or needs it. But other people have no ability to decide for themselves, and are the mere blind tools of wicked exploiters.

When Sarah communicates with her clients about something she thinks that they might benefit from or want, it goes without saying that that is good and necessary. But when other people communicate with their customers about something they think they might benefit from or want, they are cynical, self-interested, deceptive hypocrites who should be imprisoned.

There is no need for Sarah to ask other people whether they want or need the thing they are buying; she already knows both what everyone else in the world think they want or need, and what they do want or need, without having to ask. They are invariably wrong. And guess who’s right?

When Sarah makes money, that’s fine, and if anything it should be a bit more; but when other people make money, they are untrustworthy and immoral.

When Sarah’s income exceeds her expenses, that is only because of her good sense and management, but when other people’s income exceed their expenses, they are wicked profiteering exploiters who should be forcibly brought down a peg.

Examinator doubts that the average person is able to make informed choices on products; but has no doubt that *he* knows better, both as to what he should buy, and what they should, as well as what communications should be allowed.

When mikk buys something on the basis of information about what’s available, that’s okay because he doesn’t use “human psychology”; but other people use human psychology and for that they should be imprisoned. If they resist being imprisoned, they should be beaten or shot.

Rapscallion looks down on the populace and sh/ts on them from a great height.

It goes without saying that everyone else wouldn’t know what they want or need; no need to prove it. Rapscallion is far above all that; he has access to absolute and perpetual truth, and is in a position to tell everyone else what communications they should be permitted to make on everything.

Oh by the way, Sarah, it’s a criminal offence in Australia not to vote. So were you being ignorant or just dishonest when you said governments are ‘freely elected’? Either way, there goes your entire argument.

No-one has a gun at their head forcing them to buy Coca-Cola. And unlike private corporations, there is no law against politicians and bureaucrats engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct. Furthermore you have no way of unbundling their policy offerings, no way to distinguish policies you want from policies you don’t want, and in any event, most of the policies of the major parties are the same. If we applied the same standards to them as they apply to businesses, all politicians would be in prison.

As force and fraud are illegal for private businesses, and all their revenues are the result of voluntary transactions; and as both force and fraud are legal for governments, and all their revenues are the result of coerced transactions, there is not the slightest reason to think governments are more to be trusted about what communications should be allowed.

In the history of ideas, the theory that people have no autonomy and are just the objects of wicked capitalist exploiters, came from the Frankfurt school of neo-Marxist sociologists, trying to explain why Marx’s predictions, on which he based his claim of ‘scientific’ socialism, didn’t eventuate. They decided, like Sarah, it’s because everyone else is to stupid to know what they are doing, what is good for them; and they are the mere pawns and automatons of the ruling class.

But of course if that’s true, how did Sarah, examinator, mikk and their neo-Marxist ilk get to be in this position of superior knowledge, competence, and virtue? What a pack of nasty, arrogant, hypocritical, censorious, violent know-it-alls!

"The governments, who make the laws, are freely elected; no one votes for an advertising company. One could also note (albeit rather tritely) that advertising is self-evidently not free speech - it is bought and paid for".

My interpretation of all your viewpoints outlined above PeterHume is that of utter rubbish. The "freely elected" connotation Sarah has used is a comparison. If you cannot comprehend someone's article or comments; or choose to deliberately misinterpret people's articles and comments, it is best you do not bother at all.

I am annoyed with you about something regarding another thread also. I asked you questions on the Haiti childrens sexual exploitation thread which you totally ignored; yet, you could find a second to generalise about my character inferring I held a view as a middle aged matron. You are fine to fire bullets Peterhume however weak when it comes down to giving explanations as to why you post a query asking people why they should accept the age of consent "just because it is legal/legislated/law". You asked for reasons explaining why this law should not be law.

I gave you reasons that were validated and would be common sense to most people who loved and cared for the well being [psychologically and physically]. Your response did not answer my queries put to you. Instead, you choose to generalise about another person's character as opposed to addressing fairly the responses you sought. The men guys young girls I work around would laugh at your comment.

Another question I doubt you will answer: what is your motive/angle behind posing the question? I have debated this issue with a couple of people years ago and these were adults that could not relate to children nor young people socially and did not have any respect or care for children, particularly young girls.

Peter Hume, I have forced myself to read several times your astonishing diatribe, and have no idea how you arrived at your quite outrageous interpretation of the article, or my own brief comments.

Boiling it all down you seem to be espousing the idea that advertising is an inherently honest, transparent activity that merely seeks to give us the opportunity to choose, and in so doing has more integrity and uses less coercion than any government. Anyone, apparently, who has reservations or criticisms of the way advertising or marketing - call it what you like - works or who seriously questions its limits or the way it commodifies people including very young children, is a member of a 'pack of nasty, arrogant, hypocritical, censorious, violent know-it-alls!' The corollary of your position is total de-regulation.

Nasty? Hypocritical? Violent?
How so? How so, Peter Hume?
Such fabulous vituperation and so little relevance.

You have not addressed one word to the points made in the article; it's as if you have not read it at all. Frankly, you sound like some zealous follower of Ayn Rand or von Hayek. Sarah was also concerned about autonomy - that of children, for example, who are not considered to be autonomous in a sexual relationship but are considered autonomous consumers by the advertising industry.

And I? I have 'access to absolute and perpetual truth ... in a position to tell everyone else what communications they should be permitted to make on everything'! Peter, I am the one defending the intelligence of the average person against the ubiquitous and perpetual assault on it, not you; for you, advertising is simply the meeting of transparent communication with perfectly untrammelled and rational free will.

For all your railing, there is just the slightest possibility, isn't there, that modern communications' use of psychology might actually be able to induce mass credit-driven consumption, which is the sole basis of 'economic growth' in our society? Why, I have succumbed utterly to it myself. Sometimes, though, self-criticism and detachment is required in order to understand the process and reasons for concern.

Rapscallion:

"the entire vast edifice of advertising/marketing/fashion/hype/consumerism is devoted to bypassing, breaching or corroding the intelligence of the populace"

It looks like it has already worked.

I'm interested, do you also wear tin foil hats?

I would like to believe that most of the population is capable of making their own decisions and have the b*lls to take responsibility for their actions.

I do not need a nanny state to sanitize my every interaction with the outside world.

This is a recurring theme on OLO - the "Nanny State" versus rampant freedoms and deregulation.

You don't have to be a Marxist (neo or otherwise) to advocate for regulation in some areas.

People should, be left to make their own decisions in regard to their personal life it is no-one's business unless of course their actions cause harm to others. Although what constitutes "harm" may be disputed.

The recent problems with the Insulation Program should be enough to demonstrate that lack of government oversight and rush to implement led to a decline in standards and abuse by some private operators.

In reality we cannot always trust governments to act competently or ethically at all times, but neither can we always trust in the private sector to act in responsible ways. The first priority of the private sector is to make money, ethics may or may not be a part of that goal.

Balance is a word bandied about a lot, and there are disagreements on where the middle ground is or where the pendulum should sit in terms of advertising standards. Despite the fact advertising standards exist, do people really think it should be open slather for industry to self-regulate in relation to marketing, particularly when the target audience is children?

Get real.

To all those here who can avoid the brainwashing and manipulation of your emotions by marketing good on you.

But have you ever considered for a second that maybe not everybody is a strong willed as you? Not everybody is as smart as you. Some people are just too harried and tired to do the thinking necessary to distinguish hyperbole and distortion in advertising? Have you ever considered that not everyone is like you? Or is it that in your bigotry and arrogance that you just think you're better than other people?

Have a bit of empathy and caring, especially about children who arent able to discriminate and avoid being influenced by advertising. Children are used to being told things by adults and tend to believe what they are told without question. This extends to advertising leaving them unable to distinguish what is good for them and what is good for the corporation.

The evidence is clear and the results frightening. Advertising does work otherwise companies would not do it and the resulting unhealthy overconsumption and waste are part of what is driving humanity towards a catastrophic collapse and mindless servility. And once again it is capitalism with its worship of profits at any cost that is the root cause. When will people wake up?

W.A.U.
Parents, their offspring and their offsprings’ sexual partners have conflicting interests. Citing the interest of the parent does not self-evidently justify using force to get your way.

I reject personal argument. When I use personal argument, it’s *in addition to*, not *in substitition of* substantive argument.


Rapscallion
There’s no need for you to tell me what I think, nor construct my argument for me.

People don’t have to prove to you that there is good reason why their communications should be permitted: - you have to prove that there is good reason they shouldn’t. Therefore it’s not a question of whether one thinks advertising is an inherently honest, transparent activity, whether it is an assault on the intelligence, whether it is to induce consumption, etc., any more than whether any other communication is. The question is whether to illegalize it, that is, whether to use force – the law – to stop it.

Yes, people should be free to do what they want so long as they are not aggressing against the person or property of others. But fraud, as well as misleading and deceptive advertising are already illegal – (for private persons and corporations; not for politicians or governments). The reason Sarah and you, correct me if I’m wrong, want to control advertising is not because it’s aggressing against the person or property of others, but because you *don’t agree* either
a) that the people are capable of deciding for themselves whether they should have a particular product or service, and
b) that they should be consuming goods or services if they would not have consumed them but for the advertising.

But so what if you don’t agree? It’s none of your business. You could say the same about any communication: perhaps people are selfishly motivated, perhaps they are biased towards mentioning benefits, perhaps they don’t know what’s in their own best interest, as much in a family dispute, or a lover’s proposal, or a meeting of a soccer club, or a business meeting. It’s not a reason to criminalise people’s behaviour.

>How so? How so, Peter Hume?

Hypocritical, because you don’t practise what you preach. You criticize others for consuming goods and services to satisfy their wants, while yourself consuming goods and services to satisfy your wants; pretending to a higher moral standard for your own.

Violent, because you propose to use violence or threats of violence to force people acting peaceably against their will to obey you.

Nasty, because the fact you try to violently suppress other people’s communications because you think you are superior both to the sender (immorally motivated) and the receiver (too stupid to know what’s good for them), is offensive and objectionable.

>You have not addressed one word to the points made in the article:

Yes I have: I have refuted the assumptions on which the entire article rests, namely, that Sarah knows what’s better for the consumers, than the consumers; and that government would have a better moral title to regulate advertising, than the advertisers and consumers.

>Sarah was also concerned about autonomy

Sarah was so concerned about autonomy that she proposes to substitute her will for others’. The entire article was a proposal that others should be forced against their will to do what Sarah wants.

>For all your railing, there is just the slightest possibility, isn't there, that modern communications' use of psychology might actually be able to induce mass credit-driven consumption, which is the sole basis of 'economic growth' in our society?

It’s possible but not probable, because the interest of any given advertiser is to promote sales of their particular product, not to promote mass credit-driven consumption in general. The sole basis of economic growth is the desire of people to satisfy their wants. If it were not driven by credit, it would be driven by savings.

> Sometimes, though, self-criticism and detachment is required in order to understand the process and reasons for concern.

No-one is arguing against self-criticism and detachment. But that’s not the issue, which is, whether people should be imprisoned for making non-fraudulent, non-misleading, non-deceptive communications, for no other reason than that Rapscallion esquire doesn’t agree with them.

"I reject personal argument. When I use personal argument, it’s *in addition to*, not *in substitition of* substantive argument".[PeterHume].

Yet again; shot yourself in the foot PeterHume.

You labelled myself and others "middle aged matrons". That is 'personal argument'.

In reference to your other comments regarding conflicts of interests with parents and their offspring and issues of concern with one's children:

Q: why did God or Evolution create Mothers and Fathers [parents] Peter Hume. A: To love, guard, protect, meet the emotional and physical needs of children, and teach them their life skills to the best of their abilities PeterHume.

Advertising and impact of advertising regarding children:

I agree with Sarah regardless of her background or career/station in life.

One of Sarah's points is factual and clear to any parent who loves and cares for their children's health and wellbeing: it is time again for further monitoring of the advertising industry.

Most adults are able to discipline themselves and tune out to advertising; children who frequently view television programs also view the advertising and many primary school aged children are brainwashed and/or influenced by advertising [a great deal of it negative]to children.

Best of wishes to you PeterHume, I feel sorry for you in relation to your line of thinking on quite a few issues.

>You labelled myself and others "middle aged matrons". That is 'personal argument'.

Yes, it's personal argument in addition to, not instead of substantive argument.

> Q: why did God or Evolution create Mothers and Fathers [parents] Peter Hume.

I don't know about God, but a parent shares fifty percent of their genes with their offspring; however the offspring shares a hundred percent of their genes with themselves. So as to evolution, the interests of the parents cannot be assumed to be identical to those of the child.

You might say the rule should be, in general: “the parent is always right”, and (parental abuse aside) that is the general rule. But that does not translate into a rule that *the state* is always right, which it would need to be to justify the age of consent laws.

And the rule of parental authority is because a *child* is too immature to make decisions for themselves. But the issue with age of consent laws is precisely whether a person should still be considered a “child”, even though they are under the age of majority. So it is mere circular argument to say the age of consent should be 16 because anyone under that age is a child for purposes of a discussion of sexuality, and anyone is a child because they are under 16.

Putting aside that circularity, you are just assuming that the interest of the offspring, however sexually mature, and the offspring’s sexual partner should automatically be overridden by the conflicting interest of the parent, even if the parent is motivated not by child protection, but by sexual morality or even sexual jealousy. (Like my father-in-law, who declared in a fit of jealous pique that my wife, when a teenager, would not be allowed to have a boyfriend until she was 27(!)). There is no reason why this most base, possessive, primitive emotion of sexual jealousy should be the basis of the law.

>One of Sarah's points is factual and clear to any parent who loves and cares for their children's health and wellbeing: it is time again for further monitoring of the advertising industry.

That is not in issue. The question is who should do it: the parents or the state.

>Most adults are able to discipline themselves and tune out to advertising; children who frequently view television programs also view the advertising and many primary school aged children are brainwashed and/or influenced by advertising [a great deal of it negative]to children.

That is a reason for the parents to exercise their parental responsibility, not for the state to control what information everyone else, including adults, are permitted to see.

You have completely confused the parents with the state, and the interests of the parents with the conflicting interests of their sexually mature and consenting offspring. The result is that you are trying to treat yourself, via the state, as the parent, and everyone else as naughty children who are to do as they are told. But you are not the parent of everyone else, you do not have a surplus of goodness and wisdom, and you have not justified the coercion you defend other than by circular argument.

Peter Hume
You argument of state versus parent in this context, is at best, a doctrinally absolutist one, rather than one base in the real world.

I would suggest, it is rooted in your self possessed political myopia.
You ignore the purpose of society and the basis of democracy .

Your view, can be depicted as, I'm OK therefore, everyone else who isn't it's their fault/responsibility not mine or society's.

Such views either smacks social Darwinism in their lack of concern for others or over estimate any parent's ability to change their environment this side of societal disengagement i.e. isolationist.

Either way I find it unrealistic, philosophically and morally moribund.

Satisfied yourself with that spiteful ventilation of spleen have you?

The social Darwinist gibe is on the other foot: it is you who favour the stronger using force against the weaker to take and do whatever they want. The basis of democracy is not to threaten and bullyrag others into obeying your opinion for no other reason than that they are peaceably involved in doing something you don’t like. So much for your idea of the purpose of society. It is you who has the lack of concern for others: “just imprison anyone who makes a peep I disagree with”.

It’s you who has the doctrinally absolutist argument: the state is always right, force is always justified as the basis of social co-operation, and whatever the circumstances, the state has superior knowledge and morality, even where you can’t give a reason. You don’t like what you see on television, so instead of turning it off like a responsible human being, you cry like a child for the state to supply all your security and comfort – by imprisoning people who don’t conform with your religion of self-deification.

Honestly, it’s like talking to a pack of sniveling children.

The basic premise underlying Sarah’s article is that the decision whether a product is bought takes place in the mind of the producer, not the consumer. According to this view, no business would ever lose money.

The reality is that most businesses go broke every year. People’s incomes are limited, so they *must* choose among the various products that are for sale. (And if their incomes were not limited, Sarah, mikk, examinator and Rapscallion would say that’s bad for the environment. Thus the Marxists argue both that capitalism grinds the faces of the poor *and* that it makes the masses too rich.)

Sarah’s theory also involves the assumption that people make no autonomous purchasing decisions, but merely react to stimuli presented by the producers and their agents. But if that is so, then how do Sarah et al avoid the fate of the automatons that comprise the population? How do the producers, who are also consumers at the supermarket, avoid this Pavlovian manipulation? And how do the consumers, who are also producers in their day jobs, gain the ability to dictate consumption as concerns their own product, but lose it as concerns everyone else’s?

The basic idea is that “consumption” is somehow instrinscially bad. But without consumption how are we supposed to live? And how is Sarah, mikk, Rapscalion or examinator any different, or any better, on that score, than the people they presume to correct?

It might be said that a certain amount of consumption is okay, but our levels of consumption are excessive. But in that case, the argument is against consumption itself, not advertising. We should imprison people for consuming nappies, and quantities of dog food that they merely want, not need. The state should make all decisions on consumption

And *how* would we decide what is the appropriate – moral - level of consumption that is to be permitted? The Aborigines lived with a very simple list of tools and commodities, so strictly speaking we may *want*, but don’t *need* anything more than that. It’s just that one in five children died in their first year, and half didn’t reach age 15.

Mikk complains that capitalist production involves the “commodification” of human beings. But what human relation or interaction, in any place in any time, would that *not* describe, given that human beings associate because they materially benefit from living in society?

Examinator in another thread considers himself to be open-minded. But what truly open-minded people do, when meeting with an unrefutable disproof of their views, is to *re-think their claims*, not immediately descend into spiteful personal name-calling at the level of the schoolyard.

Peter Hume, addressing me (and the author of the article):
<<you *don’t agree* either
a) that the people are capable of deciding for themselves whether they should have a particular product or service, and
b) that they should be consuming goods or services if they would not have consumed them but for the advertising.>>

I speak only for myself here...
Absolute rubbish on both counts. You are so blinkered that almost the whole of your 'argument' is a straw man.
I even stated baldly in my contribution, 'I have succumbed utterly to it myself'. No doubt the word 'succumbed' will be seen as pejorative.

There are more straw men, pathologically divined, below...

Hume again:
<<Hypocritical, because you don’t practise what you preach. You criticize others for consuming goods and services to satisfy their wants, while yourself consuming goods and services to satisfy your wants

Violent, because you propose to use violence or threats of violence to force people acting peaceably against their will to obey you.

Nasty, because the fact you try to violently suppress other people’s communications because you think you are superior both to the sender (immorally motivated) and the receiver (too stupid to know what’s good for them), is offensive and objectionable.>>

There is nothing to say about this drivel but ... #$!cough... splutter!*#... choke$#&!...
There isn't one word in the above that isn't a complete fabrication. Fabulous and fantastical!

And...
<<the issue, which is, whether people should be imprisoned for making non-fraudulent, non-misleading, non-deceptive communications, for no other reason than that Rapscallion esquire doesn’t agree with them.>>

I can hardly breathe.
Imprisoned?
There is simply no way to debate, argue, converse or have any other kind of communicative intercourse with you Mr Hume. I challenge you to find *ONE* statement I have made which supports any of the accusations above.

I reckon Mr Hume talks sense.

'you try to violently suppress other people’s communications because you think you are superior both to the sender (immorally motivated) and the receiver (too stupid to know what’s good for them), is offensive and objectionable.'

Hard to refute.

Rapscallion,

'There isn't one word in the above that isn't a complete fabrication. Fabulous and fantastical!'

They're logical conclusions from the pro-censorship argument. You can say you don't explicitly propose that, but the idea behind censorship conforms to the quote I picked above.

Well, except for the 'violently'. Really, a bureaucratic interference, followed by nasty letter followed by a fine is hardly violent.

More Hume:

<<The sole basis of economic growth is the desire of people to satisfy their wants. If it were not driven by credit, it would be driven by savings.>>

Old hat. It used to be to satisfy their needs, but we have gone way beyond that stage.
Now, the proposition that the sole basis of modern economic growth is the creation of desires and wants is almost certainly true.

No, it would not be driven by savings. The rate of economic growth would be much too slow, stagnate or even become permanently negative. The vast majority of people would simply never be able to save enough (or any amount at all) to buy things like cars, overseas holidays and home theatre systems. Mere stagnation would deny people the right to consume! That is why mass credit exists, then, simply to enable intelligent and rational individuals to buy what they have freely decided they want to have, Peter. A savings-based economy would deny them this freedom, no?

Finally...

<<I have refuted the assumptions on which the entire article rests, namely, that Sarah knows what’s better for the consumers, than the consumers; and that government would have a better moral title to regulate advertising, than the advertisers and consumers... The entire article was a proposal that others should be forced against their will to do what Sarah wants.>>

You've refuted nothing, because you have entirely misrepresented the article. Straw man again, in extremis. The nature and extent of advertising is the legitimate concern of many people who have no wish to abolish it altogether. The idea that it should be free of all regulation is unacceptable in our society; Sarah posits some reasons why the role of advertising could reasonably be examined anew, and discusses a British report, 'Compass', about the 'chaged advertising environment'. Note that it is subtitled 'How do we get the balance of advertising right'. Any chance some of you who rail against the so-called 'nanny state' would actually read it? You won't like it, but at least you might then see how reasonable Sarah's position is.

Houellebecq:
<<They're logical conclusions from the pro-censorship argument. You can say you don't explicitly propose that, but the idea behind censorship conforms to the quote I picked above.>>

Ah, I see, it's an argument about censorship is it. You FRAME it that way, Houellebecq (I've read Houellebecq, btw), and for many individualists and libertarians it shuts out legitimate discussion. You know that book by George Lakoff, the doyen of framing, 'Don't Think of an Elephant'?

An alternative frame could be regulation. Others might see it in terms of protection of children. And are there NO legitimate concerns about fraud, deception, dishonesty, lying, psychological manipulation etc that should possibly NOT be circumscribed by adopting the censorship frame? Perhaps existing laws about these things need to be re-examined; I believe that is what Sarah was arguing.

The nature of society has changed; the nature of the economy, the nature of consumption of goods and services, the nature of advertising - they have all changed, surely, and all you can do is invoke 'censorship' to resolve questions of individuals' rights in the face of mass media advertising? The analogy doesn't hold as advertising has a different purpose from other forms of publication, and advertisers must heed certain rights of individuals as 'consumers' - if I may use that term - which other forms of mass communication and literature and art do not. I don't view the issues about advertising through the censorship frame, so I ask you, is the right of an advertiser to speak or broadcast an absolute?

If I say that I do not agree with untrammelled, unregulated advertising it does NOT logically follow that I favour censorship in the broad sense of the word. You and Hume and others seek to defend and protect the ordinary person, it seems to me, from those that claim (you say) to know what is best for them; many of those perfectly rational freely choosing individuals who apparently do not need protecting from advertising methods would also disagree vehemently with you on censorship. I'll bet on it.

Rapscallion

1.
The fact is, you want to stop people from making certain communications because you think they should not be making them. And the reason you think they shouldn't be making them, is because you think the intended recipients people shouldn't be receiving them?

Is that true? Yes/no?

2.
And the reason you believe these certain communications should be stopped, is that they are not, according to you, really for purposes of satisfying people needs?

Correct? Yes/no?

3.
And the means you propose to use to control these communications is government regulation: the law?

Yes?

4.
And the reason you want to use the law to enforce your opinion, is that you know that if you don't, people would be free to choose whether to comply or not, and they would not comply, which is, from your point of view, the original problem you are trying to solve by using regulation?

Correct?

5.
And the whole point of the exercise, is that by regulation, you want them *not* to be free to choose whether to comply with your opinion? You want them to be forced to comply whether they want to or not?

Yes/no?

6.
And the reason they will be forced to comply whether they want to or not, is because the effect of regulation, will be to apply force or threats which would otherwise be illegal? All regulators' letters, notices, fines and so on, ultimately are backed up by a threat of armed force? Ultimately, if people don't obey, armed men will physically overpower and seize them; if they resist and defend their freedom or property, they will be tasered or shot, and whether they resist or not, they will be locked in a cage.

Yes? No?

7. And this entire exercise will require:
a) you to decide the difference between what other people want and what they need?
b) your opinion on this distinction to prevail against the assessment of the people themselves as to what their wants and needs are?
c) your opinion to be backed up by force against their will?

Peter Hume, your unintentionally amusing post above adds exactly nothing to what you have already said. Clearly, in your best of all possible worlds advertising is not a human activity that should be the subject of regulations and laws of any kind; regulation is synonymous it seems with violent dictatorship or at best paternalistic bureaucratic democracy. This despite the existence of regulations in most countries; would you argue for their entire elimination, or that they would never need to be adjusted?

Your ludicrous sequence of questions merely attempts to work one into the silliest, most predictable of corners, something you could gloat over from your own tiny corner as being what you had exaggeratedly, even fantastically, claimed from the beginning, something tantamount to, "Oh, they want to regulate advertising; they're moralistic and paternalistic enough to think people can't decide for themselves; much worse, they're communists or somesuch, maybe fascits, likely to throw advertisers into prison or shoot them."

Yes, that's what it amounts to. And your supposedly logical sequence doesn't even hold up for more than a line or two. You hop from the bleeding obvious in point 1 to
<<And the reason you believe these certain communications should be stopped, is that they are not, according to you, really for purposes of satisfying people needs?>>
NO.
Why 'according to' me? According to YOU!
This is what hamstrings everything you write; you will unto others condemnation for what does not logically follow from their utterances.
It just doesn't follow, not from point 1 nor in terms of its internal 'logic'. It proceeds from a false premise and has no internal logic. Even if ads were explicitly and solely about the most elemental needs, it would not necessarily mean those ads were not also essentially dishonest, manipulative, intrusive, undignified, racist, homophobic, exploitative, jingoistic, anti-social, disguised as 'news', uttered by radio announcers who didn't declare their vested interest, and so on.

So, since you have painted yourself into the corner of wanting a 'yes' for that one, there's no need to go any further. Not that I would.

Rapscallion
If we take away your mind-reading, misrepresentation, evasion, and assuming what's in issue, there's nothing left. I didn't say advertising should not be regulated. The fact is, it already is. The question is, whether it should be any more.

"Even if ads were explicitly and solely about the most elemental needs, it would not necessarily mean those ads were not also essentially dishonest [etc.].."

Not it wouldn't necessarily mean they weren't, and it wouldn't necessarily mean they were, either, would it? And so what? The onus is on everyone else to disprove a negative, is it?

In any event, the same could be said of any communications. In fact, there's more chance that other communications are dishonest etc., because misleading and deceptive conduct, or conduct likely to mislead or deceive, are already illegal in trade or commerce, but not in other forms of mass communication, literature and art and so on.

So you still haven't established that ads should be regulated, any more than any other communication; or any more than they are already.

And stop evading. Do you want more regulation of advertising or not? If so, what are to be the criteria if not your arbitrary opinion? How are the regulations to be enforced? If they are to be enforced, admit you intend to use coercion to force other people to obey your arbitrary opinion, and stop trying to squirm out of it. If your communications offend personal opinions of mine, do I have an equal right to punish you for communications you make?

Attributing arguments to me that I'm not making does not make your position any less arbitrary, violent and intolerant.

Peter Hume:

<< If we take away your mind-reading, misrepresentation, evasion, and assuming what's in issue, there's nothing left >>

Peter Hume in his first post about Sarah Burnside's article:

<< When Sarah Burnside consumes things, that’s fine, but when other people consume things, it’s because they’re too stupid to understand what they want or need...

When Sarah communicates with her clients about something she thinks that they might benefit from or want, it goes without saying that that is good and necessary. But when other people communicate with their customers about something they think they might benefit from or want, they are cynical, self-interested, deceptive hypocrites who should be imprisoned.

... she already knows both what everyone else in the world think they want or need, and what they do want or need, without having to ask. They are invariably wrong. And guess who’s right?

When Sarah makes money, that’s fine, and if anything it should be a bit more; but when other people make money, they are untrustworthy and immoral.

When Sarah’s income exceeds her expenses, that is only because of her good sense and management, but when other people’s income exceed their expenses, they are wicked profiteering exploiters who should be forcibly brought down a peg. >>

and so on.

No comment necessary.

Over and out.