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.