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.