Cowardly Refugee Running Away From Problems

[TomViolenz]

Unfortunately for your workers, their labour just isn't all useful to anyone, which is why their survival is now uncertain. This is a basic question of supply and demand. Captain hindsight would spank them for having families in the first place. How very irresponsible of them.

lol
What a strange world it must be living inside your head... (Not meant to offend, I'm just astonished )

I'll admit that intellectual rigor can often take you wonderful, unexpected places.

That's exactly what I meant to say.

[re:dream]

I dunno

Is it rigour, or is it rigidity?

Goalpost-moving and point-scoring aside, I am just not convinced.

Your argument for laissez-faire is that, if people are left alone to transact among themselves, then whatever mutually satisfactorily deal they reach among themselves has to be accepted as the best possible outcome *for them*. And far be it from me, the nanny state, to intervene.

Something like that, no?

But that holds true only if the two parties are transacting freely and equally. If there is a systematic power imbalance between the two, you can no longer claim that the outcome has this kind of fairness.

Or you could, but you'd be convincing no-one but yourself. As an argument for legitimating outcomes, it's just not a very strong one.

[TomViolenz]

Ignoring the power imbalance is part and parcel for people holding Galts opinion.
Since it is such an obvious issue, I can only assume that to be deliberate!

[Galt]

I dunno

Is it rigour, or is it rigidity?

Goalpost-moving and point-scoring aside, I am just not convinced.

Your argument for laissez-faire is that, if people are left alone to transact among themselves, then whatever mutually satisfactorily deal they reach among themselves has to be accepted as the best possible outcome *for them*. And far be it from me, the nanny state, to intervene.

Something like that, no?

But that holds true only if the two parties are transacting freely and equally. If there is a systematic power imbalance between the two, you can no longer claim that the outcome has this kind of fairness.

Or you could, but you'd be convincing no-one but yourself. As an argument for legitimating outcomes, it's just not a very strong one.

You make the mistake of assuming I hold fairness as my first value. I could argue that attempts to increase fairness generally have disastrous results, and I'd be damn convincing too, but this isn't even necessary at this point.

My position here is simply that people should be allowed to pursue their goals free from coercion. That's it. It's not complicated. I don't assume to know what's in people's best interest—I respect them enough to let them decide that. But if your first value is fairness, then by all means give to charity. Just don't try to coerce others. That just makes you a dick.

[TomViolenz]

I dunno

Is it rigour, or is it rigidity?

Goalpost-moving and point-scoring aside, I am just not convinced.

Your argument for laissez-faire is that, if people are left alone to transact among themselves, then whatever mutually satisfactorily deal they reach among themselves has to be accepted as the best possible outcome *for them*. And far be it from me, the nanny state, to intervene.

Something like that, no?

But that holds true only if the two parties are transacting freely and equally. If there is a systematic power imbalance between the two, you can no longer claim that the outcome has this kind of fairness.

Or you could, but you'd be convincing no-one but yourself. As an argument for legitimating outcomes, it's just not a very strong one.

You make the mistake of assuming I hold fairness as my first value. I could argue that attempts to increase fairness generally have disastrous results, and I'd be damn convincing too, but this isn't even necessary at this point.

My position here is simply that people should be allowed to pursue their goals free from coercion. That's it. It's not complicated. I don't assume to know what's in people's best interest—I respect them enough to let them decide that. But if your first value is fairness, then by all means give to charity. Just don't try to coerce others. That just makes you a dick.

I see this sentiment way too often!
The Right accuses the Left that helping humanity is coercion, while acting like the power imbalance is not important is the actual coercion, because it gives the powerless no choice, but to be coerced by the powerful. This obfuscation is of course deliberate. Accuse your opponent of the misdeads you are doing...such an effective strategy unfortunately

[Galt]

The capitalists love to use coercion. They have this thing called the state, with these things called prisons, and people called judges, lawyers, policemen and soldiers. If they don't like you they can use them, but first they use things like giving you the sack, putting you on a blacklist, slander in their media, etc.

No shit sherlock. This is why I'm arguing for a truly free market, without any government at all. Commies such as yourself, on the other hand, seek to increase the powers of the state in the hope that it will then wither away. Bloody genius? No, just bloody.

[Galt]

I see this sentiment way too often!
The Right accuses the Left that helping humanity is coercion, while acting like the power imbalance is not important is the actual coercion, because it gives the powerless no choice, but to be coerced by the powerful. This obfuscation is of course deliberate. Accuse your opponent of the misdeads you are doing...such an effective strategy unfortunately

There's no obfuscation at all. The world isn't fair, and nothing you do is going to change that. Nothing you can even conceive of is going to change that. To promise equality in exchange for the right to use a little coercion is a clear and malicious lie.

The real obfuscation here is by the left AND moderate right, who love to blame the power imbalance on the private sector, even though in nearly all cases, it was by the design of the state. South Africa is a great example. Apartheid anyone?

[TomViolenz]

I see this sentiment way too often!
The Right accuses the Left that helping humanity is coercion, while acting like the power imbalance is not important is the actual coercion, because it gives the powerless no choice, but to be coerced by the powerful. This obfuscation is of course deliberate. Accuse your opponent of the misdeads you are doing...such an effective strategy unfortunately

There's no obfuscation at all. The world isn't fair, and nothing you do is going to change that. Nothing you can even conceive of is going to change that. To promise equality in exchange for the right to use a little coercion is a clear and malicious lie.

The real obfuscation here is by the left AND moderate right, who love to blame the power imbalance on the private sector, even though in nearly all cases, it was by the design of the state. South Africa is a great example. Apartheid anyone?

Human society is not a natural system and hasn't been one in a L O N G time!
So how much equality/fairness we have is a decision for the people to make. There is not a lot that that the natural "real" world has to do with it, if we don't want it to.
I have that problem with a lot of your opinions. You state, "well son, life is not fair" and go from there, while if "life" is fair or not, is not relevant at all!

[Galt]

Human society is not a natural system and hasn't been one in a L O N G time!
So how much equality/fairness we have is a decision for the people to make. There is not a lot that that the natural "real" world has to do with it, if we don't want it to.
I have that problem with a lot of your opinions. You state, "well son, life is not fair" and go from there, while if "life" is fair or not, is not relevant at all!

You're asking the wrong question. "Natural" is a very loose concept. This whole discussion began with me proving that economics is an a priori science (well, at least Finn was convinced), but we seem to have gotten a little sidetracked. At this stage. I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing. If you are saying that coercion is ok, because F A I R N E S S, then that's cool. It's just not an opinion I'll ever share with you. But I certainly won't let you pretend that voluntary association is coercion if P O V E R T Y. That's just demagogy, plain and simple.

[TomViolenz]

Human society is not a natural system and hasn't been one in a L O N G time!
So how much equality/fairness we have is a decision for the people to make. There is not a lot that that the natural "real" world has to do with it, if we don't want it to.
I have that problem with a lot of your opinions. You state, "well son, life is not fair" and go from there, while if "life" is fair or not, is not relevant at all!

You're asking the wrong question. "Natural" is a very loose concept. This whole discussion began with me proving that economics is an a priori science (well, at least Finn was convinced), but we seem to have gotten a little sidetracked. At this stage. I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing. If you are saying that coercion is ok, because F A I R N E S S, then that's cool. It's just not an opinion I'll ever share with you. But I certainly won't let you pretend that voluntary association is coercion if P O V E R T Y. That's just demagogy, plain and simple.

Interesting, I didn't find the beginning of this discussion. Must have been in another thread. But I'm pretty sure that the a priory thing was already a side track. It was like this:
Me: Inheritance is bad, because power concentation and it limits what merit alone can achieve
You: But empire building! All else be kaos
Me: Well, since we have no posibilities to repeat world history under controlled conditions, neither of us can prove our position.
You: You can't prove yours, but that does not affect mine, because Economics is an a priory science

This is where you lost me. Either I don't understand why this would affect my position, but not yours, or you're just not making sense. (Could just be a language or education thing on my part of course)

But I certainly won't let you pretend that voluntary association is coercion if P O V E R T Y. That's just demagogy, plain and simple.

Same thing happens here. I don't even understand what you are trying to say.
Could you make clearer what you think my position is and why that would be demagogy?!

[Galt]

Interesting, I didn't find the beginning of this discussion. Must have been in another thread. But I'm pretty sure that the a priory thing was already a side track. It was like this:
Me: Inheritance is bad, because power concentation and it limits what merit alone can achieve
You: But empire building! All else be kaos (NICELY SPUN)
Me: Well, since we have no posibilities to repeat world history under controlled conditions, neither of us can prove our position.
You: You can't prove yours, but that does not affect mine, because Economics is an a priory science

This is where you lost me. Either I don't understand why this would affect my position, but not yours, or you're just not making sense. (Could just be a language or education thing on my part of course) (THIS IS THE A PRIORI THING)

But I certainly won't let you pretend that voluntary association is coercion if P O V E R T Y. That's just demagogy, plain and simple.

Same thing happens here. I don't even understand what you are trying to say.
Could you make clearer what you think my position is and why that would be demagogy?!

Lolz.

From your posts, we can see that you view economics as an empirical science that requires looking at history, among other things, to understand. And since, as you rightly say, we can't go back in time and change shit around to see what other outcomes could be possible, you have no way of testing YOUR theories. I, on the other hand, hold that economics is an a priori science which can be developed without delving into the past.

And since my view is logically correct, as I proved to Finn, I "win" this one. Boom.

I then accused you of demagogy because you attacked the right for pointing out that the state's way of "helping humanity" involves coercion. Which it does.

[Galt]

But the capitalists don't want it your way!

Goddamn capitalists!

[Galt]

and any blood is caused by the side that unleashes violence (your side)

Yes, because people should know better than to fight back.

[TomViolenz]

Interesting, I didn't find the beginning of this discussion. Must have been in another thread. But I'm pretty sure that the a priory thing was already a side track. It was like this:
Me: Inheritance is bad, because power concentation and it limits what merit alone can achieve
You: But empire building! All else be kaos (NICELY SPUN)
Me: Well, since we have no posibilities to repeat world history under controlled conditions, neither of us can prove our position.
You: You can't prove yours, but that does not affect mine, because Economics is an a priory science

This is where you lost me. Either I don't understand why this would affect my position, but not yours, or you're just not making sense. (Could just be a language or education thing on my part of course) (THIS IS THE A PRIORI THING)

But I certainly won't let you pretend that voluntary association is coercion if P O V E R T Y. That's just demagogy, plain and simple.

Same thing happens here. I don't even understand what you are trying to say.
Could you make clearer what you think my position is and why that would be demagogy?!

Lolz.

From your posts, we can see that you view economics as an empirical science that requires looking at history, among other things, to understand. And since, as you rightly say, we can't go back in time and change shit around to see what other outcomes could be possible, you have no way of testing YOUR theories. I, on the other hand, hold that economics is an a priori science which can be developed without delving into the past.

And since my view is logically correct, as I proved to Finn, I "win" this one. Boom.

I then accused you of demagogy because you attacked the right for pointing out that the state's way of "helping humanity" involves coercion. Which it does.

I actually tried to ommit spin as much as possible, but wanted to be brief in my summary. (And I did it from memory too)
If you feel your position was badly represented, feel free to correct me.
There was also no snark intended in my post, as it seems everytime I try to be a little snarky, people (not you though!) get offended. Probably also a language thing.
I btw. never stated that I see economy (as a system) as an empirical science.
I rather think that economy is one of those "soft" sciences (not meant in a deragotory way), where axioms about reality can be made and tested as long as one understands that the model is not the reality. I think Finn explained this better before.

I, on the other hand, hold that economics is an a priori science which can be developed without delving into the past.

But only if the system is in itself consistent! And then the results you get are only valid within this system.
If your a priori science is a representation of reality, remains to be shown. In fact this is why there is so much measurement in Economics, they try to prove themselves to be truth, when all they prove is that their system is congurent to itself.
See it as the Eve online world. You can only play according to the rules of their world and within this world everything is consistent, but it does not necessarily represent reality. Of course Economy as a science tries to get ever closer to this real world (like all good models do), but then the question becomes: Is it still an a priori system, if you make adjustments to it, that are not reflected in the original system.

[Galt]

I btw. never stated that I see economy (as a system) as an empirical science.

False! See here:

Technically neither you, nor me can support our claim, since only one history happened