|
| Thread: Free Market |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted September 27, 2013 09:05 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Yes, but I also have the right to ignore my self-interest. The real question here is, does my right of ownership surpass the martial emergency, putting many others at risk.
Well, isn't the state putting lives in danger by protecting it's land? If they really wanna avoid bloodshed they should just capitulate.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 27, 2013 09:31 PM |
|
|
artu:
Ownership is good because it's in your self-interest and when it's in your self-interest. So whether it's in your interest or not is a critical consideration. It's true that much of it is subjective, and requires local knowledge that some bureaucrat or legislator doesn't have, so in the vast majority of cases, we should say that the individual in question is better-equipped to know what's in his self-interest than an outsider would. For example, if some guy likes his house, and the government wants his territory to build a highway through it, it's hard to say that the money he'd receive for it (if the land were seized) would be worth more to him than his house would have been, so to be forced to accept it would be against his self-interest. But in more extreme (and, for that reason, less common) cases, it can be determined that someone is acting against their self-interest. For example, if your city is going to be hit with several nukes, and the guy's territory is the only place where you can build a defense shield, there is a high risk of a nuclear attack, and the guy refuses to sell, then he is definitely acting against his self-interest. In that case, ownership isn't serving his self-interest, and if he thinks it is, he's mistaken.
By the way, a less extreme form of the same scenario is what justifies taxation to fund national defense. Indeed, taxation is also seizure of property, but in the form of money.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 27, 2013 10:45 PM |
|
|
Why don't you try answering this?
Stevie said:
Just wanna jump some steps...
Suppose Darth Vader comes to Earth and demands humanity to build a statue of himself on your land for worship purpose or else he would use his Death Start to evaporate the planet. But then he comes to you saying that he would give you 10 times more than humanity would give to you to save it + regardless of what your choise is, you live. Would you sell your land or still refuse?
Think I marked the spot with this one 
Would you put self-interest above someone's life?
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 27, 2013 10:49 PM |
|
|
Your scenario is absurd but no, is not in my self-interest to live with the guilt of having allowed billions of people to die.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 27, 2013 10:59 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 23:02, 27 Sep 2013.
|
xerox said:
is not in my self-interest to live with the guilt of having allowed billions of people to die.
Someone might argue that you don't know what your self-interest is
But suppose that Vader asks you to willingly be put to death so that humanity is spared. Would you agree? Will you be able to sacrifice yourself for the sake of someone else?
xerox said:
Your scenario is absurd
It's for the sake of the argument, please bear with it
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 27, 2013 11:19 PM |
|
|
No because there's no way to be sure he won't destroy the planet anyway.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 27, 2013 11:37 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 23:45, 27 Sep 2013.
|
He wouldn't have bothered with all of this if he was going to destroy the planet anyway. Just suppose he's telling the truth..
The point of this is not the scenario. The only thing that matters here is your answer to this question: "Would you sacrifice yourself, thus your interest, for the sake of someone's life?"
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 27, 2013 11:51 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 23:53, 27 Sep 2013.
|
If you think you can tell me what to suppose, your reasoning fails. What is your point anyway?
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 28, 2013 12:20 AM |
|
|
|
My point is that there are situations that cannot be judged on the basis of "interest". And I wanted to point that out by having you answer those questions. The notion of 'sacrifice' flies in the face of personal gain.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 28, 2013 12:58 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 01:02, 28 Sep 2013.
|
No, it doesn't. Self-interest doesn't have to be physical or material. You can critise a person for thinking that he or she does not act in his or her own self-interest. That doesn't mean the person reasons or feels that way.
(english really needs a gender neutral he/she word)
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 28, 2013 07:33 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 07:34, 28 Sep 2013.
|
xerox said:
(english really needs a gender neutral he/she word)
You're preaching to the choir there. It's especially annoying to me since in my language, the singular third person is always gender neutral. I dislike using he/she and him/her. There are many situations it's an advantage providing agility too, of course. like in "The more she waited the more he was driven away" or "It wasn't him, it was her." You'd have to put a "the boy/the girl" etc etc on there for the sentence to make sense in Turkish or it would be like "It wasn't him, it was him." But still, there are many times it's just annoying.
mvass said:
Ownership is good because it's in your self-interest and when it's in your self-interest.
Ok, I'll skip the subjectivity stuff, since we've been through that and more importantly, this isn't about ethics but rather about free market. What you're saying here is, the core idea is not freedom, but benefit. So, just like communism, you have a predetermined idea of self-interest for the people, instead of people deciding themselves. The only difference is, while communism sees that interest in collectivity, you see it in individualism. A quite twisted individualism if you ask me, since you'll be dictating them what their self-interest "actually" is.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 28, 2013 08:10 AM |
|
|
Considering that the vast majority of the time, I don't know what their interest is, I wouldn't consider it "dictating". Economic value is subjective, and I don't know what trade-offs any particular person prefers. People should be free to make decisions for themselves. The exceptions to this rule of thumb are when it's obvious that people are acting against their self-interest, such as when physically healthy people risk a high chance of death for no good reason.
Wait, is your question what I'd want, or what the free market answer would be?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted September 28, 2013 08:36 AM |
|
|
Quote:
People should be free to make decisions for themselves. The exceptions to this rule of thumb are when it's obvious that people are acting against their self-interest, such as when physically healthy people risk a high chance of death for no good reason.
Off-topic but where do you draw the line and why should this kind of behaviour be forbidden?
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 28, 2013 09:43 AM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 09:56, 28 Sep 2013.
|
artu said:
this isn't about ethics but rather about free market.
"this isn't about sports, it's about baseball"
Every human right is based on morality and ethics, freedom included.
JoonasTo said:
Off-topic but where do you draw the line and why should this kind of behaviour be forbidden?
There's no line. Once you get someone else to decide what's "in your interest" is when your freedom ends. If property rights are absolute then the owner should do with what he owns whatever he wants.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 28, 2013 10:05 AM |
|
|
Joonas:
That kind of behavior should be forbidden because it is virtually guaranteed that if the person involved had a full understanding of both the situation and his own preferences, he would act otherwise. It's not overriding other people's interests, but adjusting a person's choices when they are clearly at odds with what they themselves would prefer in a reflective equilibrium.
As for where to draw the line, that's a difficult question. There are some cases in which it's obvious, such as the case with the nukes, but in other cases it's less clear-cut. We should err on the side of caution. To make such decisions, both a good knowledge of human nature and of the specific situation/policy are required.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 28, 2013 11:33 AM |
|
|
@mvassilev
Artu said it right:
artu said:
So, just like communism, you have a predetermined idea of self-interest for the people, instead of people deciding themselves.
When others get to decide what's best for you, it's the end of your freedom. Society,the state, the government,etc. could enforce anything they want on you and if you refuse then label you insane, not knowing what your 'interest' is. According to you this would give them the means to 'legaly' ignore your property rights and your freedom of choise.
That's 100% communism.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted September 28, 2013 12:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
That's 100% communism.
That's 0% communism. I guess nowadays it's far more mainstream to repeat shallow US propaganda from the Cold War ages than to actually read a few books about what communism is.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 28, 2013 01:46 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 13:49, 28 Sep 2013.
|
Zenofex said:
Quote:
That's 100% communism.
That's 0% communism. I guess nowadays it's far more mainstream to repeat shallow US propaganda from the Cold War ages than to actually read a few books about what communism is.
You just have no clue what you're talking about. Abolition of private property and private property rights, abolition of inheritance rigts and confiscation of property are all on the communist agenda. If you're so fond of reading I suggest you read these things in Marx's Communist Manifesto, then talk. Oh, and just so you know, I actually lived communism on my skin, not read it from books.
As for the US, it's closely pursuing a socialist agenda, but you have to actually be informed to know these things.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 28, 2013 01:48 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 16:04, 28 Sep 2013.
|
mvassilev said:
Wait, is your question what I'd want, or what the free market answer would be?
Both, free market itself is quite a vague term for me, you can stretch it anywhere you like since it hasn't been fully practiced (whether it can or not was one of the main questions of the thread). So, I'm kind of assuming what you'd want would also portray your version of a free market.
@Zenofex
Of course, it's not communism, I didn't say that. I just pointed out to something common in them, especially if we're not talking about what Marx theorized but what actually happened. Yes, it was not hell and it wasn't -naturally- as horrific as it was shown in anti-propaganda but it was not a working system either. We already discussed this, so you know I don't think it would have been possibly much different in practice.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted September 28, 2013 02:34 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 14:44, 28 Sep 2013.
|
Stevie said:
Zenofex said:
Quote:
That's 100% communism.
That's 0% communism. I guess nowadays it's far more mainstream to repeat shallow US propaganda from the Cold War ages than to actually read a few books about what communism is.
You just have no clue what you're talking about. Abolition of private property and private property rights, abolition of inheritance rigts and confiscation of property are all on the communist agenda. If you're so fond of reading I suggest you read these things in Marx's Communist Manifesto, then talk. Oh, and just so you know, I actually lived communism on my skin, not read it from books.
As for the US, it's closely pursuing a socialist agenda, but you have to actually be informed to know these things.
I've read the Manifesto. And Das Kapital. And the other major works of Marx and Engels. You should do that too. If you do it, you'd know that communism has never existed, anywhere, at any time, except in very small, closed and usually isolated societies. Moreover, I'm from Eastern Europe. What we had here was not communism. What the Soviets had in USSR was not communism and what the Koreans, the Cubans and the Chinese currently have is not communism. Read something besides the Manifesto and you'll probably find out why.
@artu, the communism as described by Marx has some fundamental flaws which become obvious if you simply follow Marx's own philosophy (in other words, he didn't really prove that some things are possible, he just... hoped that they will be but his own method showed otherwise). Historically though, everything is flawed from the very start. Instead of rich, advanced and influential state (Marx thought that the best starting point would be Britain or a similarly developed country), the socialism is first introduced in a poor, backwater, semi-feudal empire with long autocratic traditions, after a great war followed by an even worse civil war. Considering the environment, there was just no way to develop the democratic society that was needed to advance even those of Marx and Engels ideas which are actually applicable in reality. The rest is history.
|
| |
|
|
