|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted May 21, 2014 08:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But a minute ago (figure of speech), you were telling me the company would not better the conditions if it doesn't have to and now you are telling me the workers' wages will rise with their productivity. How? The workers have no union in your system (cause they are somehow, inevitably transforming into cartels), so they are powerless. Why should the company owner reflect the rise of production to their wages, especially when you are reasoning that rise of production by keeping the wages low.
Because of competition. The more productive workers are, the more of an incentive a company has to pay them more, to lure them away from other companies or prevent them from leaving. To make it clear with an extreme example, imagine someone who can mine a ton of coal in one day - you'd better pay him a lot, or else the other company will get him. This is an extreme example, but the same applies for smaller increases in productivity as well. And this applies to absolute differences in productivity as well - if every worker becomes twice as productive, the value of keeping each worker increases, so companies bid wages up more.Quote:
To regulate and to force (and especially force as in marauders robbing you) are hardly the same thing.
What happens when I don't abide by the regulations? Force, obviously. Government regulations are backed by the threat of force, otherwise they wouldn't be regulations, they'd just be suggestions. As for the case of traffic laws, the roads aren't privately owned, so the government sets the rules for you to use them. If they were your private roads, that'd be different.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 08:11 PM |
|
|
|
but we could say, that the increase in productivity comes mostly from new technologies, and not from workers. that may be more about qualifications you are talking.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 08:13 PM |
|
|
Presumably, the new technology makes workers more productive. For example, if you invent a new pick that makes coal miners twice as productive, coal miners' wages rise for the same reasons as given above.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 08:21 PM |
|
|
|
If you violate the rules you'll be forced not to, does not mean to force and to regulate are synonymous. The non-aggression principle will also be executed with force if necessary, won't it?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 08:28 PM |
|
|
Yes, but regulations are a threat of initiatory force, i.e. there's a peaceful person going about minding their own business, and the government forces itself upon them. While in the case of the non-aggression principle, the goal is to defend people from initiations of force.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted May 22, 2014 12:30 AM |
|
|
@MVass
I think someone already mentioned your proneness to false duality. In the last passage of your reply to me, you mention the marauding bands of the pre-contract world.
But it's not either capitalism or vikings, is it? Defending feudalism by going "unless we have lords and knights to protect us, we would be pillaged by barbarians", hasn't really been a valid argument for the past several centuries. Because there are things that are neither.
***
In the passage before that one (I'm replying backwards to break the monotony), your example with the shoemaker starts with the assumption that he's producing at optimized profit - and that any further raise in the marginal price would tip him over. Not to mention that, in his case, him growing tired results in a far higher marginal price than in a factory with employees working in shifts.
And you said previously in our discussion that there can always be a short-notice increase in capacity - this is especially true here, as these factories rarely operate at maximum efficiency. If this is the case, there's no reason for them not to kick up the production due to an increase in demand, as low demand prevented them from making use of their low marginal price in the first place. Sure, there are exports, but the global market doesn't really wet its pants from excitement upon the arrival of Serbian rubber boots.
The marginal price grows meaningfully when we're talking about a longer term, with them planning on making a new factory and hiring additional workers to man it. Which wouldn't happen due to reasons I already explained.
***
I wanted to mention how you're, basically, all this time, not only defending a naturally induced monopoly, but convincing us it's more productive; but flying over your discussion with Artu I see he already mentioned it.
By now, we could probably connect Pareto's grave to an electricity generator and let it power a lightbulb from all the rolling.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 22, 2014 01:07 AM |
|
|
Bak, I promise you, if not for great Poseidon watching over your backyard, I'd be raping and pillaging it as we speak.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2014 01:08 AM |
|
|
Bak:
These are temporary marauding bands, but marauding bands nevertheless. They can call themselves "the military" or "hungry citizens" or whatever, as long as they're committing violence against me in a way that I would not agree is to my benefit, the difference between them and a marauding horde is only in magnitude.
You may call my view binary - but that's because the situation really is binary. Either the arrangement is one of peace and mutual advantage or it isn't. Claiming some authority to control my prices is not a situation of peace.
---
If the shoemaker isn't operating at optimal profit, then there's not much we can say either way. Maybe he's producing too little, but maybe he's producing too much. It's possible that he could make more of a profit by selling more - or he could be selling too much already.
There can be a short-term increase in capacity, but only in response to increased demand - and I don't think you understand how this "increased demand" thing works. Increased demand increases prices (if there's nothing preventing that), which in turn gives a reason to increase capacity. But if the prices stay the same, then capacity won't change either.
---
And what I'm saying is very Paretian. Mutual benefit means both parties are made better off. If one party is made worse off, it's not a Pareto improvement.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted May 22, 2014 12:41 PM |
|
Edited by Baklava at 12:52, 22 May 2014.
|
There you go again, watering terms down. Suddenly, every mention of a state with democratically elected policies is a marauding band.
It's not a marauding band. At all. Most of them don't even have battleaxes. No, this marauding band would ensure you get the same treatment if it was your house under water and you lost everything.
It's simply a matter of democratic contract. If the government said, "If you vote for us, we'll ensure that, in case of disaster, we'll prioritize defending the property rights of profiteers - yes, including sexual ones - over rescue missions," most people would vote for whoever said otherwise. Therefore, the incumbent government is one that said otherwise, and they're obliged to do what they said they would (politicians aren't prone to fulfilling promises - but promising to make a bridge or pull out from Iraq and then stalling is one thing; this is a far more radical change on the level of electing Republicans and them putting on the uniforms and going HA! WE WERE STALINISTS ALL ALONG).
So the police, being limited in resources and manpower, directs most of its power toward aiding critical areas, and would be unable to defend someone against a thousand angry citizens even if the law required them to. Also, the state's contract notes that, while everyone funds the state every month, in case of crisis, they fund it additionally - one of the ways in which the state requires you to do this is not raise the prices.
If a business owner does not agree to the laws of the land, he can either vote differently, found a new political option, or move elsewhere - perhaps, as you recommended to the communists, to found a small capitalist paradise, which would produce enough to pay off its obligations to the state. Of course, that's effectively impossible.
In the end, we come down to having different "shoulds", defined by our ethos. Where my "should" is more realistic, results in saving more lives, and leads to a more productive society through faster recuperation (even the small, theoretical and temporary boon to production in your police-protected monopoly proposition would be dwarfed by how much your system would effectively impede rebuilding efforts and rescue missions and how many lives it'd take).
Trading all of that for a general sense of "being right" according to radical individualistic thought in an entirely materialistic world - well, it's simply not a deal that pays off. I wouldn't even get to go to Heaven.
With this, I kind of made all the important points I felt I should make by now. We can slowly direct this discussion to its end, after your closing word or something. Just because, this time, I don't want to hop out of discussion prematurely like you criticized me back then. 
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 22, 2014 01:20 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 13:23, 22 May 2014.
|
baklava said:
Trading all of that for a general sense of "being right" according to radical individualistic thought in an entirely materialistic world - well, it's not a deal that pays off.
And what would be different regarding the context of the topic and any substantial results, if you had lived in a theistic world, unless of course, there are theocratic laws that you plan to establish to change the situation?
You can argue that, in a theistic world, you can base your actions on a belief that your motivations are categorized as intrinsically right/virtuous by a higher, omniscient authority. But as long as you don't have direct contact with that higher authority (and "I can feel it, experience it through my soul" does not qualify as direct contact, since it does not exclude the possibility of self-deception and that your actions are still egotistical but only layered under a sublimation), you "being intrinsically right/virtuous" is no more self-evident than a materialistic claim of being intrinsically right/virtuous.
Is it possible to do good purely for the sake of doing good is a philosophical question that is much harder to answer than it looks. It can be argued that the emotional satisfaction is also egotistical. Debating it on a platform of materialistic/theistic duality, however, only adds an unnecessary layer to an interesting question. Because as long as there is no certain proof for a theistic kind of God AND his direct communication with us, all objections of lack of a fundamental basis of virtue from a theist, also stands for his position: Believing in God and obeying his will according to this subjective belief can be categorized as an egotistical act also.
If we specifically take the Abrahamic God, even more, since we also have aspects like getting rewarded on the other side and -somehow- being the highest creation of God.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2014 04:17 PM |
|
|
Bak:
A state that's not based on the mutual-advantage-contract I earlier described is bad for many of the same reasons that a marauding band is bad. I'm not saying that they're identical, but the difference is of degree, not of kind. The "democratic contract" of which you speak of is nothing less than the majority claiming to have the right to act like a marauding band. If they're nice, they won't act on it as much - but they reserve the right to do so, just like a nice slave owner may not whip his slaves, but he still considers it legitimate for him to whip them if he wanted to.Quote:
If a business owner does not agree to the laws of the land, he can either vote differently, found a new political option, or move elsewhere
As some TV show put once, "Why should I leave? They're the ones who suck." And it's true - if someone is threatening you or actually using violence against you, and you tell them to try to convince them to stop, or just to leave, you're placing the burden on the victim. It's the aggressor that should stop.
As for saving more lives, your ethics are the ones that would lead to shortages, people standing in lines, people not having enough - but that's all okay, because you've fulfilled the requirements of left-wing "fairness". It doesn't matter if people are well-off, what matters is equality, right?
But as much as I disagree with you, I thank you for not dropping out of this discussion early. 
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2014 04:40 PM |
|
|
Ok, let's just put this straight:
In scenario 1, the government makes sure, needed supplies are send, so there won't be any shortage. If there is no shortage, there is no reason to raise or change prices. This is also true, if the seller has ways to get more supply.
In scenario 2, for some reason it's impossible to get supplies, so the victims of the disaster must make-do with what they have, and there is indeed a shortage.
In this case this is not only true for the seller, but true also for everything else: the victims must hope from outside help, and until then they must improvise.
This in turn means, either they forget "the market", work together and share - or the seller commanding over the most urgently needed supplies can dictate prices, and in that case he will simply sell in exchange for the next thing needed.
Which won't happen, since in that case the right to live takes precedence.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 22, 2014 05:04 PM |
|
|
mvass said:
The "democratic contract" of which you speak of is nothing less than the majority claiming to have the right to act like a marauding band.
Once again, the majority rule is not the core idea of democracy, everybody having an equal say is. That also brings forth "everybody having some untouchable rights" which is clearly the basic foundation of all your political arguments. That's why phrases like "democratic rights of every individual/citizen" imply rights you also defend and that's why the most liberal countries (compared to their contemporaries) are ALL democracies. Majority rule is an inevitable result. Although half-heartedly, you had seem to come to terms with the idea in the related thread:
mvass said:
I don't think abolition of government altogether would maximize freedom in a stable and lasting way, so while rule is to be minimized, I don't think it can be eliminated altogether. To the extent that rule must exist, it is better for it to be managed democratically. But democracy is not a good itself, and when the amount of rule can be reduced, it should be, even if it would mean less democracy.
Now, do you SERIOUSLY suggest that people waiting on-lines or having some shortage is actually WORSE than people agreeing to exploitation of sex for not starving because it is "left-wing fairness" or is it just one of those things you happen to roll away?
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2014 05:08 PM |
|
|
You don't need government to organize distribution of supplies in a disaster.
____________
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 May 22, 2014 05:17 PM |
|
|
|
That's not why I quoted it.
|
|
Baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted May 22, 2014 05:18 PM |
|
|
@Artu
The problem with religion is that once you make a side argument that contains it, in a post that has 99 points unrelated to religion and 1 related to it (even jokingly), there will be a tendency to discuss only the one point about religion, because this is the internet. Religion really isn't such a big deal.
I used Heaven as a tongue-in-cheek illustration of any kind of feeling better for doing something that is right even if it's harmful to you. You can use the view of doing good because it feels better, but I really wouldn't feel any better about dying for a principle that says that my children will give people blowjobs for food. So unless there's a clerical figure influential enough to convince people that's the only way to Heaven, I really don't see how anyone would ever vote for what MVass said.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 22, 2014 05:23 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 17:24, 22 May 2014.
|
I wasn't supporting Mvass's solution, it just seemed "an entirely the materialistic world" part indicated theism has something else to offer.
But you're right, religion is a definite derailer, so let's leave that for the religion thread. Some other day... gunslinger.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2014 05:24 PM |
|
|
Yeah, I feel like we should just talking avoid religion at all costs.
Artu, I took your post as you thought the only options were government supplies or people die.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2014 05:31 PM |
|
|
Artu, exactly as I said earlier:Quote:
democracy is not a good itself, and when the amount of rule can be reduced, it should be, even if it would mean less democracy.
Now, remember the context in which Bak brought up democracy - the government not protecting people because people voted for it to do other things. This is a case where the principle of minimization of amount of rule is being violated, because people's money is being taken and used in a way that doesn't benefit them.Quote:
Now, do you SERIOUSLY suggest that people waiting on-lines or having some shortage is actually WORSE than people agreeing to exploitation of sex for not starving because it is "left-wing fairness" or is it just one of those things you happen to roll away?
One way you have shortages, which means that some mutually beneficial voluntary exchanges haven't taken place. In the other situation, you don't have shortages, and everyone is exchanging for mutual benefit. Obviously, the second situation is better.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted May 22, 2014 05:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
In the other situation, you don't have shortages
MVass! *slaps you across the fingers with a wooden ruler* Remind the man that you don't use the word "shortage" like the rest of the world does.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
