We're doing alright, but not as well as last year

Discussion in 'Markets & Economies' started by Jislizard, Nov 11, 2014.

  1. Phransisku

    Phransisku Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2014
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Portugal
    As you were getting more and more confused and avoiding the real subject, I've made a progressive effort, from post to post, to make my points crystal clear, so that even a child could get them. In the last one, I've even structured my logic into 7 small and numbered steps (kindergarten style) and all I asked from you was that you could identify the steps that you didn't agree with. You just had to give numbers (1, 2, 3, etc.). But somehow you couldn't.

    You didn't have to explain your philosophy. You didn't have to find a coherent structure on my argument. You didn't have to make your claims more logically sound. You just had to type numbers on your keyboard and press submit.

    Was it hard? I bet it was, since in fact you aren't able to refute any of those 7 logic steps I've listed. You'd rather find 20 different definitions of freedom than admitting that freedom is simply a matter of choices. You'd rather reply with sentences like "I don't even know where to begin with" or "I'm going to refrain from comment" than engaging into the real debate. You'd rather confuse freedom with pride or dignity, talk about things that were not challenged and going around in circles than being objective and going right to the point.

    Deep inside you know you are wrong. That was clear for me since the beginning but it's now obvious to everyone. You'll continue to pretend your view is correct, avoiding debate and limiting yourself to a bunch of sentences (most probably taken from books) that you keep saying to yourself. It's exactly like a religion. I don't blame you more than any religious person. If that makes you happy, that's perfectly ok. Only when you decide to preach your beliefs on to others I may take action to restore the truth.

    Just to take a conclusion from all this: freedom is a matter of choices and the one that doesn't want any policies, regulations and State, doesn't regard freedom as his top value. The video of the opening post is nothing more than a fraud.
     
  2. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Administrator Staff Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,613
    Likes Received:
    4,398
    Trophy Points:
    113
    :lol:

    Ok, here you are:

    2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7
     
  3. bordsilver

    bordsilver Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,717
    Likes Received:
    304
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The rocks
    Your view of freedom doesn't make it morally legitimate. Initiating violence against others is illegitimate (a point that you continually ignore). Step 3 is deliberately undertaking violence against a peaceful individual without any threat of retribution because of your perception of the net benefit in doing so.

    Let's alter the scenario slightly so that you can focus on the real subject. Let me know what steps you do not understand or agree with from my very simple logic:
    1 - Freedom is what is being discussed here. Not pride, not dignity, not right of any kind...just freedom.
    2 - Freedom is a matter of options.
    3 Boko Haram (or some group) comes to your city gates and demands we give them as slaves the first female children born to ten local families else they will slaughter the entire village. We remove the freedom from 10 people.
    4 By doing so, we save the lives of thousands of people that have very few options. Hence, the freedoms of thousands increases dramatically.
    5 - A dramatic increase is more significant than a little decrease.
    6 - Overall freedom is the sum of all the individual freedoms.
    7 - If the overall freedom has a little decrease on the one side and a big increase on the other, in the end it gets greater than it would otherwise be.
    Was this a moral act?

    As I said in post 88, once you make it a legal right to place the situation of some individuals above the rights of others then there are many other scenarios that logically mean that anyone with any perceived additional "freedom" compared to another should be legally forced to give it up in favour of the person who is worse off. I do not agree with such. This line of "freedom" reasoning is simply communism in disguise with the result that nobody is free because it implies that any time you use your person to obtain an opportunity/property that makes your life better than others around you they have the legal privilege to steal it away from you. It is immoral and is a politics of envy.

    Finally, you should not have been so quick to dismiss shiney's definitions (and my comment way back in post 18) because the definition of economic freedom is fundamentally different from your definition of freedom.
     
  4. bordsilver

    bordsilver Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,717
    Likes Received:
    304
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The rocks
    Where is my share certificate in the State? How can I sell my shares in the State? Can I buy more?
     
  5. Phransisku

    Phransisku Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2014
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Portugal
    I wasn't expecting your numbers at this point. Sometimes you make me wonder if you really want to debate or not.

    Anyway, those points are not independent, they are rather sequential. Assuming point 2 is correct, do you really disagree with point 3 or 4? If not, then point 2 might be the only one that needs discussion. Let me know that so that I can channel my focus correctly. Otherwise I can very easily explain for example that a dramatic increase is more significant than a little decrease (point 5).
     
  6. JulieW

    JulieW Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    13,064
    Likes Received:
    3,292
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    Yes you can but your unwilling buyers might be a bit upset.

    ;)
     
  7. Phransisku

    Phransisku Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2014
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Portugal
    I agree with all those steps. I'm not saying the act is moral or fair but it does increase freedom, no doubt.


    Ok, that's your opinion and through it I can perceive freedom is not your top value (or at least that you consider other values equally important). Me too.

    Maybe the difference is that I regard freedom more than you do. Not to a Communism extreme but at least to the extent of equal opportunities for everybody. I believe that people should not live at the expense of others and thus any money should be earned through one's own work, not through a community (like in Communism) or through rents, dividends, royalties or bequests (like in Capitalism). This enhances economic freedom. However, education or health care are not money to people's hands (and they won't consume it for fun) and should be provided for free so that everyone has the freedom to pursue his dream and do whatever he wants. This enhances social freedom for people and freedom of choice for companies. I'm also in favour of a totally opened labour market that would rather work like the stock market than be based on the exclusivity inherent to labour contracts. This would enhance labour freedom. In the end, all I want is that everyone can start his "chess match" with the same initial pieces. Having the "freedom" not to start with all the pieces is an hipocratic freedom.

    Regarding freedom definitions, they all point to the same thing: freedom from choice. That's the common divisor between them all, the one scale in which you can measure any kind of freedom.
     
  8. lgf

    lgf New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2014
    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I've looked for that thread and I couldn't find it.
    Anyway, debating is much more productive than just reading, because the former is interactive (the latter isn't). So if I don't agree with or don't understand something, than it's done.
    I have discussed with boardsilver about this topic. If you want, you can comment on that and tell me what's wrong.
     
  9. lgf

    lgf New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2014
    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Do you need a certificate to be part of the society? Yeah, ok, maybe your ID.
    Do you need to sell your shares to leave the society? No. Indeed, maybe you should pay (since your debt may be larger than your contribution).
    Do you need to buy more to be more part of the society? No.
    Does any of these questions contradict what I've said in the previous post? Doesn't seem so...
     
  10. lgf

    lgf New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2014
    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Let me tell you your mistake here: enslave 10 female children is not a little decrease in freedom.
     
  11. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Administrator Staff Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,613
    Likes Received:
    4,398
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't any more.
     
  12. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Administrator Staff Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,613
    Likes Received:
    4,398
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've highlighted the important bit.
     
  13. Phransisku

    Phransisku Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2014
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Portugal
    Ok, I'm done with you. It doesn't matter how much effort I put into our discussions. Even if, in the end, I'm totally right and you're totally wrong, there's no way you'll admit it. Speaking to you is like speaking to a door.
     
  14. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Administrator Staff Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,613
    Likes Received:
    4,398
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Whilst on the topic of freedom and its provision by the State, guess which country's constitution this extract is from, and no cheating by googling. I've edited it to make it shorter and to remove the obvious reference to which country it is. :p

     
  15. bordsilver

    bordsilver Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,717
    Likes Received:
    304
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The rocks
    The point is that the State is nothing like a company as I cannot sell my stocks in the State that I think is making bad decisions. There's no such thing. Your analogy is in error. The State is not a voluntary grouping of individuals, it is a geographic monopoly claiming ownership and control over the individuals that happen to reside in its illegitimately defined territory. It is a mafia controlled territory. That I continue to reside in the mafia's territory and acquiesce to its demands (since I take its threats of violence seriously if I do not obey its ever changing rules) does not imply consent. It is nothing like voluntarily joining companies, clubs, charities, religious groups, friendlies, personal relationships etc except that the group is comprised of individuals.

    No voluntary organisation ever indebted others without their consent - especially the unborn.

    In terms of this sentence of yours "Indeed, maybe you should pay (since your debt may be larger than your contribution)" it is wrong. If my contribution has been many times greater there is a very high likelihood that a significant portion of my property will be confiscated if I try to leave. In such a case others should be buying me out not demanding more.

    Thus proving my point that you are using a subjective measure of interpersonal gains and losses to do your "freedom math".
     
  16. bordsilver

    bordsilver Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,717
    Likes Received:
    304
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The rocks
    :lol: That proves what I said in earlier.
     
  17. boston

    boston Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2009
    Messages:
    3,857
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Australia
    USA?
     
  18. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Administrator Staff Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,613
    Likes Received:
    4,398
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Mmmm. :cool:

    What do you think? :lol: ;)
     
  19. lgf

    lgf New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2014
    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Just because you point some differences, the analogy is not valid? Let me tell you, if there were no differences, it wouldn't be an analogy.
    The point is that you can leave the society, as you can leave a company. No one forces you to stay.

    So, you were born on a hospital, educated in schools, used roads, enjoyed security and all the resources of the society and you would not be indebted? Right.
    When you were born, your parents decided to raise you in the society using the resources of the society. You didn't own any territory. Everything was owned by those who existed before you. So, you can leave, but you shouldn't own any territory and yes, you'd probably be indebted by everything you used. In practice, you could even sell your house and buy goods before leaving, you'd actually not pay your debt and still leave the society with lots of goods. But that would be wrong imo.

    That's not true. If you own lots of things you can sell them or trade them and leave. Where's the confiscation? Even if it exists in some countries (I don't know if it does), it doesn't mean that has to happen in a democratic country.

    Yes, I use a subjective measure of interpersonal gains and losses (like a company decides on a business estimating the possible gains and losses). No, that sentence doesn't prove that. One thing has nothing to do with the other.
    If a person is enslaved, his/her freedom is totally reduced. That's not little to anybody. It's not subjective. It's objective.
     
  20. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Administrator Staff Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,613
    Likes Received:
    4,398
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's not a North American country. :cool:
     

Share This Page