whether or not you own an object but whether or not you have dominion over that object. These are the same thing. i disagree. Ownership implies legitimacy of means of acquisition. Exercising dominion over an object implies no such legitimacy. Of course in my original statement i was using these ideas interchangeably for lack of a better term and because this philosophical distinction wasnt relievent at the time. Ownership is legitimate dominion. If you own something, you by definition have dominion over it. You seem to be saying that a market needs only the dominion, not the legitimacy, in order to function. This is false. If legitimacy is not a qualification to trade, then you end up with illegitimately gained items being traded equally with legitimately gained ones, invalidating the legitimacy of the legit goods. In other words, if stolen goods are not classed separately from - and lesser than - legit goods, you ruin the value of the effort of gaining something legitimately, when you can just steal it. A free market requires that property rights - ownership - be respected in order to work properly. Your argument doesn't sound very solid. Let me understand. Goods are made from natural resources. They were ultimately come by through homesteading the land they came from, right? Those would have been (in the case of North America) the first Americans, right? They laid claim by hunting and agriculture, correct? Therefore, if others (let's say Europeans) 'homesteaded' on such lands (by use of guns and power), then according to your logic, all goods which ultimately originated from the Europeans manufacturing from resources on American soil are illegitimate. It seems that it's really power that determines ownership. And Rassah even admits it. At least governments try and allow that power to be available to everyone equally more so than private defense agencies where it's very clear who will win. |
|
|
|
Why not arrive at it by just using mutually agreed upon contracts? In a small enough society, there is no need for a legal body to oversee your market. Contracts are signed and agreed upon, and if broken, enforced by whoever has more power, or pays a third party to exhert power.
Epic fail. Thank you though for putting your foot in your mouth and showing your true colors: Money and power rule all. Forget justice and truth. Do the judges and police officers in your country work for free? Having trouble seeing the obvious? I guess so. |
|
|
|
Why not arrive at it by just using mutually agreed upon contracts? In a small enough society, there is no need for a legal body to oversee your market. Contracts are signed and agreed upon, and if broken, enforced by whoever has more power, or pays a third party to exhert power.
Epic fail. Thank you though for putting your foot in your mouth and showing your true colors: Money and power rule all. Forget justice and truth. |
|
|
|
Libertarians love a good conspiracy theory.
The Titanic had a square wheelhouse. The Olympic, a round one. More to the point, all of Titanic's steel parts are punched with the serial number 400 rather than 401 (the Olympic's). More than 50 items have been retrieved from the Titanic bearing the number of 400.
Actually, 400 is the serial number of the Olympic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legends_and_myths_regarding_RMS_TitanicMakes sense too, that the ship build first would have the lower serial number. inb4 Wikipedia is biased.  As expected, myrkul buys into the theory too. Predictable. He's a conspiracy lover. He even conjectured that the Colorado shooting was faked. http://www.paullee.com/titanic/switch.html |
|
|
|
A market, by definition, requires that property rights are respected. Any entity that initiates force is not a part of the market, but a distorter of it. The use of force is the distortion, fundamentally.
So you're in favor of laws, correct? Because property rights don't exist without laws. bitcoin proves that this is not true. I have a property right to my bitcoins by virtue of the fact that only i know the private key despite the fact that there is no law supporting my property claim in any way. Actually you only own that private key because you homesteaded it or someone consensually transferred it to you. Had you fraudulently obtained it, you would possess a copy but not own it. Much like physical property... Fraudulently/forcibly obtaining it does not grant ownership. But assuming no back up, it denies ownership. |
|
|
|
FirstAscent's favorite book:  Nope. My last post was inspired by Jack Vance. The vocabulary completely from his works. |
|
|
|
|
Libertarians love a good conspiracy theory.
The Titanic had a square wheelhouse. The Olympic, a round one. More to the point, all of Titanic's steel parts are punched with the serial number 400 rather than 401 (the Olympic's). More than 50 items have been retrieved from the Titanic bearing the number of 400.
|
|
|
|
I'll say it in big letters so you won't miss it:
You are an asshat.
Fuck you. Suck a bag of dicks, shithead.
Killfile'd.
Rudd-O's behavior is indeed rather distasteful, and I find it doesn't comport with my expectations required for sophisticated discourse on these forums. At best, his scribblings are peremptory in tone, and more commonly, he is cantankerous and pugnacious, even bellicose. Achieving harmonious accord with the likes of him is unlikely. Best if you ignore him and his adjunct, myrkul. |
|
|
|
A market, by definition, requires that property rights are respected. Any entity that initiates force is not a part of the market, but a distorter of it. The use of force is the distortion, fundamentally.
So you're in favor of laws, correct? Because property rights don't exist without laws. Laws don't create rights. What creates the right for you to say that this line is the boundary of the land you claim to own? What creates the right for you to say that the the 2 ounces of steel in some gadget you claim is yours is owned by you? Going back to first principles, where did the steel originate from, and how did it enter into a state that allows you to claim you own it? |
|
|
|
A market, by definition, requires that property rights are respected. Any entity that initiates force is not a part of the market, but a distorter of it. The use of force is the distortion, fundamentally.
So you're in favor of laws, correct? Because property rights don't exist without laws. |
|
|
|
Had the government not taxed the wealth that funded that research, those who produced that wealth would have used it for things they value more.
Only time will tell. The past doesn't necessarily corroborate your views. |
|
|
|
His argument being dumb and having nothing to do with economics because Obama lowered taxes instead of raising them aside, what did his douchebaggery have to do with minimum wage, or economics, or anything for that matter??? Individuals like him are the source of arguing against minimum wage floors. I knew about his "Vote for Romney or else" bullshit, but not about his minimum wage stuff (which isn't even there, since his complaint was about taxes, not minimum wage), thus he wasn't the source of my argument, and thus your claim is invalid. He gave his employees a raise after the election (and backlash). It demonstrates his insincerity about the expenses his business incurs, one of which is wages. |
|
|
|
Except it's so wrong. It has been shown that the government will fund things that corporations won't. Corporations typically will only engage in R & D that has a payoff within a certain amount of time, typically much less than government funded research might yield. This is known, and examples abound.
Here's an example for your edification: Samuel Pierpoint Langley (government funding) vs. the Wright brothers (private funding). Langley attempted flight on October 7th, 1903. His huge 54-foot-long flying machine had two 48-foot wings -- one in front and one in back. It was launched from a catapult on the Potomac River, and it fell like a sack of cement into the water. On December 8th he tried again. This time the rear wing caved in before it got off its catapult.
Just nine days later, the Wright brothers flew a trim little biplane, with almost no fanfare, at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. Their advantage was that they'd mastered the problem of controlling the movement of their plane, and they'd preceded their work with four years of careful experimentation with kites and gliders.
Source: http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi32.htmAnother article explains why private funding worked *better* than government funding: If lavish Federal subsidies had been unable to buy Dr. Langley success, what chance would the Wright brothers' unfunded venture expect to have? Surprisingly, their chances were a lot better than might be imagined. Freed from the subsidy-induced waste and indolence that plagues government funded operations, the Wright brothers' limited financial resources actually contributed to their success. Because they could not afford the costs associated with repeated flight tests of their airplane, they developed a wind tunnel to test aerodynamic designs. This saved them a great deal of time. The Wright brothers were the first men to compile data from which an airplane could be designed. With limited finances, it was far easier to correct errors on paper than to continually rebuild a test model that was improperly designed.
Source: http://www.economicthinking.org/technology/noballoonattached.htmlPlease explain how this relates to MIT's motor development which was funded by DARPA. |
|
|
|
His argument being dumb and having nothing to do with economics because Obama lowered taxes instead of raising them aside, what did his douchebaggery have to do with minimum wage, or economics, or anything for that matter??? Individuals like him are the source of arguing against minimum wage floors. If I'm spouting bullshit, and it's exactly what myrkul said, then myrkul is spouting bullshit as well. Please correct your assessment of my comments. I'll help you distinguish the difference:
Once an outside agency influences the market, it is part of the market, whether or not it is a buyer or seller, which is exactly what I said, and what you quoted.
I see. So you are spouting bullshit you just randomly picked up somewhere... No. I'm not spouting bullshit. And same question to you: how do you define a market distortion?
There's no such thing as a market distortion. Everything affecting market prices are simply affecting market prices. |
|
|
|
Did I get it right?
No. Try again on Fluorine. What's your take on it, then, Mr Knowitall?  It would be more illuminating if you were to discover the answer yourself, than to have it handed to you on a platter. So try again. What might Fluorine represent? Haa! You don't know either, so you're fishing for ideas! You seem a bit fussy though. What could be more fundamental than human nature, such that it's required on "page one" of evolution?? Oh, no, I know. But as I said, it would be more illuminating to you if you were to puzzle it out yourself. Hint: the process isn't evolution, it's society. What might a government supporter view as necessary, but which, in the end, destroys the goal of liberty? Just like it would be more illuminating if Rassah could actually demonstrate understanding of the old growth forest/spotted owl scenario in the other thread, where you don't seem to think a demonstration of understanding is necessary. Very hypocritical. |
|
|
|
Incorrect. An outside agency which is not influencing the market is not part of the market. But upon influencing the market, then that outside agency is part of the market. And don't come back and say that the agency must be a buyer or seller. An event, caused by an outside agency XYZ, which renders property owner Smith's goods no longer fit for sale, has influenced the market. Is XYZ a market participant? Has the market been distorted?
OK, I'm sorry, but the curio city is killing me. Do you actually have a degree in this stuff, or are you spouting bullshit you picked up in other forums? Because what he said was exactly what you said, but more summarized. If I'm spouting bullshit, and it's exactly what myrkul said, then myrkul is spouting bullshit as well. Please correct your assessment of my comments. I'll help you distinguish the difference: Once an outside agency influences the market, it is part of the market, whether or not it is a buyer or seller, which is exactly what I said, and what you quoted. |
|
|
|
I think his response after the election was rather telling.
Which was? You don't know? He boasted that Obama's taxes would make his business unsustainable with all of his employees if he was elected. The takeaway is taxes were killing his business. He would have to do layoffs. Or lower their wages. He was blustering and bluffing and whining, not unlike many here. After the election, his bluff was called. He realized he was a douchebag and gave everyone a raise. And guess what, he's still going to keep his house, which is the largest in America: http://gawker.com/5950189/the-ceo-who-built-himself-americas-largest-house-just-threatened-to-fire-his-employees-if-obamas-electedTruly douchebag of the year, if ever there was one. The argument for no minimum wage floor isn't what you think it is. It's about greed and laziness to not run an efficient business. |
|
|
|
I watched it. How come the actions of David Siegel clearly provide counterpoint to the video's content about the cost of goods? |
|
|
|
Except it's so wrong. It has been shown that the government will fund things that corporations won't. It hasn't been shown to me. And it hasn't been shown to you, either. You just take it on faith, really. In our modern world, it's literally impossible for us to actually understand all of the science, so we have to take some things on faith. That was exactly the point of the story. And who said anything about corporations? There are other ways to fund research than taxes or potential profits. I thought the point of the story was that governments get in the way of research. It sounded very preachy to me. And yes, there are other ways to fund research. That's good. We shouldn't limit ourselves to one single method. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
