Free market efficiency and planned obsolescence

[AyeYo]

On the other hand, your belief system is based on the fact that it is morally wrong to force beliefs on others, so it makes you a hypocrite to then turn around and force your beliefs on people.

No, wrong. My belief system is based on the belief that it is morally wrong to violate the non-aggression principle as libertarians define it, in accordance with property rights as libertarians define them.

Which is the same thing as me saying that my belief system says it's morally ok to murder, based on the murder is ok principle as I define it, in accordance with my rights to murder as I define them.  Then I go out and tell other people that murder is wrong.


You can't seem to wrap your mind around that.  Your system is based on non-aggression, but it is inherently aggresive against those that do not believe in it.  It is hypocricy plain and simple.  You can play semantics and redefine and reword it until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't change a damn thing.  Libertarians attempt to avoid this inconsistency and hypocricy by either creating their own defintions with exceptions for themselves (as you've done) or by using buzzwords like "coercion" arbitrarily (as others often do).  You can play this game all day long, but it isn't fooling anyone.  As long as there of people of differing opinions (and there always will be), ANY societal organization will be stepping on someone's toes.

[1714175679]

1714175679

[1714175679]

1714175679

[NghtRppr]

Your system is based on non-aggression, but it is inherently aggresive against those that do not believe in it.

Remember how you defined taxation not to be theft? I define defending my person and property not to be aggression. It's funny how you keep calling people hypocrites but make up all these silly rules that apply to everyone but you.

[AyeYo]

Your system is based on non-aggression, but it is inherently aggresive against those that do not believe in it.

Remember how you defined taxation not to be theft? I define defending my person and property not to be aggression. It's funny how you keep calling people hypocrites but make up all these silly rules that apply to everyone but you.

You can defend your person and property all day, errr day.  No one is debating that.  It's a shame that I have to keep striking down your redherrings and strawmen, because debate is so much easier when done honestly.

Once again, the debate is about YOU IMPOSING YOUR SYSTEM ON OTHERS.

You cannot in one breath say that me forcing my system on you is aggression, then in the next say that you forcing your system on me is not aggression.  That's logical inconsistency.

You cannot say that you are morally opposed to systems being forced on people, then turn around and force your system on people.
That's hypocricy.

[NghtRppr]

You cannot say that you are morally opposed to systems being forced on people, then turn around and force your system on people.

I didn't say that. I said that it is morally wrong to violate the non-aggression principle as libertarians define it, in accordance with property rights as libertarians define them. That's what I'm saying. Do you have anything in response against that? Stop trying to couch the debate in your terms thereby making straw man arguments. If you just can't help it then try using the quote feature and respond directly to what I say instead of your fabrications.

[MoonShadow]

You cannot in one breath say that me forcing my system on you is aggression, then in the next say that you forcing your system on me is not aggression.  That's logical inconsistency.

Fact #1, the system that you advocate presently exists, and is forced upon those of us who do not agree.

Fact #2, the system that we advocate does not exist, and no one is presently forced to abide by it.  In our theoretical depictions of it, you would not be forced to do anything beyond respecting the social conventions that already exist, namely property rights and human rights.

Therefore, your opinion upon whether our theoretical society would be coercive or not is irrelevant.

Do you disagree?

[Anonymous]

"Oh god, this system is so oppressive. There's no group with guns to make sure I am entitled to free stuff. I have to go out of my way to protect myself and feed myself. What a horrible world. Mommy, I need my bottle."

[LokeRundt]

AyeYo, I'm going to claim you violated my property rights and send you a bill for getting the dent out due to all the *headdesk*

[billyjoeallen]

All tyrants get overthrown eventually. It only takes one pissed off guy with a gun to catch him slipping.

And a form of government is established to protect the weak from the strong, in an attempt to keep the tyrants out of power.


I don't think you realize how difficult it is to argue this stuff against you because you have: A - no concept and understanding of history, and, B - no concept of understand of how/why we are where we are today, and how the system functions.

I'd highly recommend these two books to you.  They're no some BS pulled out of somebody's ass (i.e. Atlas Shrugged), but actual scholarly research works with real citations and backing up of claims, as well as tremendous amounts of first-hand research.  They will help you learn what you're lacking: the happenings of modern WORLD history (not the US/UK-centric history you get in school) and the highly entwined political and economic relationships of our current world system.

http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0805079831

http://www.amazon.com/Darker-Nations-Peoples-History-Third/dp/1565847857

Appeal to Authority fallacy

[AyeYo]

All tyrants get overthrown eventually. It only takes one pissed off guy with a gun to catch him slipping.

And a form of government is established to protect the weak from the strong, in an attempt to keep the tyrants out of power.


I don't think you realize how difficult it is to argue this stuff against you because you have: A - no concept and understanding of history, and, B - no concept of understand of how/why we are where we are today, and how the system functions.

I'd highly recommend these two books to you.  They're no some BS pulled out of somebody's ass (i.e. Atlas Shrugged), but actual scholarly research works with real citations and backing up of claims, as well as tremendous amounts of first-hand research.  They will help you learn what you're lacking: the happenings of modern WORLD history (not the US/UK-centric history you get in school) and the highly entwined political and economic relationships of our current world system.

http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0805079831

http://www.amazon.com/Darker-Nations-Peoples-History-Third/dp/1565847857

Appeal to Authority fallacy

You really don't understand these fallacies you like to quote, do you?

Appeal to authority is: "My point is right because this guy ________ (insert important sounding title) says it's right."


Tell someone I cannot have an intelligent argument with them because they have no idea what they're talking about is NOT appeal to authority fallacy... it's not even an argument.  It's a statement of fact.

[The Script]

All tyrants get overthrown eventually. It only takes one pissed off guy with a gun to catch him slipping.

http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0805079831

http://www.amazon.com/Darker-Nations-Peoples-History-Third/dp/1565847857

Appeal to Authority fallacy

You really don't understand these fallacies you like to quote, do you?

Appeal to authority is: "My point is right because this guy ________ (insert important sounding title) says it's right."

Tell someone I cannot have an intelligent argument with them because they have no idea what they're talking about is NOT appeal to authority fallacy... it's not even an argument.  It's a statement of fact.

Ha ha, I think you may both be wrong? Suggesting someone read a book because you believe it has strong empirical evidence isn't an appeal to authority, as you say, but claiming that someone else doesnt know what they are talking about is "a statement of fact" seems rather arbitrary to me.

[AyeYo]

You cannot in one breath say that me forcing my system on you is aggression, then in the next say that you forcing your system on me is not aggression.  That's logical inconsistency.

Fact #1, the system that you advocate presently exists, and is forced upon those of us who do not agree.

Correct.  I already discussed this.

Fact #2, the system that we advocate does not exist,

Cannot exist is more like it, but I get the idea.

and no one is presently forced to abide by it.  

Irrelevant.

In our theoretical depictions of it, you would not be forced to do anything beyond respecting the social conventions that already exist, namely property rights and human rights.

So you're forcing everyone that doesn't agree with your system to conform to your system.  I've been saying this all along.

How is this new information?

Therefore, your opinion upon whether our theoretical society would be coercive or not is irrelevant.

Do you disagree?

Yup.  Conclusion does not follow premises.

[Litt]

You cannot in one breath say that me forcing my system on you is aggression, then in the next say that you forcing your system on me is not aggression.  That's logical inconsistency.

Fact #1, the system that you advocate presently exists, and is forced upon those of us who do not agree.

Correct.  I already discussed this.

Fact #2, the system that we advocate does not exist,

Cannot exist is more like it, but I get the idea.

and no one is presently forced to abide by it.  

Irrelevant.

In our theoretical depictions of it, you would not be forced to do anything beyond respecting the social conventions that already exist, namely property rights and human rights.

So you're forcing everyone that doesn't agree with your system to conform to your system.  I've been saying this all along.

How is this new information?

Therefore, your opinion upon whether our theoretical society would be coercive or not is irrelevant.

Do you disagree?

Yup.  Conclusion does not follow premises.

Some people are so dependent on the system, they are not ready to see the truth. Personally, I would rather focus on my energy on people who already have the knowledge to sense something is wrong. The saying from the Bible that you can only help the ones that help themselves rings so true to me nowadays more than ever.

Funny how the Bible makes so much better sense now it's rather scary. That is until you realize history is just repeating itself to those who did not remember and learn from it's mistakes.

[AyeYo]

You cannot in one breath say that me forcing my system on you is aggression, then in the next say that you forcing your system on me is not aggression.  That's logical inconsistency.

Fact #1, the system that you advocate presently exists, and is forced upon those of us who do not agree.

Correct.  I already discussed this.

Fact #2, the system that we advocate does not exist,

Cannot exist is more like it, but I get the idea.

and no one is presently forced to abide by it.  

Irrelevant.

In our theoretical depictions of it, you would not be forced to do anything beyond respecting the social conventions that already exist, namely property rights and human rights.

So you're forcing everyone that doesn't agree with your system to conform to your system.  I've been saying this all along.

How is this new information?

Therefore, your opinion upon whether our theoretical society would be coercive or not is irrelevant.

Do you disagree?

Yup.  Conclusion does not follow premises.

Some people are so dependent on the system, they are not ready to see the truth. Personally, I would rather focus on my energy on people who already have the knowledge to sense something is wrong. The saying from the Bible that you can only help the ones that help themselves rings so true to me nowadays more than ever. Funny how the Bible makes so much better sense now it's rather scary. Until you realize history is just repeating itself to those who did not remember and learn from it's mistakes.

The system is broken, almost no one denies that.  My point is that you cannot fix it by giving full power to those that have a proven track record of breaking it.

[Fakeman]

Free market is advocated as efficient system as resources are allocated by the 'invisible hand' of the markets. I, however find the efficiency claims quite unfounded as direct consequence of maximizing profits is phenomenon know as planned obsolescence. That is, products are made inferior than need be just to be able to resell updated version as soon as possible. Also resources are recycled only when its profitable comparing to new materials, meaning its very rarely going to happen voluntarily. These two factors make free market extremele wasteful when considering resources. My claim is that by limited central control you could have hands down more efficient outcomes than in pure laissez-faire. By effieciency I'm speaking about use of commodities of real economy. I'm not impressed by abstract numbers representing speculation.

(Oh, btw, I'm really advocate of free market provided there is sufficient regulation for enviromental matters.)

I can't wait for this whole aregument to become irrellvant once the open-source 3D printers and CRC routers mature and become commonplace...

"Son, back in the old days before a little kid like you could own a 3D printer, we were all held hostage by evil corporations that deliberately designed their products and toys to fail after a certain amount of time."

Good points. Now WTF do pages 2-5 of this thread have to do with "Free market efficiency and planned obsolescence"?

[Mittlyle]

Free market is advocated as efficient system as resources are allocated by the 'invisible hand' of the markets. I, however find the efficiency claims quite unfounded as direct consequence of maximizing profits is phenomenon know as planned obsolescence. That is, products are made inferior than need be just to be able to resell updated version as soon as possible. Also resources are recycled only when its profitable comparing to new materials, meaning its very rarely going to happen voluntarily. These two factors make free market extremele wasteful when considering resources. My claim is that by limited central control you could have hands down more efficient outcomes than in pure laissez-faire. By effieciency I'm speaking about use of commodities of real economy. I'm not impressed by abstract numbers representing speculation.

(Oh, btw, I'm really advocate of free market provided there is sufficient regulation for enviromental matters.)

I can't wait for this whole aregument to become irrellvant once the open-source 3D printers and CRC routers mature and become commonplace...

"Son, back in the old days before a little kid like you could own a 3D printer, we were all held hostage by evil corporations that deliberately designed their products and toys to fail after a certain amount of time."

Good points. Now WTF do pages 2-5 of this thread have to do with "Free market efficiency and planned obsolescence"?

Frankly, there were some other points too but they are in the middle of the junk. I thought I would lock this thread but those guys were too entertraining for me to do that... Actually I'll do it now. If there's something left to discuss, I advise you to start another thread with according title.