"You've got two, he's got none, give him one!" - Redistribution of Health

[Reikoku]

Like the title? Left-liberals seem to have this view with most forms of property. They believe that if you have two houses, two cars or twice as much money as most other people, then if you find somebody who has none, you owe him something.

Their argument goes a little something like this: "Your marginal utility from that second house/car/hundred thousand dollars is far less than the utility which would be gained by that person from it, therefore you owe him something.

Well, I'm going to propose that to them with another possession they might have two of, that some people have none of:

This is a kidney, it's a well-known fact that you can live with only one of them, but you probably have two nonetheless. As you're a left-winger, can you please explain to me why:

• It is morally wrong for me to make somebody sleep rough because I believe my right to the 14th bedroom of my mansion (I wish) is greater than his.
• It is morally acceptable for you to make somebody die because you believe your claim to your kidneys is greater than his.

This definitely passes the marginal utility test above. This guy is going to die if you don't give it to him, not just have to go without satellite television. You have approximately a 1% chance of developing end-stage renal disease, so his utility outweighs yours by at least a factor of 100 to 1.

Why are you not advocating forced redistribution of health?

Either you must accept that our claim to our own property is greater than the claim of others who so desire it, or you must accept that your ideology is incoherent, or you must all go and give a kidney away. Your choice.

[1715371546]

1715371546

[1715371546]

1715371546

[1715371546]

1715371546

[1715371546]

1715371546

[david4dev]

It is morally wrong for me to make somebody sleep rough because I believe my right to the 14th bedroom of my mansion (I wish) is greater than his.

It isn't. It is morally neutral. It would be a good deed to put up the person in your 14th bedroom but you don't personally have a moral obligation to do so. You are not actively making someone sleep rough - you are simply allowing them to do so. It is definitely morally wrong if you actively make someone sleep rough by, say, bulldosing their house. Everyone has a right to shelter and there is clearly a problem with society if some people have excess shelter and some people have none.

It is morally acceptable for you to make somebody die because you believe your claim to your kidneys is greater than his.

It is morally acceptable. I am not making someone die, merely letting them die. It would be morally good to give them a kidney and morally bad to remove both kidneys from a healthy person causing them to die. In the case of kidneys, there is a better supply of them than from living humans anyway - from people who have recently died.

Why are you not advocating forced redistribution of health?

I believe people have a right over their own body. If you force them to give up a kidney that is denying that right.  The operation would cause pain and suffering which should be avoided. Also, any corruption in the system would be much worse than just with money because it is dealing with health. Beaurocratic mistakes could be disastrous.

It should also be noted that there is a great difference between artificial property like money and land and true property - your life and your body. The artificial property is completely dependent on the society you live in. A society where these concepts don't exist is perfectly imaginable. However, your body is indisputably yours.

[realnowhereman]

Ha.  Love it.

The same argument would apply to eyes, skin grafts and probably a fair proportion of ones fingers.

I shall take great delight in using this argument on lefties who cross my path from now on.  Thanks very much.

[V4Vendettas]

No giving up one of my balls for anyone.  What does that now make me ?

[Mittlyle]

I can give one explanation.

Your organ example is one form of utilitarian paradox; we are indeed increasing the utilitarian good but at the same time do something that is intuitively wrong. One solution is grant basic human rights to everybody that are untouchable no matter what utilitarian good is achievable through sacrificing them. To me they could be right to basic physiological and mental principles. Utilitarianism is just one way to approach dilemmas which has its limits and nobody advocating anything of that sort will tell you to make it 'a golden rule'. Unfortunately your property is not entirely in the domain of basic rights from this approach.

One of the arguments that libertarians use is that one owns his or her body, thus one must own the fruits of his labor and by that line of thought pretty much everything one has acquired. I find this argument circular as you need to own the property you start with to truly claim the result as yours. Thus you have argument in which legitimacy of your property depends on legitimacy of your property... (Homesteading is of course one arbitrary way to explain this, but it is as absolute measure of property as to say: "you must not lie" is as a moral rule)

We have obviously a disagreement of values here. The stronger side (or the one with biggest guns in libertarian rhetoric) wins so I guess we won't see taxes going away for a while. Sad thing is that the result hardly matches anyones preferences.

[david4dev]

No giving up one of my balls for anyone.  What does that now make me ?

A male 

[V4Vendettas]

No giving up one of my balls for anyone.  What does that now make me ?

A male 

Fair play

[Reikoku]

It isn't. It is morally neutral. It would be a good deed to put up the person in your 14th bedroom but you don't personally have a moral obligation to do so. You are not actively making someone sleep rough - you are simply allowing them to do so.

This is my position, but many lefties don't agree with it. They would argue that because that 14th room of my mansion is not in use, that I have no legitimate claim over it.

It is definitely morally wrong if you actively make someone sleep rough by, say, bulldosing their house. Everyone has a right to shelter and there is clearly a problem with society if some people have excess shelter and some people have none.

Again, I entirely agree with you.

It is morally acceptable. I am not making someone die, merely letting them die. It would be morally good to give them a kidney and morally bad to remove both kidneys from a healthy person causing them to die. In the case of kidneys, there is a better supply of them than from living humans anyway - from people who have recently died.

I agree again, but then I'm not a crazed left-winger.

It should also be noted that there is a great difference between artificial property like money and land and true property - your life and your body. The artificial property is completely dependent on the society you live in. A society where these concepts don't exist is perfectly imaginable. However, your body is indisputably yours.

That simply isn't true. As much as the 'artificial' properties you mentioned, self-ownership is a social construct. There are societies where, for example, a woman does not have the right to self-determination. There are many societies where we still don't have the right to willful self destruction (use of drugs, assisted suicide) and of course in the past, there were societies where one man could literally own another.

[myrkul]

That simply isn't true. As much as the 'artificial' properties you mentioned, self-ownership is a social construct. There are societies where, for example, a woman does not have the right to self-determination. There are many societies where we still don't have the right to willful self destruction (use of drugs, assisted suicide) and of course in the past, there were societies where one man could literally own another.

Have to disagree on one point here.

It's not 'we don't have the right to'. It's 'Our right to is being violated'.

[Anonymous]

This issue would be eliminated if people could rent their bedrooms and sell their kidneys with no authority standing in the way. 

[Reikoku]

This issue would be eliminated if people could rent their bedrooms and sell their kidneys with no authority standing in the way.  

I completely agree with this, not because I'm particularly willing to sell a kidney but because I accept the human right to self-determination, which includes the right to self-destruction.

Have to disagree on one point here.

It's not 'we don't have the right to'. It's 'Our right to is being violated'.

I'm talking about rights in the legally observed sense, not in the natural sense. Government has never been particularly good at observing our natural and deserved rights.

[Mittlyle]

Left-wing ideology shouldn't be reduced to mere 'utilitarian egalitarianism'. As I previously argued paradoxes with intuitive rights can be overcome by simply granting those rights status of untouchability but I'd like to add one important aspect here:

Your moral examples aren't really equal and thus comparable for at least three reasons:

(1)Reason of poverty and excess wealth in aggregate can be accounted for systemic unfairnesses in the economy. Interest is one mechanism that greatly favors those already wealthy. Reason for kidney failure, on the other hand, is mostly sheer bad luck.
(2)Transfer of wealth can be done equally among certain group, organ transfers can't. Thus forced kidney 'donation' is against the principle of equality as all equal individuals don't have to donate a kidney, but one would have to go with random donors.
(3)Forced transfer of wealth has support of the majority, forced transfer of kidneys don't.

As a western European I've never heard the argument that you wouldn't have legitimacy over property you don't use. Not really even by the insignificantly small (0.3%-0.5%) communist minority (and by communist I mean real communists, not the 'has-a-flavor-of-red-communist' you see thrown around in these circles. They, as you might imagine, have their own ideas of property). Thus I consider your original argument be bit of a straw man so I took the right to speak for transfer of wealth in general.

So, in conclusion we can say that transfer of wealth has legitimacy because (i) the systemic problems that lead to poverty can be attributed to every individual ('caused by the collective'), (ii) according correction can be done collectively ('fairly') and (iii) majority thinks its reasonable policy. Forced kidney donations don't have legitimacy because (i) kidney failure is unrelated to other people, (ii) the forced donation can't be done according to principles of equality and (iii) it is against majority's opinion of what is right.

Left-wing ideologies tend to emphasize democracy and so I think from this perspective its unfounded to use anything as counter-example that wouldn't pass for majority opinions. It is of course valid point to ask if something is right because majority thinks so, but currently it grants legitimacy.

Edit: To summarize, I'd would say OP made a straw man on that left-wingers are all about marginal utility.

[NghtRppr]

Forced transfer of wealth has support of the majority, forced transfer of kidneys don't.

The majority also once supported ownership of black people. Popularity means nothing. QED.

[Mittlyle]

Forced transfer of wealth has support of the majority, forced transfer of kidneys don't.

The majority also once supported ownership of black people. Popularity means nothing. QED.

I agree, but the legitimacy of majority is significant here as it tends to be premise of left-wing ideologies and also is currently the leading paradigm.

If ideology states that transfer of wealth is okay, and then you argue that you should also agree kidney transfers by the same logic, you have a straw man if de facto the ideology really doesn't agree that. In that case premises of the ideology you used would be wrong. To make a valid argument you would have to formalize the real premises that agree with reality. If you can show incoherence in those premises (compared to some moral framework or the ideology's de jure premises), then you have a valid argument against the ideology. In this case you could criticize democracy as a valid way of governance. I never claimed majority's opinion is what makes transfer of wealth really legitimate. In our system it just happens to be enough and makes a difference. The two others were my main argument which stand regardless of democracy, albeit enforcing them without similar system is probably not possible.

Edit: You can remove all points with (3) and (iii) and the argument is still valid. This actually was the format I was originally writing.

[NghtRppr]

If ideology states that transfer of wealth is okay, and then you argue that you should also agree kidney transfers by the same logic, you have a straw man if de facto the ideology really doesn't agree that.

The original poster is trying to argue that certain people are being inconsistent so of course the majority disagrees with that.

The two others were my main argument which stand regardless of democracy, albeit enforcing them without similar system is probably not possible.

Alright, let's talk about those too then.

Reason of poverty and excess wealth in aggregate can be accounted for systemic unfairnesses in the economy. Interest is one mechanism that greatly favors those already wealthy. Reason for kidney failure, on the other hand, is mostly sheer bad luck.

What do you mean by unfairness? Is it fair that some people are smarter than others? Is it fair that some people can make millions of dollars because they are good at tennis? I agree but why is anyone owed anything because of this? Maybe you mean some other kind of unfairness.

Transfer of wealth can be done equally among certain group, organ transfers can't. Thus forced kidney 'donation' is against the principle of equality as all equal individuals don't have to donate a kidney, but one would have to go with random donors.

I don't understand what you're saying. Some people have to give more money than others, some none at all. Some people have to give kidneys and others don't. There's nothing exactly equal in either case.

[Mittlyle]

If ideology states that transfer of wealth is okay, and then you argue that you should also agree kidney transfers by the same logic, you have a straw man if de facto the ideology really doesn't agree that.

The original poster is trying to argue that certain people are being inconsistent so of course the majority disagrees with that.

Some left-wingers definitely are inconsistent. So are some libertarians. Whats the point of arguing against those who by definition are, well, straw-man of the ideology. The point we should look at is if the left-wing ideology is consistent, not whether some random individual is. If the point of this thread is that some left are inconsistent then my point has been that not all are and thus this thread has little significance.

Reason of poverty and excess wealth in aggregate can be accounted for systemic unfairnesses in the economy. Interest is one mechanism that greatly favors those already wealthy. Reason for kidney failure, on the other hand, is mostly sheer bad luck.

What do you mean by unfairness? Is it fair that some people are smarter than others? Is it fair that some people can make millions of dollars because they are good at tennis? I agree but why is anyone owed anything because of this? Maybe you mean some other kind of unfairness.

If somebody is good at tennis and other isn't, I do not define that really unfair. If the referee would be consistently partial then thats unfair. Same in here: problem isn't that some are naturally more talented than others, or even that they have more wealth. It is that your wealth determines the rules you play by. If poor, you pay interest for being that way, if you are affluent you are paid. In other words you get different amount of wealth relative to your contribution to the economy (~your skill in the game). Economics is just an arbitrary construction so why not fix it with another one so what you really contribute matches better to what you get.

Transfer of wealth can be done equally among certain group, organ transfers can't. Thus forced kidney 'donation' is against the principle of equality as all equal individuals don't have to donate a kidney, but one would have to go with random donors.

I don't understand what you're saying. Some people have to give more money than others, some none at all. Some people have to give kidneys and others don't. There's nothing exactly equal in either case.

First think of two groups, one with 2 functioning kidneys and second smaller group with no functioning kidneys. To redistribute the 'health' one has to arbitrarily pick the donors and that is not equal because someone in equal position didn't need to give a kidney. Now think of two groups, one wealthy and one poor. To do a transfer of wealth we can share the burden of wealth-loss equally among the wealthy group. Thats equal in that group. When I say 'Transfer of wealth can be done equally among certain group' I mean that in certain income-class the burden is shared equally. Of course your wealth determines how 'responsible' you are under such system. Somebody earning twice what the other is paying more but their position is not equivalent in the first place.

[Anonymous]

You imply that wealth is limited.

[myrkul]

You imply that wealth is limited.

Atlas, Wealth is unlimited, because it's subjective.

Capital is not, because it's objective. (yes, that limit is far from being reached. Still there, though)

[Reikoku]

All left-wingers propose an incoherent worldview, because they support egalitarianism of finance only. If they truly believed in 'equality', they would support things like the redistribution of body organs. Unfortunately, despite claiming a wish to improve the condition of humanity, most of these 'caring people' simply propose egalitarianism in self-interest, that is taking away the gains of those whom they envy the most (the wealthy, the successful).

Also, argumentum ad populum is an absurd retort to my argument for the reasons already covered by bitcoin2cash.

“Social Security is a government program with a constituency made up of the old, the near old and those who hope or fear to grow old. After 215 years of trying, we have finally discovered a special interest that includes 100 percent of the population. Now we can vote ourselves rich.”
- P J O'Rourke.

[myrkul]

“Social Security is a government program with a constituency made up of the old, the near old and those who hope or fear to grow old. After 215 years of trying, we have finally discovered a special interest that includes 100 percent of the population. Now we can vote ourselves rich.”
- P J O'Rourke.

Score one for the Obby!

[david4dev]

All left-wingers propose an incoherent worldview, because they support egalitarianism of finance only.

I class my self as a left winger but I support equality not only of finance but of rights, freedoms and decision making power.

[myrkul]

All left-wingers propose an incoherent worldview, because they support egalitarianism of finance only.

I class my self as a left winger but I support equality not only of finance but of rights, freedoms and decision making power.

So, how does that work, exactly? You're free to trade, as long as everything has exactly the same monetary value and nobody comes off 'better'?

[david4dev]

All left-wingers propose an incoherent worldview, because they support egalitarianism of finance only.

I class my self as a left winger but I support equality not only of finance but of rights, freedoms and decision making power.

So, how does that work, exactly? You're free to trade, as long as everything has exactly the same monetary value and nobody comes off 'better'?

I never said that and 'everything has the exact same monetary value' doesn't make sense.

My political beliefs are based on a few things that I believe are fundamental:

• Everyone alive now and alive in the future has a set of rights - eg. the right to life and health; the right to basic material security (shelter, clothes, food etc); the right to basic social security (education, community, creativity, fulfilment etc.); the right to do with their body as they wish;
• Everyone alive now and in the future is free to do anything as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others both now and in the future.
• This is a finite world with finite resources but there is enough to provide for everyone and enable them to have all of their rights.

This leads to various ideals including democracy, socialism ('left'), libertarianism, pacifism and environmentalism.

[Reikoku]

So if there is an inalienable right to health, surely that means if someone is dying of kidney failure, it is in fact legitimate to take a kidney away from a match by coercion, in the same way as if someone needs money for healthcare you advocate appropriating it from successful people by coercion?

[myrkul]

All left-wingers propose an incoherent worldview, because they support egalitarianism of finance only.

I class my self as a left winger but I support equality not only of finance but of rights, freedoms and decision making power.

So, how does that work, exactly? You're free to trade, as long as everything has exactly the same monetary value and nobody comes off 'better'?

I never said that and 'everything has the exact same monetary value' doesn't make sense.

"Equality of Finance" means what, then?

[david4dev]

So if there is an inalienable right to health, surely that means if someone is dying of kidney failure, it is in fact legitimate to take a kidney away from a match by coercion

No. This violates the right of control over one's own body.

if someone needs money for healthcare you advocate appropriating it from successful people by coercion?

Yes. The idea is that everyone pays for the health of everyone. Those who can afford more, pay more.

[The Script]

So if there is an inalienable right to health, surely that means if someone is dying of kidney failure, it is in fact legitimate to take a kidney away from a match by coercion

No. This violates the right of control over one's own body.

if someone needs money for healthcare you advocate appropriating it from successful people by coercion?

Yes. The idea is that everyone pays for the health of everyone. Those who can afford more, pay more.

Don't you have to decide which right comes first, then?  Your right to health may violate my right to my body. 

[david4dev]

All left-wingers propose an incoherent worldview, because they support egalitarianism of finance only.

I class my self as a left winger but I support equality not only of finance but of rights, freedoms and decision making power.

So, how does that work, exactly? You're free to trade, as long as everything has exactly the same monetary value and nobody comes off 'better'?

I never said that and 'everything has the exact same monetary value' doesn't make sense.

"Equality of Finance" means what, then?

That the difference between earnings of the highest paid and the lowest paid is minimal.

[The Script]

All left-wingers propose an incoherent worldview, because they support egalitarianism of finance only.

I class my self as a left winger but I support equality not only of finance but of rights, freedoms and decision making power.

So, how does that work, exactly? You're free to trade, as long as everything has exactly the same monetary value and nobody comes off 'better'?

I never said that and 'everything has the exact same monetary value' doesn't make sense.

"Equality of Finance" means what, then?

That the difference between earnings of the highest paid and the lowest paid is minimal.

Hmm, not to be a stickler, but what is "minimal" and who gets to decide it?

[myrkul]

That the difference between earnings of the highest paid and the lowest paid is minimal.

You should follow me over to this thread.

[david4dev]

All left-wingers propose an incoherent worldview, because they support egalitarianism of finance only.

I class my self as a left winger but I support equality not only of finance but of rights, freedoms and decision making power.

So, how does that work, exactly? You're free to trade, as long as everything has exactly the same monetary value and nobody comes off 'better'?

I never said that and 'everything has the exact same monetary value' doesn't make sense.

"Equality of Finance" means what, then?

That the difference between earnings of the highest paid and the lowest paid is minimal.

Hmm, not to be a stickler, but what is "minimal" and who gets to decide it?

Minimal is as close to equal as is practically achievable. Equal would be ideal but would require everyone to have a strong work ethic which is unrealistic. 'Minimal' recognises that people who don't work because they are lazy don't deserve to earn as much as those who do work or those who are unable to work. The lazy people still have all of their rights but don't deserve the luxuries they could afford with a higher wage. However, people who do currently low paid jobs such as manufacture are as (realistically more) important than people in extremely high paid jobs such as banking.

[jgraham]

So if there is an inalienable right to health, surely that means if someone is dying of kidney failure, it is in fact legitimate to take a kidney away from a match by coercion, in the same way as if someone needs money for healthcare you advocate appropriating it from successful people by coercion?

I remember when I used to have lunch with Francisco D'Aconia and Moe Berg and how they used to say: "Check your cheese-eating schoolboy premises Reikoku".

True story.

[Mittlyle]

All left-wingers propose an incoherent worldview, because they support egalitarianism of finance only. If they truly believed in 'equality', they would support things like the redistribution of body organs. Unfortunately, despite claiming a wish to improve the condition of humanity, most of these 'caring people' simply propose egalitarianism in self-interest, that is taking away the gains of those whom they envy the most (the wealthy, the successful).

Also, argumentum ad populum is an absurd retort to my argument for the reasons already covered by bitcoin2cash.

I believe concept equality is an oxymoron as to truly achieve it you would have to have perfect similarity. That is why I do not adhere it and like to think in terms of justice. That of course is subjective term so it is not unproblematic. My opinion is that most leftist would come to agree with this, but currently word equality is used interchangeably for what is deemed just, thus leading to these semantic problems. Even if left were about equality (aka justice) in only finance, what's the problem? I could advocate equality in literacy but not in skills playing tennis. I see no problem cherry-picking certain areas and ignoring the others. And by the way, only communist would advocate real equality in finance.

And yes, naturally most people tend to follow policies that are in their favor. What do you do? Pick a ideology you know would be bad for you? (As a side-note, funny thing is that if we were discussing in my country, my opinions would be considered right-wing as I think government spending should be cut.)

Argument ad populum? To claim that you must have seriously misunderstood something. Point (3) was there not because majority's opinion grants real legitimacy, but because it clearly shows reducing left to utilitarian egalitarianism is a straw man as de facto left does not function like that. (1) and (2) have the content that show your comparison was unfounded and that your claims don't follow even if one followed equality strictly.

As for now, I'll claim that the OP's claim of left being inconsistent for not accepting forced organ transfers is refuted.

[Reikoku]

OK, all you're doing is playing the semantics game here. Instead of advocating perfect 'equality', you're advocating partial 'equality', which is the same thing but even more inconsistent.

I think that you're thinking on too high a level, without understanding where left-wing opinions are derived from in the first place. What you need to do is explain what natural rights are, and then derive your political understandings from there.

Left-wingers tend to believe in a level of equality because of 'social' rights like a right to an education and a right to health. If you accept that somebody's right to my money can be greater than my own because they have a right to health (and can't afford healthcare), why would this right not extend to my body organs which I can function without, when they can't get a body organ?

It's not about cherry picking ideas, it's about understanding where your ideals come from. Most left-wingers do profess a 'right to healthcare' which somehow grants people claim over other people's stuff. I'm trying to understand the inconsistency being applied between a 'right to my money/possessions' and a 'right to my body organs'.

I completely agree with you that most people pick an ideal that works in their favour, but the accusations of greed almost always come from the left. Acting in your own self-interest and calling others out when they do the same is very inconsistent.

If you use a majority opinion as a reason to legitimise a decision, that's argumentum ad populum. In the past, the majority have traditionally supported persecution of the few. If you don't believe me, go and read into apartheid or the civil rights movement.

I'm not sure that you're capable of refuting anything with that nonsense. You've not understood my argument, so I'll ask in simpler terms:

Explain your premise for WHY redistribution of wealth is acceptable. THEN, explain why that premise can't be applied to redistribution of health, kicking intelligent kids out of classrooms so that we can dedicate more time to the slower ones etc. If you can't do this, if your premise has multiple natural sequitors, then you don't have a consistent worldview.

[epi 1:10,000]

It's not about cherry picking ideas, it's about understanding where your ideals come from. Most left-wingers do profess a 'right to healthcare' which somehow grants people claim over other people's stuff. I'm trying to understand the inconsistency being applied between a 'right to my money/possessions' and a 'right to my body organs'.

Explain your premise for WHY redistribution of wealth is acceptable. THEN, explain why that premise can't be applied to redistribution of health, kicking intelligent kids out of classrooms so that we can dedicate more time to the slower ones etc. If you can't do this, if your premise has multiple natural sequitors, then you don't have a consistent worldview.

Explain to me WHY the Original Position is an invalid model for defining these rights.  In other words one in the Original Position would not support slavery, bigotry, forced physical mutilation (aka forced redistribution of kidneys), sexism, imperialism, ect.  Is this wrong?

[david4dev]

Explain your premise for WHY redistribution of wealth is acceptable.

You explain why it is unacceptable. Surely, we start off by assuming something is acceptable. If you want to say it is not acceptable, you need to provide reasons to show this.

explain why that premise can't be applied to redistribution of health

Everyone has a right to health. Therefore it is wrong to actively harm someone's health. Removal of a kidney has undeniable health risks and so by forcefully removing a kidney from someone you are violating their right to health. I also believe people have a right of control over their own body. You are obviously violating this right if you remove one of their organs without permission. The person with no kidneys is in poor health and so attempts should be made to correct this but this can't violate another person's rights. If a person decides to donate a kidney then that is their choice and is ok, although it is preferable to take kidneys from people who no longer need them - the dead.

kicking intelligent kids out of classrooms so that we can dedicate more time to the slower ones

This is violating the right of education of these 'intelligent kids' and is therefore wrong. The 'slower' and 'intelligent' kids both have the right to education and they should both be provided for.

[Mittlyle]

OK, all you're doing is playing the semantics game here. Instead of advocating perfect 'equality', you're advocating partial 'equality', which is the same thing but even more inconsistent.

I think that you're thinking on too high a level, without understanding where left-wing opinions are derived from in the first place. What you need to do is explain what natural rights are, and then derive your political understandings from there.

Left-wingers tend to believe in a level of equality because of 'social' rights like a right to an education and a right to health. If you accept that somebody's right to my money can be greater than my own because they have a right to health (and can't afford healthcare), why would this right not extend to my body organs which I can function without, when they can't get a body organ?

It's not about cherry picking ideas, it's about understanding where your ideals come from. Most left-wingers do profess a 'right to healthcare' which somehow grants people claim over other people's stuff. I'm trying to understand the inconsistency being applied between a 'right to my money/possessions' and a 'right to my body organs'.

I completely agree with you that most people pick an ideal that works in their favour, but the accusations of greed almost always come from the left. Acting in your own self-interest and calling others out when they do the same is very inconsistent.

If you use a majority opinion as a reason to legitimise a decision, that's argumentum ad populum. In the past, the majority have traditionally supported persecution of the few. If you don't believe me, go and read into apartheid or the civil rights movement.

I'm not sure that you're capable of refuting anything with that nonsense. You've not understood my argument, so I'll ask in simpler terms:

Explain your premise for WHY redistribution of wealth is acceptable. THEN, explain why that premise can't be applied to redistribution of health, kicking intelligent kids out of classrooms so that we can dedicate more time to the slower ones etc. If you can't do this, if your premise has multiple natural sequitors, then you don't have a consistent worldview.

The main argument (2) I had – the one I believe refutes your comparison – is that you can't do organ transfers in the name of equality without violating someones right to equality. With wealth you can dealing each wealth-class independently. With N people with fully functioning kidneys and m people with bad kidneys and n with non functioning kidneys (N > m > n), if you did forced kidney transfers there will be

• N - n people with functioning two kidneys
• m people with bad kidneys
• n kidney donors
• n kidney acceptors

Group 1 and 3 were treated unequally so we violated the principle of equality which we were trying to fulfill. Thus forced kidney transfers violate strict equality (this might be overcome with payment, although I consider that dubious and not equal). I believe that with this reasoning you will come to agree that you original comparison was not founded. With transfer of wealth there is no similar problem as wealth (at least in money terms) can be split in to almost arbitrarily many parts and thus the transfer of wealth can be done equally in each income class. Notice that to achieve 'equality' we treat different income classes as 'unequal' same way as people with fully functioning kidney and badly functioning kidneys got different treatment. Collectivity was one of my arguments which I believe is necessary (but not sufficient) condition for justified forced transfer of wealth.  There are very few things you can truly redistribute collectively that aren't measurable in wealth so in my opinion only thing left to discuss is if transfer of wealth is justifiable in the first place. Measuring 'transfer of health' in money terms (to overcome the discrete nature of kidneys) also reduces the question back to just transfer of wealth.

My opinion is that to fix systemic unfairnesses ('the partial referee') transfer of wealth is okay and to use those money to healthcare is just good use of resources if it goes to the target group. Bad luck is not an example of systemic unfairness. More difficult question is whether transfer of wealth is okay just to support naturally more unfortunate groups. I believe that is good, reasonable and beneficial policy but how to argue that everybody would be obliged to do this is a more difficult question. I'll return to it maybe later. Best I can now say is that currently democracy grants legitimacy for it, but this is bit shady as anything deriving legitimacy from democracy is circular as democracy is in effect legitimized by democracy...

As for semantics of 'equal', let me tell that it is very slippery word just as is justice. They can have so many different presuppositions so I would be very careful when deriving any conclusions from somebody using them. 'Partial equality' is even more of an oxymoron than plain equality. Most people don't realise the ambiguity of the word so there you go with exact arguments. One viewpoint on 'equality' is that 'inequality' is acceptable if those unequal are better of in that situation than in the assumed perfectly equality but there are many arbitrary other ways. Maybe we'll discuss about these semantic problems later.

Sorry that I didn't carefully answer your points. Just wanted to summarize my points so far. As said, I think we should talk about legitimacy of transfer of wealth in relation to lefts arguments. Deriving any analogies with seeming contradictions is in my opinion unfounded.

Edit: 'Impartial referee' –> 'partial referee'.

[epi 1:10,000]

My opinion is that to fix systemic unfairnesses ('the impartial referee') transfer of wealth is okay and to use those money to healthcare is just good use of resources if it goes to the target group. Bad luck is not an example of systemic unfairness. More difficult question is whether transfer of wealth is okay just to support naturally more unfortunate groups. I believe that is good, reasonable and beneficial policy but how to argue that everybody would be obliged to do this is a more difficult question. I'll return to it maybe later. Best I can now say is that currently democracy grants legitimacy for it, but this is bit shady as anything deriving legitimacy from democracy is circular as democracy is in effect legitimized by democracy...

On a side note...  What amount/level/quality of information do you think the "the impartial referee" has?  There seems to be room for debate in this area.

[Mittlyle]

My opinion is that to fix systemic unfairnesses ('the impartial referee') transfer of wealth is okay and to use those money to healthcare is just good use of resources if it goes to the target group. Bad luck is not an example of systemic unfairness. More difficult question is whether transfer of wealth is okay just to support naturally more unfortunate groups. I believe that is good, reasonable and beneficial policy but how to argue that everybody would be obliged to do this is a more difficult question. I'll return to it maybe later. Best I can now say is that currently democracy grants legitimacy for it, but this is bit shady as anything deriving legitimacy from democracy is circular as democracy is in effect legitimized by democracy...

On a side note...  What amount/level/quality of information do you think the "the impartial referee" has?  There seems to be room for debate in this area.

'Partial referee' (btw, I didn't mean impartial, sorry not native in English) was a sort of allusion to my previous arguments in which I defined difference of fair inequality and unfair one. If you are damn good tennis player then that isn't really unfair to anyone. If the the difference in the game, however, is due to partial referee, then that is. My argument is that wealth accumulation and deprivation is partly due to such unfairness in economics, so it is okay to even things out with transfer of wealth. In this case partial referee was reference to the de facto rules of economics. It obviously isn't a real feeling and thinking thing.

I'm not sure if I caught what your idea was, but it seems it could be something relevant, so feel free to clarify it.

Of course to determine what is the right 'correction' for each income-class is difficult question (not to mention how to enforce it), one in which the accidentally mentioned impartial referee would be good to have. I don't see how we could get one so we'll have to go with the usual 'who manages to enforce his opinions no matter how wins'.

By the way, there are two concepts that should be familiar to all before we continue on debating on equality: 'equality of outcome' and 'equality of opportunity'. Even these aren't precise science but at least they are lot better than the terribly ambiguous plain equality.

[Reikoku]

You start off here with another strange utilitarian argument instead of arguing the crux of the issue which is the 'right to health'. I don't mean to be rude so I'll ask you to clarify, but it appears that you're arguing not that forced kidney transfers are somehow wrong, but just that because they can't achieve equality that they can't fulfil a marginal utility purpose.

Let's start with some core assumptions that I'm making because I'm trying to be as clear as possible here:

1. You accept a right to private property.
2. You accept a right to healthcare.

Assuming that I'm correct so far, let's look at what happens when Person A is sick and can't afford healthcare. If you accept that Person B has to provide for Person A via welfare, then you add a third rule:

3. A person with a deficit's rights can overrule the rights of a person with surplus.

If you accept this so far, then it's up to you to explain a rights-based argument why it is right to make this overrule apply to property rights, but not to the right to health.

Taking it to another level, let's say Persons C & D both have kidney failure, but Person C can afford dialysis and Person D cannot. Is it reasonable for Person D to demand to use Person C's dialysis machine, as this is simply a piece of material property and not a part of Person C's body?

How about people with prosthetic legs or arms? Is it reasonable for them to be asked to share? Let's say three people have a missing leg and there are only two prosthetic legs. In order to nullify your ridiculous utilitarian argument, it is perfectly legitimate to force the two people with the legs to share with the third such that all three have use of two legs 66% of the time. Is this reasonable?

If you don't support these suggestions but do support the redistribution of wealth, without being able to make a rights/ethics-based argument for it (i.e. an argument which doesn't pre-assume that we all accept the 'good' of utilitarianism) then I'm sorry, but that stinks of an inconsistant worldview.

Utilitarianism isn't an axiom which every debate begins by accepting. I, for one, don't agree with the premise that it's OK to kill a man to save two more, so marginal utility theory isn't particularly persuasive with me.

If you wish to refute my argument entirely, you need to be able to make an argument rooted in ethics rather than utility or practicality to explain why I can infringe upon anothers' right to property but not their right to free speech or health.

[Babylon]

I'm a left winger who is opposed to government, so I don't know who would be redistributing these kidneys.

I do know that allowing someone to die when you have the ability to save his life is morally wrong, but much easier when that person is far away and not visible to you.  Sleeping rough is not as bad as dying of kidney failure (well,  I don't know for sure, I've slept rough before but never died of kidney failure, but I assume it is worse) so the moral imperative to donate a kidney is actually stronger.  If my daughter were dying of kidney failure and you were a match and refused to give her a kidney I would forcibly take it from you, to protect my daughter's life and I feel I would be morally right to do so.  (assuming I had a doctor willing to do the operation under those circumstances of course)  If you did the same to me I think you would be justified in doing so.

[jgraham]

I'm a left winger who is opposed to government, so I don't know who would be redistributing these kidneys.

I do know that allowing someone to die when you have the ability to save his life is morally wrong, but much easier when that person is far away and not visible to you.  Sleeping rough is not as bad as dying of kidney failure (well,  I don't know for sure, I've slept rough before but never died of kidney failure, but I assume it is worse) so the moral imperative to donate a kidney is actually stronger.  If my daughter were dying of kidney failure and you were a match and refused to give her a kidney I would forcibly take it from you, to protect my daughter's life and I feel I would be morally right to do so.  (assuming I had a doctor willing to do the operation under those circumstances of course)  If you did the same to me I think you would be justified in doing so.

Absolutely.

Incidentally I'll be dropping by sometime today to reduce your quality of life for a potential and temporary enhancement of my own.  It involves rapid and repeated strikes of my foot into your groin.  As you lie fetal you can console yourself with the fact that not only was this amusing for me but also morally defensible.

Nephrectomies are not without risk and are also not necessarily a cure.

[Reikoku]

If my daughter were dying of kidney failure and you were a match and refused to give her a kidney I would forcibly take it from you, to protect my daughter's life and I feel I would be morally right to do so.  (assuming I had a doctor willing to do the operation under those circumstances of course)  If you did the same to me I think you would be justified in doing so.

This is a terrible way of thinking. There is little difference between this and the logic which says that I can shoot you if you witnessed my friend committing a crime in order to protect him. It's an egoist position (see Max Stirner) and ultimately boils down to 'Whatever one has the might to do, one has the right to do'.

[JA37]

It isn't. It is morally neutral. It would be a good deed to put up the person in your 14th bedroom but you don't personally have a moral obligation to do so. You are not actively making someone sleep rough - you are simply allowing them to do so.

This is my position, but many lefties don't agree with it. They would argue that because that 14th room of my mansion is not in use, that I have no legitimate claim over it.

If it's not in use then I can homestead it according to AnCap law? Some new curtains, a bed and whammo that room is mine. Right?

[Mittlyle]

1. You accept a right to private property.
2. You accept a right to healthcare.

Assuming that I'm correct so far, let's look at what happens when Person A is sick and can't afford healthcare. If you accept that Person B has to provide for Person A via welfare, then you add a third rule:

3. A person with a deficit's rights can overrule the rights of a person with surplus.

If you accept this so far, then it's up to you to explain a rights-based argument why it is right to make this overrule apply to property rights, but not to the right to health.

Health and wealth are very different assets. If we could pump abstract thing called 'health' from people and lump it back to sickly then we seriously would need to consider the ethics of forced redistribution of health (I'm not behind it though as we would be fixing bad luck and peoples own choices). As completely theoretical construct I would not touch on that. In practice (kidney transfer for example) egalitarianism is not met in compromising someones health for 'utilitarian good'. Thus we don't need to consider overriding someones health if we believe in right to equal and just treatment. Wealth can be redistributed equally among each income-class so it can be done 'equally'.

As to completely different question than the original post, I'll sketch few reasons why I think transfer of wealth for health-care is okay:

• If transfer of wealth is acceptable in first place (as I believe it is as there are structural unfairness that need to be fixed), then it is reasonable to direct part of it to health-care as that is expense for people same way as everything else. This is my main reason
• Health is capital. The whole economy functions better when people are healthy. In long run this will benefit also those paying the bill. Only way to do this rational 'investment' is by forcing the collective behind it as all will want to reap the benefits but nobody foot the bill. Individualism is bad excuse for not doing reasonable things.
• I think we are both individuals and part of the community (or larger entities, in the end whole biosphere). Entities we live in are the precondition for our well-being so we are morally indebted to keep them well-being too. Some people just seem oblivious to this.
• If we consider that people have equal right to lead good life regardless of their socio-economic status, then not being able to afford health-care is in effect contradicting this.
• (We are not touching your tangible property. Only your bank account. There is subtle but significant difference when considering property rights.)

You could sum up my stance as that in essence we are not overriding your property rights but more like charging a moral debt. That is, in effect your property rights were not violated.

[Anonymous]

Moral debt cannot be objectively measured.

[myrkul]

It isn't. It is morally neutral. It would be a good deed to put up the person in your 14th bedroom but you don't personally have a moral obligation to do so. You are not actively making someone sleep rough - you are simply allowing them to do so.

This is my position, but many lefties don't agree with it. They would argue that because that 14th room of my mansion is not in use, that I have no legitimate claim over it.

If it's not in use then I can homestead it according to AnCap law? Some new curtains, a bed and whammo that room is mine. Right?

No, since it's within the already homesteaded mansion. Nice try, though.

[Mittlyle]

Moral debt cannot be objectively measured.

If we agree there is one, I think it isn't that precise that do we hit the right spot as long as we have the right direction. Politics is for getting to a result in such ambiguous matters.

[JA37]

No, since it's within the already homesteaded mansion. Nice try, though.

Right, so I can homestead a large swath of land and I don't have to use it, it's still mine? Like homesteading a large forest. Natural borders exists where the treeline ends. Should suffice, right?

[myrkul]

No, since it's within the already homesteaded mansion. Nice try, though.

Right, so I can homestead a large swath of land and I don't have to use it, it's still mine? Like homesteading a large forest. Natural borders exists where the treeline ends. Should suffice, right?

Yeah, so long as that is made clear. Signs on most of the border trees should suffice.

[Anonymous]

Moral debt cannot be objectively measured.

If we agree there is one, I think it isn't that precise that do we hit the right spot as long as we have the right direction. Politics is for getting to a result in such ambiguous matters.

No, free trade is for getting to a result in such matters.

[JA37]

No, since it's within the already homesteaded mansion. Nice try, though.

Right, so I can homestead a large swath of land and I don't have to use it, it's still mine? Like homesteading a large forest. Natural borders exists where the treeline ends. Should suffice, right?

Yeah, so long as that is made clear. Signs on most of the border trees should suffice.

Not too long ago in another thread about a similar subject a field of crops was considered a natural border. Proof enough that the land was taken, yet now I have to put signs up around my forest? There doesn't seem to be any consistency to your rules regarding homesteading. Seems like I just have to have a large enough protection agency that can help me defend my property. 

[myrkul]

No, since it's within the already homesteaded mansion. Nice try, though.

Right, so I can homestead a large swath of land and I don't have to use it, it's still mine? Like homesteading a large forest. Natural borders exists where the treeline ends. Should suffice, right?

Yeah, so long as that is made clear. Signs on most of the border trees should suffice.

Not too long ago in another thread about a similar subject a field of crops was considered a natural border. Proof enough that the land was taken, yet now I have to put signs up around my forest? There doesn't seem to be any consistency to your rules regarding homesteading. Seems like I just have to have a large enough protection agency that can help me defend my property. 

A field of crops is obvious human use. A treeline develops naturally. Seriously. try harder.

[JA37]

A field of crops is obvious human use. A treeline develops naturally. Seriously. try harder.

I'm growing grass for my cows. Now can you tell if you can homestead my field or not? Is it your will to see the border that decides if you can take my property or not?

[myrkul]

A field of crops is obvious human use. A treeline develops naturally. Seriously. try harder.

I'm growing grass for my cows. Now can you tell if you can homestead my field or not? Is it your will to see the border that decides if you can take my property or not?

If you're growing grass for your cows, I'll assume you have a fence to keep the cows from wandering off.

And No, it is not my will to see the border, but your ability to make it visible.

[JA37]

If you're growing grass for your cows, I'll assume you have a fence to keep the cows from wandering off.

And No, it is not my will to see the border, but your ability to make it visible.

It's for winter feed. I don't need to fence in the grass. It won't leave.

You don't think a treeline is visible? And if you don't see that I use the grass you're welcome to take my land?

[myrkul]

If you're growing grass for your cows, I'll assume you have a fence to keep the cows from wandering off.

And No, it is not my will to see the border, but your ability to make it visible.

It's for winter feed. I don't need to fence in the grass. It won't leave.

You don't think a treeline is visible? And if you don't see that I use the grass you're welcome to take my land?

A treeline is visible, but occurs in NATURE. Homesteading is the act of making the border clear. If you do not do that, you have not claimed the land. Since a treeline occurs in nature, while a plowed field does not, you would need to apply effort to the treeline to make the border clear. ie: put some damn signs up. And if you use the grass, it behooves you to homestead the land, yes?

[JA37]

A treeline is visible, but occurs in NATURE. Homesteading is the act of making the border clear. If you do not do that, you have not claimed the land. Since a treeline occurs in nature, while a plowed field does not, you would need to apply effort to the treeline to make the border clear. ie: put some damn signs up. And if you use the grass, it behooves you to homestead the land, yes?

I'm using it, but that's not enough for you is it? It has to be obvious to you that I'm using it, and if you don't consider it obvious you can take my land. Since you know nothing about keeping cows you don't see my grass field as used and take it. Then our private armies have to clash to decide who's right.
I'm cutting down trees in my forest, but not all the trees all the time. How is that not using it? But you still think you can take my land because I'm currently working in a different part of the forest, and you know nothing about foresting.

[myrkul]

A treeline is visible, but occurs in NATURE. Homesteading is the act of making the border clear. If you do not do that, you have not claimed the land. Since a treeline occurs in nature, while a plowed field does not, you would need to apply effort to the treeline to make the border clear. ie: put some damn signs up. And if you use the grass, it behooves you to homestead the land, yes?

I'm using it, but that's not enough for you is it? It has to be obvious to you that I'm using it, and if you don't consider it obvious you can take my land. Since you know nothing about keeping cows you don't see my grass field as used and take it. Then our private armies have to clash to decide who's right.
I'm cutting down trees in my forest, but not all the trees all the time. How is that not using it? But you still think you can take my land because I'm currently working in a different part of the forest, and you know nothing about foresting.

Why do you statists always go straight for the gun? You do realize that there are other methods of dispute resolution right? Click the link in my sig for a quick crash course.

[JA37]

Why do you statists always go straight for the gun? You do realize that there are other methods of dispute resolution right? Click the link in my sig for a quick crash course.

I'm not the one arguing for more guns remember. The private armies deal is your ideal solution to problems. I'm quite fine as it is thankyouverymuch.
Now address the real points instead.

[myrkul]

Why do you statists always go straight for the gun? You do realize that there are other methods of dispute resolution right? Click the link in my sig for a quick crash course.

I'm not the one arguing for more guns remember. The private armies deal is your ideal solution to problems. I'm quite fine as it is thankyouverymuch.
Now address the real points instead.

No matter the system, you need to make sure others know that your property is your property. One way is signs, or a fence, or other visible barrier. Another is land registries. Either way, you have to stake your claim in some way other than "I can see it, therefore it is mine". Shit, even wolves piss on a tree to mark territory.

[evolve]

as a liberal, i dont think that the lower class has any entitlement to the possessions of the rich.

however, i do believe in social contract. speaking from an evolutionary standpoint, human beings abiilty to work together for the good of the group is what helped us survive long enough to become the top of the food chain. we are social creatures...no man is an island, and no mans success has happened without help from others.

ayn rand be damned, we dont survive as individuals.

i dont think that you owe homeless joe your porche..or your liver for that matter...just b/c your successful.  however, i do think its your duty (as a human being) to help those less fortunate than you.  this isnt politics, its called being a decent human being.



let me tell you a story.

8 years ago, me and my wife were poor...dirt fucking (qualified for foodstamps) poor.  the kicker is that we both worked..she was military, and i had just gotten out of the military and was working some shit job on base. we worked our asses off, but couldnt keep our heads above water....then (despite using the depo shot...birth control) my wife got pregnant...with twins.   needless to say, we needed help.  the military was unwilling to help, so we got on WIC to help pay for formula.  we could (and should) have gotten more assistance, but i let pride get in the way.

fast forward to now.  our household income last year was very close to 6 figures. we live in a VERY high end area and live very comfortably.... and we couldnt have gotten here without help. now that i am in this position, i am more than willing to kick a bit down to those less fortunate than me....ive been there, i know what its like..

[myrkul]

And it's because of people like you, that no one needs to worry about the poor in a Stateless society.

Personally, I believe that decent human beings outnumber the d-bags.

[evolve]

And it's because of people like you, that no one needs to worry about the poor in a Stateless society.

i really wish i could believe that. in my experience however, most people have the attitude of "i got mine, screw you". 

the fact that there is even a debate about poor people getting equal access to health care as the rich is proof enough of that IMO.

been on both sides of that one two....couldnt go to the doctor for years...couldnt afford it....had to let a mole get to full blown melanoma before we had good enough insurance to get it biopsied/removed (an then it still cost us an obscene amount of money)...had we not been fortunate enough to claw our way into our current financial situation, i could have died....for the simple fact that we were poor.

[myrkul]

been on both sides of that one two....couldnt go to the doctor for years...couldnt afford it....had to let a mole get to full blown melanoma before we had good enough insurance to get it biopsied/removed (an then it still cost us an obscene amount of money)...had we not been fortunate enough to claw our way into our current financial situation, in all likelyhood, i could have died.

I could list all the benefits of removing the state (and state-supported) monopolies in Healthcare, but I like you, so I won't bore ya.

[evolve]

we'll save it for another time then, lol....

[JA37]

No matter the system, you need to make sure others know that your property is your property. One way is signs, or a fence, or other visible barrier. Another is land registries. Either way, you have to stake your claim in some way other than "I can see it, therefore it is mine". Shit, even wolves piss on a tree to mark territory.

Emphasis mine.
So, you can't homestead apparently unused property, because someone might use it for something that you don't know? You still have to check for ownership before homesteading. Where's the benefit in your system again?

And the link in your sig? Mediation? That's what you think should happen if you "homestead" my grass field that I use? Aren't anyone who homestead my property "aggressors" that I can "defend" myself against? Or do they have some sort of right if they manage to build a hut before I discover them? Should I pay some restitution for tearing their shack down?

[myrkul]

No matter the system, you need to make sure others know that your property is your property. One way is signs, or a fence, or other visible barrier. Another is land registries. Either way, you have to stake your claim in some way other than "I can see it, therefore it is mine". Shit, even wolves piss on a tree to mark territory.

Emphasis mine.
So, you can't homestead apparently unused property, because someone might use it for something that you don't know? You still have to check for ownership before homesteading. Where's the benefit in your system again?

And the link in your sig? Mediation? That's what you think should happen if you "homestead" my grass field that I use? Aren't anyone who homestead my property "aggressors" that I can "defend" myself against? Or do they have some sort of right if they manage to build a hut before I discover them? Should I pay some restitution for tearing their shack down?

Thus the fence or sign, genius. It helps prevent accidents. This is true even in state societies.

[JA37]

Thus the fence or sign, genius. It helps prevent accidents. This is true even in state societies.

No fence required today. I'm the registered owner. You have a duty to look that up before taking any action on any land.

So what was the benefit of your system again? Please remind me. I seem to have forgotten.

Edit: Please explain the purpose of homesteading while you're at it too.

[Hawker]

Thus the fence or sign, genius. It helps prevent accidents. This is true even in state societies.

No fence required today. I'm the registered owner. You have a duty to look that up before taking any action on any land.

So what was the benefit of your system again? Please remind me. I seem to have forgotten.

There is no benefit to myrkul's concept of a stateless rule-less society and he acknowledges it can never happen.  But its logically consistent and he likes that.

[jgraham]

Thus the fence or sign, genius. It helps prevent accidents. This is true even in state societies.

No fence required today. I'm the registered owner. You have a duty to look that up before taking any action on any land.

So what was the benefit of your system again? Please remind me. I seem to have forgotten.

There is no benefit to myrkul's concept of a stateless rule-less society and he acknowledges it can never happen.  But its logically consistent and he likes that.

Anyone want to volunteer what exactly this idea is "logically consistent" with?

[myrkul]

Thus the fence or sign, genius. It helps prevent accidents. This is true even in state societies.

No fence required today. I'm the registered owner. You have a duty to look that up before taking any action on any land.

So what was the benefit of your system again? Please remind me. I seem to have forgotten.

Edit: Please explain the purpose of homesteading while you're at it too.

If there is a market need for land registrars (and your vehement argument shows there clearly would be) then there would be registrars. I have never argued against necessary services. I have always argued against the monopoly provision of those services.

The benefit of my system is Better service, better fee schedules, and nobody is forced to pay for a service they don't want or need. Monopolies have never produced good products or services for good prices.

The purpose of homesteading is as an alternative to a land registry. If one can claim land simply by marking it, then there's no need for the registrar, which will keep the registrar's price competitive with that of placing the fence or signs. Also, in a society without registrars, homesteading provides a way to mark your territory.

[NghtRppr]

nobody is forced to pay for a service they don't want or need

To me, that's the only thing that matters since I'm not a utilitarian. The other benefits you mention, though true, are just a bonus.

[myrkul]

Anyone want to volunteer what exactly this idea is "logically consistent" with?

Sure, I'll bite: The removal of monopoly services and replacement with market services is logically consistent with the Non-agression Priciple, which is the guiding principle for both the libertarian and Voluntaryist viewpoints.

[JA37]

Monopolies have never produced good products or services for good prices.

The purpose of homesteading is as an alternative to a land registry. If one can claim land simply by marking it, then there's no need for the registrar, which will keep the registrar's price competitive with that of placing the fence or signs. Also, in a society without registrars, homesteading provides a way to mark your territory.

I thought we settled that monopoly thing not too long ago. The one about the temporary monopoly for pharmaceutical companies. It does provide good products for good prices.

So you can't have both a land registry and allow homesteading. Sort of like how we have it now?

[myrkul]

Monopolies have never produced good products or services for good prices.

The purpose of homesteading is as an alternative to a land registry. If one can claim land simply by marking it, then there's no need for the registrar, which will keep the registrar's price competitive with that of placing the fence or signs. Also, in a society without registrars, homesteading provides a way to mark your territory.

I thought we settled that monopoly thing not too long ago. The one about the temporary monopoly for pharmaceutical companies. It does provide good products for good prices.

So you can't have both a land registry and allow homesteading. Sort of like how we have it now?

Are we reading the same message boards? And the only reason the drug monopoly provides good service at good prices is because it ends. You're comparing a temporary monopoly (which, while it lasts, provides a product at inflated prices, with no guarantee of good service) with a permanent monopoly. Try again.

[JA37]

Monopolies have never produced good products or services for good prices.

The purpose of homesteading is as an alternative to a land registry. If one can claim land simply by marking it, then there's no need for the registrar, which will keep the registrar's price competitive with that of placing the fence or signs. Also, in a society without registrars, homesteading provides a way to mark your territory.

I thought we settled that monopoly thing not too long ago. The one about the temporary monopoly for pharmaceutical companies. It does provide good products for good prices.

So you can't have both a land registry and allow homesteading. Sort of like how we have it now?

Are we reading the same message boards? And the only reason the drug monopoly provides good service at good prices is because it ends. You're comparing a temporary monopoly (which, while it lasts, provides a product at inflated prices, with no guarantee of good service) with a permanent monopoly. Try again.

If you stop saying that "Monopolies have never produced good products or services for good prices" I'll stop calling you out on that bullshit. You have a clear example that it does produce good products for good prices yet you keep repeating that falsehood. What inflated prices? They're charging what the market will allow, how is that inflated? Stop making unfounded claims.
What if it didn't end? What if that monopoly was permanent. The drug they came up with they own forever. Why wouldn't it work exactly the same way if permanent? They charge what the market will bear and if you don't like it don't buy.
Now the state only grants a temporary monopoly to give the companies an incentive to keep innovating, in the interest of the public.

I will admit that there are problems with patents and monopolies, but that they have their uses. Can you say the same?

[myrkul]

If you stop saying that "Monopolies have never produced good products or services for good prices" I'll stop calling you out on that bullshit. You have a clear example that it does produce good products for good prices yet you keep repeating that falsehood. What inflated prices? They're charging what the market will allow, how is that inflated? Stop making unfounded claims.
What if it didn't end? What if that monopoly was permanent. The drug they came up with they own forever. Why wouldn't it work exactly the same way if permanent? They charge what the market will bear and if you don't like it don't buy.
Now the state only grants a temporary monopoly to give the companies an incentive to keep innovating, in the interest of the public.

I will admit that there are problems with patents and monopolies, but that they have their uses. Can you say the same?

No, the good prices and good service only come after the monopoly ends. "charge what the market will bear" only applies when there is a market. if you're the only one, you can charge whatever you want.

[NghtRppr]

I thought we settled that monopoly thing not too long ago. The one about the temporary monopoly for pharmaceutical companies. It does provide good products for good prices.

Opinion.

[JA37]

No, the good prices and good service only come after the monopoly ends. "charge what the market will bear" only applies when there is a market. if you're the only one, you can charge whatever you want.

Clearly bullshit. A new drug needs to be marketed and sold. If you overcharge people won't buy. There's nobody out there forcing you to buy. Just say no. When enough people say no to a price it will drop until enough say yes. Simple as that. I thought you understood how the market works.
You don't think there's a market for a better cancer drug, or vaccine, or antibiotics? You sell on that market and you charge what it will bear.

[myrkul]

No, the good prices and good service only come after the monopoly ends. "charge what the market will bear" only applies when there is a market. if you're the only one, you can charge whatever you want.

Clearly bullshit. A new drug needs to be marketed and sold. If you overcharge people won't buy. There's nobody out there forcing you to buy. Just say no. When enough people say no to a price it will drop until enough say yes. Simple as that. I thought you understood how the market works.
You don't think there's a market for a better cancer drug, or vaccine, or antibiotics? You sell on that market and you charge what it will bear.

And the sustainable price is much higher if you're the only one. It's even higher if people aren't forced to pay that cost themselves (insurance). It's even higher if that insurance is state subsidized. So, if you're for robbing the poor to give to the rich, keep arguing that point.

[Hawker]

No, the good prices and good service only come after the monopoly ends. "charge what the market will bear" only applies when there is a market. if you're the only one, you can charge whatever you want.

Clearly bullshit. A new drug needs to be marketed and sold. If you overcharge people won't buy. There's nobody out there forcing you to buy. Just say no. When enough people say no to a price it will drop until enough say yes. Simple as that. I thought you understood how the market works.
You don't think there's a market for a better cancer drug, or vaccine, or antibiotics? You sell on that market and you charge what it will bear.

And the sustainable price is much higher if you're the only one. It's even higher if people aren't forced to pay that cost themselves (insurance). It's even higher if that insurance is state subsidized. So, if you're for robbing the poor to give to the rich, keep arguing that point.

All 4 sentences in your reply are false

[myrkul]

No, the good prices and good service only come after the monopoly ends. "charge what the market will bear" only applies when there is a market. if you're the only one, you can charge whatever you want.

Clearly bullshit. A new drug needs to be marketed and sold. If you overcharge people won't buy. There's nobody out there forcing you to buy. Just say no. When enough people say no to a price it will drop until enough say yes. Simple as that. I thought you understood how the market works.
You don't think there's a market for a better cancer drug, or vaccine, or antibiotics? You sell on that market and you charge what it will bear.

And the sustainable price is much higher if you're the only one. It's even higher if people aren't forced to pay that cost themselves (insurance). It's even higher if that insurance is state subsidized. So, if you're for robbing the poor to give to the rich, keep arguing that point.

All 4 sentences in your reply are false

Then disprove even one.

[Hawker]

No, the good prices and good service only come after the monopoly ends. "charge what the market will bear" only applies when there is a market. if you're the only one, you can charge whatever you want.

Clearly bullshit. A new drug needs to be marketed and sold. If you overcharge people won't buy. There's nobody out there forcing you to buy. Just say no. When enough people say no to a price it will drop until enough say yes. Simple as that. I thought you understood how the market works.
You don't think there's a market for a better cancer drug, or vaccine, or antibiotics? You sell on that market and you charge what it will bear.

And the sustainable price is much higher if you're the only one. It's even higher if people aren't forced to pay that cost themselves (insurance). It's even higher if that insurance is state subsidized. So, if you're for robbing the poor to give to the rich, keep arguing that point.

All 4 sentences in your reply are false

Then disprove even one.

If you have a single provider of health care, such as the NHS here in the UK, you can purchase in bulk and get the best price.

Thats your first sentence shown false.  By a real world example.

Because the drugs are bought in bulk from taxes, it costs uses nothing at the point of delivery.  Thats your second sentence shown false.  Again by what happens in real life.

Private insurance exists in the UK and it costs MORE than the NHS.  Thats your third sentence gone.

Controlling costs does not hurt the poor at all.  How could it?  Thats your fourth.

Seriously, yesterday you made nice logical arguments.   This is like "make something up and if anyone disagrees make more stuff up" Have you been on drugs today?

[myrkul]

If you have a single provider of health care, such as the NHS here in the UK, you can purchase in bulk and get the best price.

Thats your first sentence shown false.  By a real world example.

Because the drugs are bought in bulk from taxes, it costs uses nothing at the point of delivery.  Thats your second sentence shown false.  Again by what happens in real life.

Private insurance exists in the UK and it costs MORE than the NHS.  Thats your third sentence gone.

Controlling costs does not hurt the poor at all.  How could it?  Thats your fourth.

Seriously, yesterday you made nice logical arguments.   This is like "make something up and if anyone disagrees make more stuff up" Have you been on drugs today?

Yesterday you argued that competition reduced the price of something. Today you argue it doesn't. Which is it?

Bulk buying reduces the cost, but it reduces it from an inflated maximum. Bulk buying is also perfectly possible, no matter the number of drug companies offering meds. Nice try, but, no.

Buying drugs via taxes proves my fourth sentence. Thank you.

Private insurance costs more than the NHS because the NHS is state subsidized, and thus payed for by other people. See the fourth sentence.

And you're not controlling the price of the drugs at all, you're controlling the visible cost. There's a lot more hidden..

[JA37]

And the sustainable price is much higher if you're the only one. It's even higher if people aren't forced to pay that cost themselves (insurance). It's even higher if that insurance is state subsidized. So, if you're for robbing the poor to give to the rich, keep arguing that point.

But you're not the only one. There are many other companies out there who compete with you. They have to research their own drug, but they can compete if they want. They even get a monopoly on their own substance. If they charge more than their competitors they have to prove additional value. And when the research cost has been covered they can sell just above production cost, to keep competition out.

I think we can agree on one thing though. US health system sucks. Virtually every country in Europe have lower drug costs than the US, more accessible health care and lower cost for the state. You need to fix it. Have you tried single payer system? Works in Europe.
 

[jgraham]

Anyone want to volunteer what exactly this idea is "logically consistent" with?

Sure, I'll bite: The removal of monopoly services and replacement with market services is logically consistent with the Non-agression Priciple, which is the guiding principle for both the libertarian and Voluntaryist viewpoints.

Fair enough.

Out of curiosity.  If I could demonstrate to you that in any and all circumstances that the outcomes of strictly adhering to this principle would be, by every non-trivial metric lesser than at least one alternative.   Would you decide that this principle isn't worth following?

[NghtRppr]

Out of curiosity.  If I could demonstrate to you that in any and all circumstances that the outcomes of strictly adhering to this principle would be, by every non-trivial metric lesser than at least one alternative.   Would you decide that this principle isn't worth following?

Fiat justitia ruat caelum.

[myrkul]

Out of curiosity.  If I could demonstrate to you that in any and all circumstances that the outcomes of strictly adhering to this principle would be, by every non-trivial metric lesser than at least one alternative.   Would you decide that this principle isn't worth following?

Fiat justitia ruat caelum.

+1 If that is the price we pay for not running our society on pain and suffering, so be it.

[jgraham]

Out of curiosity.  If I could demonstrate to you that in any and all circumstances that the outcomes of strictly adhering to this principle would be, by every non-trivial metric lesser than at least one alternative.   Would you decide that this principle isn't worth following?

Fiat justitia ruat caelum.

Ergo justitia non virtuis!

[jgraham]

Out of curiosity.  If I could demonstrate to you that in any and all circumstances that the outcomes of strictly adhering to this principle would be, by every non-trivial metric lesser than at least one alternative.   Would you decide that this principle isn't worth following?

Fiat justitia ruat caelum.

+1 If that is the price we pay for not running our society on pain and suffering, so be it.

Wouldn't pain and suffering be non-trivial metrics?

[NghtRppr]

Wouldn't pain and suffering be non-trivial metrics?

There are no units of pain. Imagine if you said that your toothache hurts 48% than your headache. That would be absurd. Now imagine if I said, my toothache hurts 48% more than your headache. You can't even quantify your own pain much less quantify pain between two subjects.

[jgraham]

Wouldn't pain and suffering be non-trivial metrics?

There are no units of pain. Imagine if you said that your toothache hurts 48% than your headache. That would be absurd.

In medicine, pain metrics are used all the time.  So in fact you can say that stimulus X is more painful than stimulus Y.  Studies on analgesics and palliative care use them.  Your confusion lies in the fact that they are ordinal not ratio.

[NghtRppr]

So in fact you can say that stimulus X is more painful than stimulus Y.

I didn't say you couldn't do that. That's not quantification. That's ranking. You can rank pain but you can't quantify it. Do you understand the difference between ordinality and cardinality?

[jgraham]

So in fact you can say that stimulus X is more painful than stimulus Y.

I didn't say you couldn't do that. That's not quantification. That's ranking.

Correct. you performed ignoratio elenchi.  I just brought the discussion back on track.
A rank is still a metric - it's just an ordinal metric.  Which is all I argued.  Everyone is in less pain.

You can rank pain but you can't quantify it.

Alex I'm going to go with an "implied argument from ignorance" here (should have called you on that earlier for your own good!  )
So yes cardinality is beside the point and quantification is only relevant when you define it to mean "cardinality".   That said, it's true I can't tell you how to assign a cardinal value to pain but that's light-years from demonstrating that pain can not be measured with a unit.  

Do you understand the difference between ordinality and cardinality?

Apparently so!

I'm glad we had this talk!

[myrkul]

Out of curiosity.  If I could demonstrate to you that in any and all circumstances that the outcomes of strictly adhering to this principle would be, by every non-trivial metric lesser than at least one alternative.   Would you decide that this principle isn't worth following?

Fiat justitia ruat caelum.

+1 If that is the price we pay for not running our society on pain and suffering, so be it.

Wouldn't pain and suffering be non-trivial metrics?

Then you could not show me that the outcomes would be worse on every metric.

[jgraham]

Out of curiosity.  If I could demonstrate to you that in any and all circumstances that the outcomes of strictly adhering to this principle would be, by every non-trivial metric lesser than at least one alternative.   Would you decide that this principle isn't worth following?

Fiat justitia ruat caelum.

+1 If that is the price we pay for not running our society on pain and suffering, so be it.

Wouldn't pain and suffering be non-trivial metrics?

Then you could not show me that the outcomes would be worse on every metric.

I only said non-trivial metrics...and you're not exactly answering my question.

[NghtRppr]

That said, it's true I can't tell you how to assign a cardinal value to pain but that's light-years from demonstrating that pain can not be measured with a unit.

If you can't assign a cardinal value to something then it can't be quantified. A unit is a quantity. Therefore, anything that can't be assigned a cardinal value can't be measured with a unit. Like I said, you can rank subjective things but that's apparently all you wanted to assert anyways so I'm not sure why you're going out of your way to prove something you're clearly wrong about.

[jgraham]

That said, it's true I can't tell you how to assign a cardinal value to pain but that's light-years from demonstrating that pain can not be measured with a unit.

If you can't assign a cardinal value to something then it can't be quantified. A unit is a quantity. Therefore, anything that can't be assigned a cardinal value can't be measured with a unit.

Yes, only when you define "quantity" to mean only "cardinal value".  Just like you did there.  However "quantity" doesn't have to refer to "cardinal value".   Also as my Sifu would say:"Your confusion lies in your pronoun".

Like I said, you can rank subjective things but that's apparently all you wanted to assert anyways

Correction, that's all I did assert.

so I'm not sure why you're going out of your way to prove something you're clearly wrong about.

My thoughts exactly.

[Sannyasi]

i'll give a kidney only to people i know and care about. if there is ever a law forcing you to give one away i'll happily murder a few semi-random people to offset the kidneys usefulness

[myrkul]

I only said non-trivial metrics...and you're not exactly answering my question.

You cannot show me that any method that involves coercion is better than any method that does not.

[NghtRppr]

Yes, only when you define "quantity" to mean only "cardinal value".

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cardinal_number

Noun

cardinal number (plural cardinal numbers)

    A number used to denote quantity; a counting number.

[jgraham]

I only said non-trivial metrics...and you're not exactly answering my question.

You cannot show me that any method that involves coercion is better than any method that does not.

Again, neither what was said nor asked?  Why all the dancing about the issue?

[jgraham]

Yes, only when you define "quantity" to mean only "cardinal value".

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cardinal_number

Noun

cardinal number (plural cardinal numbers)

    A number used to denote quantity; a counting number.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

[myrkul]

I only said non-trivial metrics...and you're not exactly answering my question.

You cannot show me that any method that involves coercion is better than any method that does not.

Again, neither what was said nor asked?  Why all the dancing about the issue?

Yes, you did:

Wouldn't pain and suffering be non-trivial metrics?

[jgraham]

I only said non-trivial metrics...and you're not exactly answering my question.

You cannot show me that any method that involves coercion is better than any method that does not.

Again, neither what was said nor asked?  Why all the dancing about the issue?

Yes, you did:

Wouldn't pain and suffering be non-trivial metrics?

No, check your premises.

[NghtRppr]

Yes, only when you define "quantity" to mean only "cardinal value".

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cardinal_number

Noun

cardinal number (plural cardinal numbers)

    A number used to denote quantity; a counting number.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur

You're wrong. Deal with it.

[myrkul]

No, check your premises.

Coercion = Pain and suffering.

Disprove it.

[jgraham]

Yes, only when you define "quantity" to mean only "cardinal value".

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cardinal_number

Noun

cardinal number (plural cardinal numbers)

    A number used to denote quantity; a counting number.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur

You're wrong. Deal with it.

I stated "quantity" !-> "cardinal number".  You provided a definition of "cardinal number" -> "quantity".  Then you said I was wrong.

Easy to show:

Let P be the term "quantity" and Q be the term "cardinal number".

I stated:

P !->Q

You stated:

Q -> P
Q, Therefore P.

I have reduced your argument to the definition of a formal fallacy.

[NghtRppr]

Ahh, so you think that while cardinal numbers quantify things it could be the case ordinal numbers could quantify things too. Well, then I take back my claim that it was a non sequitur. It's just wrong instead. Also, you clearly don't understand the difference between cardinal and ordinal.

Quantification

    While Cardinal numbers are used to quantify things, such as to describe "how many" there are of something, ordinal numbers do not quantify anything.

http://www.ehow.com/info_8525963_differences-cardinal-numbers-ordinal-numbers.html

[jgraham]

No, check your premises.

Coercion = Pain and suffering.

Disprove it.

Why do you think that's relevant to what I've asked?

[myrkul]

No, check your premises.

Coercion = Pain and suffering.

Disprove it.

Why do you think that's relevant to what I've asked?

Out of curiosity.  If I could demonstrate to you that in any and all circumstances that the outcomes of strictly adhering to this principle would be, by every non-trivial metric lesser than at least one alternative.   Would you decide that this principle isn't worth following?

Wouldn't pain and suffering be non-trivial metrics?

You asked, I answered.

[jgraham]

Ahh, so you think that while cardinal numbers quantify things it could be the case ordinal numbers could quantify things too. Well, then I take back my claim that it was a non sequitur. It's just wrong instead.

No, more like the term "quantification" and (perhaps to a lesser extent) "quantity" can refer to ordinals or processes involving ordinals.  Even when doing say an analysis that involves ordinals people do refer to the process as "quantification".  It's not very formal I agree (although it's funny you're taking math advice from a BFA) but that's just the way language works.

Also, you clearly don't understand the difference between cardinal and ordinal.

Ever since your "If you insult me I'm warning you I'll knowingly make bad assumptions about you" I find this part of your personality adorable.  I don't really know what to compare it to but it's like you try to exact some completely valueless cost from people for some kind of infraction.  

By the by.  I assume you've discovered your prior pronoun problem?

[jgraham]

No, check your premises.

Coercion = Pain and suffering.

Disprove it.

Why do you think that's relevant to what I've asked?

Out of curiosity.  If I could demonstrate to you that in any and all circumstances that the outcomes of strictly adhering to this principle would be, by every non-trivial metric lesser than at least one alternative.   Would you decide that this principle isn't worth following?

Wouldn't pain and suffering be non-trivial metrics?

You asked, I answered.

Yawn.  Closer to the same sense that "blue" is the answer to "What's two plus two?" but you did respond.
Ok, yes I get the whole coercion (and I assume here you mean.  In any and all forms) results in pain and suffering.
Edit: Actually scratch that...first can you confirm that by "coercion" you are referring exclusively to those things described in NAP

[myrkul]

Yes, Coercion is using violence or the threat of violence to get your ends.

"Aggression" is defined as the "initiation" of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property.

Thus, any system which uses violence or the threat threat of violence to meet its ends is inherently worse than any system that does not, on the pain and suffering metric, at minimum.

[NghtRppr]

No, more like the term "quantification" and (perhaps to a lesser extent) "quantity" can refer to ordinals or processes involving ordinals.  Even when doing say an analysis that involves ordinals people do refer to the process as "quantification".  It's not very formal I agree (although it's funny you're taking math advice from a BFA) but that's just the way language works.

I've got a minor in mathematics. I'm not taking math advice from anyone. I'm just trying to educate you. Since you're going to reject anything that doesn't say it in black and white that's the best I could find. If you really believe that ordinal numbers quantify then please go ask a math professor. You don't even have to admit you're wrong. Just don't go through your life believing something that's factually incorrect. I'm done arguing about this.

[jgraham]

Yes, Coercion is using violence or the threat of violence to get your ends.

"Aggression" is defined as the "initiation" of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property.

Thus, any system which uses the violence or the threat threat of violence to meet its ends is inherently worse than any system that does not, on the pain and suffering metric, at minimum.

So you assert that no matter how little someone perceives the immediacy of the threat that they are still experiencing pain and suffering?  For example I know that there will be interest, fines and possible court cases and potentially even imprisonment if I fail to completely pay my income tax.  So there is a threat of violence over me however I have yet to identify any pain and suffering as a result of this threat.

[myrkul]

 So there is a threat of violence over me however I have yet to identify any pain and suffering as a result of this threat.

So, you have Stockholm Syndrome.

[jgraham]

No, more like the term "quantification" and (perhaps to a lesser extent) "quantity" can refer to ordinals or processes involving ordinals.  Even when doing say an analysis that involves ordinals people do refer to the process as "quantification".  It's not very formal I agree (although it's funny you're taking math advice from a BFA) but that's just the way language works.

I've got a minor in mathematics. I'm not taking math advice from anyone. I'm just trying to educate you. Since you're going to reject anything that doesn't say it in black and white that's the best I could find.  If you really believe that ordinal numbers quantify

Yawn.  From like the first response I've made it clear that I understand cardinality.  I even understand how you are using the term "quantify" (and it's various inflections).   The only thing that seems to burn your balls is that before you formalized your definition I could see the term has having more than one sense - mine being an informal sense at that.  I find your response pattern kind of interesting.   Each time I demonstrated your criticism as incorrect - that either magically drops off the thread or in one case you tried to make it look like the problem was with me.  In the end the only one you don't want to let go of is the definition of the term.  Perhaps this is like your warnings about the work 'jerky' that in real life you would go on this way.  However I really can't imagine what that would be like.  Amongst adults anyway I have yet to experience someone who wouldn't say: "Oh, I get what you're saying" and leave it at that - in fact you can see from the thread I did exactly that.

You don't even have to admit you're wrong

Yeah, cause I'm the one with that problem here.

[jgraham]

So there is a threat of violence over me however I have yet to identify any pain and suffering as a result of this threat.

So, you have Stockholm Syndrome.

Double yawn.  If a captor slaps a hostage.   All Stockholm Syndrome implies is that they might defend or claim to understand the captors actions.   That's not the same as saying "It didn't hurt".   Likewise I'm saying that despite the threat of violence I am not in pain (apparently anyway).

So the question still stands.

[myrkul]

Double yawn.  If a captor slaps a hostage.   All Stockholm Syndrome implies is that they might defend or claim to understand the captors actions.   That's not the same as saying "It didn't hurt".   Likewise I'm saying that despite the threat of violence I am not in pain (apparently anyway).

So the question still stands.

You are coerced, and defend your coercer's actions. Textbook stockholm:

These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors as an act of kindness.

[jgraham]

Double yawn.  If a captor slaps a hostage.   All Stockholm Syndrome implies is that they might defend or claim to understand the captors actions.   That's not the same as saying "It didn't hurt".   Likewise I'm saying that despite the threat of violence I am not in pain (apparently anyway).

So the question still stands.

You are coerced, and defend your coercer's actions. Textbook stockholm:

These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors as an act of kindness.

I actually didn't deny having Stockholm.   I'm just saying it doesn't explain the evidence at hand.  I am not in pain.  You appear to be saying that I should be.

Point still stands.

[myrkul]

These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors as an act of kindness.

I actually didn't deny having Stockholm.   I'm just saying it doesn't explain the evidence at hand.  I'm simply saying I am not in pain.  You appear to be saying that I should be.

Point still stands.

You're out money, yes? Just because the mugger doesn't shoot you, does that mean it wasn't a crime?

[jgraham]

These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors as an act of kindness.

I actually didn't deny having Stockholm.   I'm just saying it doesn't explain the evidence at hand.  I'm simply saying I am not in pain.  You appear to be saying that I should be.

Point still stands.

You're out money, yes? Just because the mugger doesn't shoot you, does that mean it wasn't a crime?

A things classification as a crime (unless you're equivocating) is orthogonal to it being painful.   Some crimes in some instances result in no pain.  Some pain is the result of no crime.  Since your point appeared to be that if there is threat of violence there is pain.  I'm simply asking why that doesn't apply in one particular case of mine.

[myrkul]

A things classification as a crime (unless you're equivocating) is orthogonal to it being painful.   Some crimes in some instances result in no pain.  Some pain is the result of no crime.  Since your point appeared to be that if there is threat of violence there is pain.  I'm simply asking why that doesn't apply in one particular case of mine.

Not all pain or suffering is physical.

[jgraham]

A things classification as a crime (unless you're equivocating) is orthogonal to it being painful.   Some crimes in some instances result in no pain.  Some pain is the result of no crime.  Since your point appeared to be that if there is threat of violence there is pain.  I'm simply asking why that doesn't apply in one particular case of mine.

Not all pain or suffering is physical.

Never said it was.   I never stipulated the "modality" of the pain e.g. physical or emotional.  I simply feel no pain due to the threat of violence about my taxes.

If the point stands any longer it's going to need a chair.

[NghtRppr]

You don't mind paying taxes, so pay them. What does that say about the rest of us that do mind? What exactly is your point? I haven't been following the back and forth.

[myrkul]

Never said it was.   I never stipulated that I felt no "physical" pain.  I simply feel no pain due to the threat of violence about my taxes.

If the point stands any longer it's going to need a chair.

Well, If you're OK with being coerced, there's not much I can do about that. But the coercion is still there, and you're not going to prove to me that it isn't no matter how many times you say "the point still stands"

[NghtRppr]

Well, If you're OK with being coerced, there's not much I can do about that.

Even if he wasn't alright with it, I highly doubt he would admit it. I'm still confused as to what his personal opinion has to do with the rest of the world though.

[jgraham]

Never said it was.   I never stipulated that I felt no "physical" pain.  I simply feel no pain due to the threat of violence about my taxes.

If the point stands any longer it's going to need a chair.

Well, If you're OK with being coerced, there's not much I can do about that. But the coercion is still there, and you're not going to prove to me that it isn't no matter how many times you say "the point still stands"

Nobody said anything about there being no coercion (as defined by NAP).  I swear you guys get so caught up in your rhetoric that you really seem to see words that aren't even there eg. "There is no coercion" , "Quantification"

Anywhoooo

Before you said: "Coercion == pain and suffering" and when asked you seemed to say it applies any and all cases.

Now we can say "Coercion != pain and suffering in any and all cases"

or another way you might put it...

Coercion does not necessitate pain and suffering.

Right?

[NghtRppr]

Coercion does not necessitate pain and suffering.

co·erce

verb /kōˈərs/

    Persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats

If I physically coerce you to do something then you don't want to do it. How are you not suffering?

suf·fer

verb /ˈsəfər/ 

    Experience or be subjected to (something bad or unpleasant)

Are you saying that being physically forced to do something that you don't want to do isn't unpleasant? If it's not unpleasant then it's hard to see how you don't want to do it or are being physically forced at all.

[jgraham]

Coercion does not necessitate pain and suffering.

If I physically coerce you to do something then you don't want to do it. How are you not suffering?

<<insert obvious joke implying lack of ability here>>

Anyway I am using the supplied definition:

"Aggression" is defined as the "initiation" of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property.

Thus:
i) The threat of the initiation of force against my property is considered sufficient to qualify as "coercion".
ii) I am under the constant threat of initiation of force against my property for not doing my taxes.
iii) I feel no pain or suffering over this.
iv) Coercion does not necessitate pain and suffering.

[NghtRppr]

i) The threat of the initiation of force against my property is considered sufficient to qualify as "coercion".

No, you also have to be unwilling. See the definition above.

iii) I feel no pain or suffering over this.

Then how can you say you're unwilling? You can't. You clearly see the flaw in your argument which is why you wish to avoid the dictionary definition I provided.

This is yet another pointless debate where you cherry pick definitions. Just like with your "I was using an informal definition" cop out. Fine. Whatever. We're just ships passing in the night if we're not using the same definitions.

[Reikoku]

The argument of "I don't mind doing it, therefore it is OK" does not justify it.

What if I didn't mind walking on crushed glass? Could I then declare that you should do it, because I don't find it unpleasant?

[BBanzai]

Not to muddy the waters, but pain and suffering endured while correcting a greater wrong or producing more value are trivial in comparison to the value you hope to bring.  Self-sacrifice for ones family, the labor that produces goods and services, the effort to follow the Golden Rule despite your immediate wish to do otherwise... there is a plus side to personal pain and suffering within certain contexts.  I must admit that I am a Sophist, in the oldest sense of the term.  Not the current one.
As a simple example, I play guitar from time to time.  Learning to play guitar made my fingertips calloused.  But first it made them sore.  Then it made them bleed.  Well worthwhile pain and suffering.  Its the coercion part that JGraham is talking about, not the pain per se.

[myrkul]

Not to muddy the waters, but pain and suffering endured while correcting a greater wrong or producing more value are trivial in comparison to the value you hope to bring.  Self-sacrifice for ones family, the labor that produces goods and services, the effort to follow the Golden Rule despite your immediate wish to do otherwise... there is a plus side to personal pain and suffering within certain contexts.  I must admit that I am a Sophist, in the oldest sense of the term.  Not the current one.
As a simple example, I play guitar from time to time.  Learning to play guitar made my fingertips calloused.  But first it made them sore.  Then it made them bleed.  Well worthwhile pain and suffering.  Its the coercion part that JGraham is talking about, not the pain per se.

The key there is willingness. You weren't made to play the guitar until you grew callouses.

[BBanzai]

My point exactly.  Charity is something I have pursued within my measures, for individuals and causes that I admired.  Sometimes I was wrong in my placing faith in the individuals I invested in.  But I have no regrets, I was not wasting my resources on strangers, I was learning about the value inherent in sharing my wealth with someone less well off than me with no expectations of return on investment.  That is in my nature already.  You make a governing body take my money and hand it over to those less skillful, lucky, whatever, you have not taught me something new.  You have stolen from me at gunpoint.  And eaten yourself most of what you stole.  And handed out a pittance to some poor person that I would have given more to if I knew them myself.

[myrkul]

My point exactly.  Charity is something I have pursued within my measures, for individuals and causes that I admired.  Sometimes I was wrong in my placing faith in the individuals I invested in.  But I have no regrets, I was not wasting my resources on strangers, I was learning about the value inherent in sharing my wealth with someone less well off than me with no expectations of return on investment.  That is in my nature already.  You make a governing body take my money and hand it over to those less skillful, lucky, whatever, you have not taught me something new.  You have stolen from me at gunpoint.  And eaten yourself most of what you stole.  And handed out a pittance to some poor person that I would have given more to if I knew them myself.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[jgraham]

i) The threat of the initiation of force against my property is considered sufficient to qualify as "coercion".

No, you also have to be unwilling. See the definition above.

iii) I feel no pain or suffering over this.

Then how can you say you're unwilling? You can't. You clearly see the flaw in your argument which is why you wish to avoid the dictionary definition I provided.

Well the number logical flaws in that sentence are at least three.  One of which is the usage of the term "avoid". I simply didn't get to that post before I decided to call it a night.  So, as seems to be your penchant you jump the gun here.

This is yet another pointless debate where you cherry pick definitions.

Uh except here the definition was given to me by someone else.  I was merely working with it.

Just like with your "I was using an informal definition" cop out.

Well I'm glad you aren't all in a twist about it. ;-)  To me anyway, understanding that language is fluid isn't a cop-out.  As I've said, people use the term "quantify" to refer to a process involving ordinals appears pretty common and it's clear from the get-go I recognized both senses.  How is that a cop-out? 

Fine. Whatever. We're just ships passing in the night if we're not using the same definitions.

That wasn't my definition.  It was the one supplied (and implicitly agreed to) by myrkul.  You want to expand upon it?  Go ahead.
So you are saying that the mere threat of initiation of force upon my property is NOT coercion.  Coercion exists when the threat of initiation of force upon my property is dependent on my performing an act I am unwilling to do?

Right?

The argument of "I don't mind doing it, therefore it is OK" does not justify it.

What if I didn't mind walking on crushed glass? Could I then declare that you should do it, because I don't find it unpleasant?

Great.  Since nobody's making that argument can we continue?  Good.

[LastBattle]

That wasn't my definition.  It was the one supplied (and implicitly agreed to) by myrkul.  You want to expand upon it?  Go ahead.
So you are saying that the mere threat of initiation of force upon my property is NOT coercion.  Coercion exists when the threat of initiation of force upon my property is dependent on my performing an act I am unwilling to do?

Right?

If you are willing to pay your taxes, then by definition it can't be coercion since you are willing, making it voluntary. Inversely, if you aren't willing to pay those taxes, then coercion IS necessary to make you pay them. Are you incapable of reading a dictionary and drawing basic conclusions?

Its like if a mugger walked up and, without pulling out his gun, said "Give me your money". If you give him the money without him ever threatening or using force, then it isn't coercion, whereas if you give him the money because he said he would paint the pavement with your guts if you didn't pay him it is coercion.

[jgraham]

That wasn't my definition.  It was the one supplied (and implicitly agreed to) by myrkul.  You want to expand upon it?  Go ahead.
So you are saying that the mere threat of initiation of force upon my property is NOT coercion.  Coercion exists when the threat of initiation of force upon my property is dependent on my performing an act I am unwilling to do?

Right?

If you are willing to pay your taxes, then by definition it can't be coercion since you are willing, making it voluntary. Inversely, if you aren't willing to pay those taxes, then coercion IS necessary to make you pay them. Are you incapable of reading a dictionary and drawing basic conclusions?

Hey it's Mr. You-can't-prove-a-negative!

Just in case you missed all the...you know...words pointing to this fact.   I'm not asking for examples of your (or bitcoin2Cash's or myrkul's) definition I'm asking for you to validate my restatement of said definition.

It's actually a common theme used in various models of argumentation.  Why is it so few here actually know how to make a point?