These people are our future

[Numbr2intheWorld]

Ok one more time. The fact that a company _can_ operate using those values or those goals, does _not_ mean that all companies will.

You are right. They are going to operate under the values and goals of the people who use their product because they want people to support (aka buy) their products. Or do you think that people will buy products or use services against their will? Maybe this is the part of the argument I don't understand...

[Numbr2intheWorld]

This is the whole disconnect here, the foundations of free market are that every component in it (individuals) are all rational and benevolent, which simply isn't true. Assuming they do just leaves the whole system open for the most ruthless players to work the system for an unfair advantage.

Dan Ariely asks, Are we in control of our own decisions? | Video on TED.com
Are irrational economic choices baked into the human psyche? - SmartPlanet
Irrational Economic Man by Michael Shermer, City Journal 11 January 2009

What is rational? Should I tell a person who lives in a forest because he thinks the trees talk to him that he can't live there because it isn't rational? What is unfair? If a stupid person kicks a wall as hard as he can because he didn't know it would hurt, and then breaks his toe because of it unfair?

You call these rich business men and companies like wal-mart selfishbut your ideals are the most selfish of them all, you think that your beliefs and opinions are the absolute truth and that everyone should follow them, and if they don't, they are wrong.

[Lyric]

Even with regulation companies left and right are getting caught with using child labor, dumping waste wherever they want, fixing prices and all sorts of abusive practices against their employees, competition and customers. Regulation is needed to ensure that _all_ companies, not just those that happen to feel like it, make safe products and adhere to environmental and safety standards.

This is the whole disconnect here, the foundations of free market are that every component in it (individuals) are all rational and benevolent, which simply isn't true. Assuming they do just leaves the whole system open for the most ruthless players to work the system for an unfair advantage.

Dan Ariely asks, Are we in control of our own decisions? | Video on TED.com
Are irrational economic choices baked into the human psyche? - SmartPlanet
Irrational Economic Man by Michael Shermer, City Journal 11 January 2009

Companies are not allowed to pollute or enslave (child labor) in my world. A free market that allows people to make their own choices does not depend on them making logically correct choices. If I enjoy McDonald's and it is killing me slowly and shortening my life, I would argue that it's better to let me make that poor decision instead of allowing angels in government to force me to avoid french fries because it isn't logical to eat them and it is killing me.

Please see my other post regarding the FDA. We don't need government testing everything and selecting "safe" products to allow us to purchase, and private companies like USP labs and consumer reports do the same thing for less money. Free market systems don't assume people are rational and ot certainly doesn't assume we are all benevolent. Hurting each other is prohibited, and leaders are given as little power as possible to allow each person to try to make themselves happy instead of being told what to do.

Do you think people are happier when government makes decisions for them? Do you really think we can find angels to make laws that are benevolent and avoid the temptation of bribes from large companies? Is it really ok to stop a terminal cancer patient from trying a new drug even if he knows he will die 100% without it? Is it okay to stop him from taking it, allow a million to die during the ten year approval process in a similar way, and finally discover that the drug works? Doesn't that mean the FDA just killed a million people by preventing the drug from being tried by terminally ill patients?

We should be free to make our own decisions, however irrational they may be, because if i can't make decisions that make me happy you certainly can't be expected to make decisions that work out any better. Doing this is like assuming that leaders would be Gods, and forcing me to avoid irrationality will make me happier.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

This is Danny

It's arguable that part of the reason Paris Hilton makes a lot of money because people like to take her character and how rich she is and talk about how its unfair.

[Ash256]

What about if a big pharma company claimed to have created a drug that prevents cancer, ran a massive PR campaign including horseshit scientific journals, paid off all the media to rep the drug and not mention any possible disagreements etc. when the science said it didn't do shit? Would that be cool?

[Lyric]

What about if a big pharma company claimed to have created a drug that prevents cancer, ran a massive PR campaign including horseshit scientific journals, paid off all the media to rep the drug and not mention any possible disagreements etc. when the science said it didn't do shit? Would that be cool?

The alternative is finding angels to run the FDA and trusting them to avoid the million dollar bribes from Merk. Currently we have an FDA that bans stevia and burns books because the makers of NutraSweet say so.

Do we need a Federal agency to approve cars for us? To eventually release a car after ten years and ten billion in testing? Should we approve construction techniques in the same way? Is it acceptable that the FDA and DEA ban poppy flowers and marijuana because they are cheap alternatives to Xanax and Oxycontin?

Do we need federal approval to purchase a candy bar? What if the chocolate is too strong it doesn't keep you going strong all day like Snickers claims? Do we need an agency to make sure paper fits in our printer? Should they test Red Bull for ten years to make sure it gives you wings?

Regulatory agencies are there to protect monopolies, nothing more. People easily decide if Red Bull works and avoid it if it does not. Consumer reports exists to give us previews, and without the FDA there would be multiple drug approval companies.

USP labs is one such example. They test drugs for purity and offer a label for bodybuilding supplements and vitamins. They are more trusted than the FDA. People who want to try a risky new drug that is not approved or tested by USP or any of the myriad companies that would exist to test drugs with double blind placebo tests should be allowed to do so.

If someone is dying of cancer, who are we to tell them they cannot gamble on a new drug? They are dying 100% of the time; don't make it illegal to take a risk on saving their own life!

[Ash256]

The alternative is finding angels to run the FDA and trusting them to avoid the million dollar bribes from Merk. Currently we have an FDA that bans stevia and burns books because the makers of NutraSweet say so.

Do we need a Federal agency to approve cars for us? To eventually release a car after ten years and ten billion in testing? Should we approve construction techniques in the same way? Is it acceptable that the FDA and DEA ban poppy flowers and marijuana because they are cheap alternatives to Xanax and Oxycontin?

Do we need federal approval to purchase a candy bar? What if the chocolate is too strong it doesn't keep you going strong all day like Snickers claims? Do we need an agency to make sure paper fits in our printer? Should they test Red Bull for ten years to make sure it gives you wings?

Regulatory agencies are there to protect monopolies, nothing more. People easily decide if Red Bull works and avoid it if it does not. Consumer reports exists to give us previews, and without the FDA there would be multiple drug approval companies.

USP labs is one such example. They test drugs for purity and offer a label for bodybuilding supplements and vitamins. They are more trusted than the FDA. People who want to try a risky new drug that is not approved or tested by USP or any of the myriad companies that would exist to test drugs with double blind placebo tests should be allowed to do so.

If someone is dying of cancer, who are we to tell them they cannot gamble on a new drug? They are dying 100% of the time; don't make it illegal to take a risk on saving their own life!

FWIW I described the cancer drug as a preventative drug.

Your line of thinking is definitely interesting, and I certainly see your perspective on several points.

Out of interest how would you deal with anticompetitive practices such as price fixing, cartels, etc. Are they fair game? Who regulates intellectual property?

[Lyric]

FWIW I described the cancer drug as a preventative drug.

Your line of thinking is definitely interesting, and I certainly see your perspective on several points.

Out of interest how would you deal with anticompetitive practices such as price fixing, cartels, etc. Are they fair game? Who regulates intellectual property?

Preventative drugs are the same as cures IMO.

Cool, I'm happy to have someone thinking and talking instead of reacting and regurgitating at me.

Price fixing, cartels, monopolies cannot exist unless they provide a product or service that is benefiting society at low cost. If they corner the market on mousetraps and I build one with laser beams for less money, controlled by proprietary software, I win and they have no shot unless they use force to block my traps from the market.

Intellectual property is something I'm still thinking about a lot. Seems to me that without restrictions society is benefited more heavily and people will still create without a promised protection via copyright and patents. I'm not quite sure. It sucks to have your work stolen, especially with digital reproduction so easily accessible.

Apple runs on an open source skeleton AFAIK. Red Hat is just Linux in a fancy box, etc. The million posts on this site are "open source" and not protected, but we are human; we want to help each other and put a lot of time and effort into helping others for no reason other than personal satisfaction/entertainment.

If a new medicine is made people will trust the original owner more than knock offs, just like people still buy brand name Tylenol. Songs will be stolen and copied, but artists will still be paid a ton for live performances.

Currently I think patent and copyright laws are dangerously close to being bad for society and good for corporations and should probably not exist at all.

[!Luck]

I read many of the post here. What I didn't see, but I suspect would be very relevant, is having the arguing parties define their beliefs in Property Rights. Do they exist, are they, should they, be an intrinsic right?

Also, as a side note to lyric, just because the FDA has some corruption in it doesn't mean it doesn't produce some benefits (I for example love calories being displayed on food packages along with ingredients). I doubt (I cannot back up my claim) the ignorant public would care enough about this if it wasn't forced on to the manufactures of mass produced foods. But, again talking about federal agencies one has to define their rights.

So, I feel like after 8 pages ( I read over 50% of it), you guys discussing complicated issues, and you may be better served starting a simple concepts and going from there (Property rights)?

Just a thought.

!luck

[IowaSkinsFan]

I read many of the post here. What I didn't see, but I suspect would be very relevant, is having the arguing parties define their beliefs in Property Rights. Do they exist, are they, should they, be an intrinsic right?

Also, as a side note to lyric, just because the FDA has some corruption in it doesn't mean it doesn't produce some benefits (I for example love calories being displayed on food packages along with ingredients). I doubt (I cannot back up my claim) the ignorant public would care enough about this if it wasn't forced on to the manufactures of mass produced foods. But, again talking about federal agencies one has to define their rights.

So, I feel like after 8 pages ( I read over 50% of it), you guys discussing complicated issues, and you may be better served starting a simple concepts and going from there (Property rights)?

Just a thought.

!luck

I appreciate every facet of this post, thanks for posting.

I actually like a lot of the things the government does too. For example, Washington DC has a bunch of 'free' museums, most of which are awesome. I often take friends visiting there. The display of nutrition is one I really enjoy as well.

The thing is though that the government doesn't have to force these results if people actually value them. Everyone really pays for the museum in DC anyways through taxes. Going to them and paying is really no different than paying more taxes and going for free. The Museums would run profitably if they offer people value, which they undoubtedly would.

Same for nutritional facts. Lets say we are in a grocery store where we want to buy almonds. We are faced with a choice of two brands of almonds. One has nutritional facts on it, including calories and food content. One doesn't have it at all. The one with nutritional facts is slightly more expensive. Which one would we buy? If the answer for a majority of the population is the one with nutritional facts, than this company would make much more money than the one that doesn't post nutritional facts. People still could buy the one without them because they may not value them at all. So if people care about nutritional facts, the FDA really didn't do anything, besides protecting people from making a bad choice by forcing no companies to not post nutritional facts.

[a500lbgorilla]

I read many of the post here. What I didn't see, but I suspect would be very relevant, is having the arguing parties define their beliefs in Property Rights. Do they exist, are they, should they, be an intrinsic right?

Also, as a side note to lyric, just because the FDA has some corruption in it doesn't mean it doesn't produce some benefits (I for example love calories being displayed on food packages along with ingredients). I doubt (I cannot back up my claim) the ignorant public would care enough about this if it wasn't forced on to the manufactures of mass produced foods. But, again talking about federal agencies one has to define their rights.

So, I feel like after 8 pages ( I read over 50% of it), you guys discussing complicated issues, and you may be better served starting a simple concepts and going from there (Property rights)?

Just a thought.

!luck

Go on...

[IowaSkinsFan]

In a public school, what will happen if the education being provided is poor in quality? In a private school, what will happen if the education being provided is poor in quality?

[WillburForce]

In a public school, what will happen if the education being provided is poor in quality? In a private school, what will happen if the education being provided is poor in quality?

Public school - nothing happens, because people don't care and don't want to pay higher taxes, but their kids aren't effected so who cares?

Private School - no one sends their kids there so the school fails.

whats your point?

[IowaSkinsFan]

Public school - nothing happens, because people don't care and don't want to pay higher taxes, but their kids aren't effected so who cares?

Private School - no one sends their kids there so the school fails.

whats your point?

I think your post on public school is wrong. The public school doesn't fail because the government will pay for it no matter its results, not because people don't care or don't pay higher taxes. It may do better when people put more money into to it, through higher taxes, but so would the private school.

My point: Part of the reasons public schools suck is because they aren't allowed to fail.

[WillburForce]

I think your post on public school is wrong. The public school doesn't fail because the government will pay for it no matter its results, not because people don't care or don't pay higher taxes. It may do better when people put more money into to it, through higher taxes, but so would the private school.

My point: Part of the reasons public schools suck is because they aren't allowed to fail.

may be diff in USA.

what if all private schools were banned - would the public schools still be so under funded and shite?

[IowaSkinsFan]

may be diff in USA.

what if all private schools were banned - would the public schools still be so under funded and shite?

I don't get what this means....

[Lyric]

may be diff in USA.

what if all private schools were banned - would the public schools still be so under funded and shite?

Public schools are over-funded and the money spent on public schools does not correlate to the educations provided. Here is a graph showing test scores vs spending:

A Picture Is Worth $300 Billion | Cato @ Liberty

Spending is about $26,000 for each student signed up at a DC public school. $28,000 for each student who actually attended.

The cost of the average private school is only $6,620. So they cost a quarter of what public schools do, but still they do better.

[Lyric]

Public school - nothing happens, because people don't care and don't want to pay higher taxes, but their kids aren't effected so who cares?

Private School - no one sends their kids there so the school fails.

whats your point?

The point is that bad schools fail in a private system and only good schools remain.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Lets be specific, who in society does the wealthy person owe something to? Everyone?

[boost]

Lets be specific, who in society does the wealthy person owe something to? Everyone?

thats the problem, there is no specific. He owes it to society. So yes, I guess "everyone" would be accurate. But then again, I feel like you will want to take that answer out of context and say that we are robin hooding the poor, rich(ha) guy. But what I think you fail to realize is that by paying his debts to society the rich guy is benefiting himself as well. And while its hard (impossible?) to quantify I do not think that his benefit would be disproportional to that of anyone else. A strong society is what made him, and what continues to support him. When that society falls, so does he.

edit: that last sentence bounced around in my head after writing it. And I think that it offers us another mode of examining our world. Instead of starting at the "beginning." Why not start at the end? When the rich do not pay their debts and society collapses, are the rich still rich?


Hell, if we want to put it in your terms, the rich can be paying for stability, even though that's now how I see it. But when wealth is consolidated to the top, as is the natural flow of wealth, societies become increasingly unstable. This can be viewed all over the world and throughout history. Stable societies have relatively small wealth gaps.

[IowaSkinsFan]

thats the problem, there is no specific. He owes it to society. So yes, I guess "everyone" would be accurate. But then again, I feel like you will want to take that answer out of context and say that we are robin hooding the poor, rich(ha) guy. But what I think you fail to realize is that by paying his debts to society the rich guy is benefiting himself as well. And while its hard (impossible?) to quantify I do not think that his benefit would be disproportional to that of anyone else. A strong society is what made him, and what continues to support him. When that society falls, so does he.

I actually want to see society succeed just as much as you do because I understand just like you that from free trade with others we are able to live much much better lives than we would be alone. And free trade is worth more to me when I am living with a bunch of people who are intelligent and who are able to create things of value to me and the rest of the world.

Why does giving his money to other people create a stronger society? Why would giving other people money prevent it from falling?

[boost]

I actually want to see society succeed just as much as you do because I understand just like you that from free trade with others we are able to live much much better lives than we would be alone. And free trade is worth more to me when I am living with a bunch of people who are intelligent and who are able to create things of value to me and the rest of the world.

Why does giving his money to other people create a stronger society? Why would giving other people money prevent it from falling?

But again, we are not paying out debts to other people, we are paying our debts to society. In one of these posts that I've made in the last 30 minutes I point out that increasing wealth gaps are the bane of a stable society. This is why paying your debt to society keeps it from falling. Public systems can be put in place that allow those without a chance to pick themselves up. When that is possible the masses will not be incited to violence. They have a chance, and therefore want to support the system.

What is happening now is that our window of chance is quickly closing yet we are being told that it is because of the systems that are actually keeping it open. When people believe this and support those who spread these lies, it only expedites the closure.

In a society with a strong public sector where upward mobility is actually possible, the upper classes can sit back and be comfy.

[Ash256]

I know I've mentioned this already ISF, but what concerns me the most about your attitude within this thread is your seeming complete lack of empathy for your fellow man. It comes across as almost psychopathically callous. The ongoing theme within your posts is that "I'm the rich guy in my utopia, I'm the entrepreneurial genius, and the poor, disabled and unfortunate can go fuck themselves and live in misery because I want ALL my money".

You should take a step back and place yourself as the kid working down the mines, as the startup being raped by the cartels, as the dude living in the slums on a pittance getting owned by price-fixing food companies, as the working man who can't feed his family after his bank goes bust. How does your utopia feel now?

[Lyric]

I know I've mentioned this already ISF, but what concerns me the most about your attitude within this thread is your seeming complete lack of empathy for your fellow man. It comes across as almost psychopathically callous. The ongoing theme within your posts is that "I'm the rich guy in my utopia, I'm the entrepreneurial genius, and the poor, disabled and unfortunate can go fuck themselves and live in misery because I want ALL my money".

You should take a step back and place yourself as the kid working down the mines, as the startup being raped by the cartels, as the dude living in the slums on a pittance getting owned by price-fixing food companies, as the working man who can't feed his family after his bank goes bust. How does your utopia feel now?

You're begging a lot of questions here; ISF isn't heartless. "Fuck the poor" is not the idea. Preventing power from being consolidated at the top raises the quality of life for everyone, especially the poor and disabled. Avoiding a consolidation at the top is your goal and my (and ISF's) goal.

My method to prevent consolidation is giving as much power to each person as possible. You see free markets as the worst option because it leads to some men becoming very wealthy, and very wealthy people represent the consolidation at the top that we both fear. I don't consider wealthy men a danger if they are prevented from theft, murder, use of force, enslavement, and pollution by government. Wealthy men are only dangerous if they are permitted to use force against others.

[IowaSkinsFan]

I know I've mentioned this already ISF, but what concerns me the most about your attitude within this thread is your seeming complete lack of empathy for your fellow man. It comes across as almost psychopathically callous. The ongoing theme within your posts is that "I'm the rich guy in my utopia, I'm the entrepreneurial genius, and the poor, disabled and unfortunate can go fuck themselves and live in misery because I want ALL my money".

You should take a step back and place yourself as the kid working down the mines, as the startup being raped by the cartels, as the dude living in the slums on a pittance getting owned by price-fixing food companies, as the working man who can't feed his family after his bank goes bust. How does your utopia feel now?

You see a difference between making money and altruism. In my mind, making money is the most altruistic thing someone can do. That is why I would like to make a shit ton of it, I hope by the end of my life I will have made more money than everyone else in the world. This is because money is not just some magical evil thing, money is a tool of exchange. It is something you get when you provide value to someone. That is, if you do not force them to give it to you.

I want everyone to be well off and happy, and I think the best way to do that is through a total free market. So please don't say I'm heartless, but feel free to say im ignorant, even though I think you are wrong.

I don't feel bad when I get unlucky. For me, life isn't about trying to minimize bad luck, its about realizing that luck doesn't matter. All that matters to me is the quality of the decisions I make in my life.

[boost]

It is something you get when you provide value to someone. That is, if you do not force them to give it to you.

How do you feel about con artists? I can find publicly available information on someone in college, then call their elderly grandma and pretend to be them. I can claim that I am in a bind and got into some trouble down in mexico. I need them to wire me money asap so I can bond out and cross the border. There are real cases of pretty much this exact scam being pulled. Is this "by force"? If so, where is the force? If not, what value has this person provided?

[IowaSkinsFan]

How do you feel about con artists? I can find publicly available information on someone in college, then call their elderly grandma and pretend to be them. I can claim that I am in a bind and got into some trouble down in mexico. I need them to wire me money asap so I can bond out and cross the border. There are real cases of pretty much this exact scam being pulled. Is this "by force"? If so, where is the force? If not, what value has this person provided?

Con artists steal money from people through manipulation. This situation you described is committing a crime, if the person if caught they will be thrown in jail for doing so. This person has provided no value. Add stealing to my exceptions, whether it be a person or a business who have provided false and misleading information that causes people to voluntarily give them money for a product. People are protected from this situation in our society now, I would not remove this law.

[boost]

Con artists steal money from people through manipulation. This situation you described is committing a crime, if the person if caught they will be thrown in jail for doing so. This person has provided no value. Add stealing to my exceptions, whether it be a person or a business who have provided false and misleading information that causes people to voluntarily give them money for a product. People are protected from this situation in our society now, I would not remove this law.

So this is a fairly simple con. Do you not agree that there exist extremely complex cons that can easily be hidden in the guise of honest business? Are there not also manipulations of the market that are fair game? Is price fixing illegal in your world? Are there any antitrust laws in your world? If so, aren't we on a slippery slope of regulation in a supposedly regulation free society? Who enforces these regulations? Who investigates them? How is this done with "small government?"

[CoccoBill]

I know I've mentioned this already ISF, but what concerns me the most about your attitude within this thread is your seeming complete lack of empathy for your fellow man. It comes across as almost psychopathically callous. The ongoing theme within your posts is that "I'm the rich guy in my utopia, I'm the entrepreneurial genius, and the poor, disabled and unfortunate can go fuck themselves and live in misery because I want ALL my money".

You should take a step back and place yourself as the kid working down the mines, as the startup being raped by the cartels, as the dude living in the slums on a pittance getting owned by price-fixing food companies, as the working man who can't feed his family after his bank goes bust. How does your utopia feel now?

Ash don't be selfish.

[Ltrain]

To the extent it is relevant to the discussion, Teddy Roosevelt addressed the similar issues we are facing now at the turn of the century. His view, borne by his quotes on the Square Deal, are that you need to provide your citizenry with at least the "entitlement" for basics of life to allow all to pursue happiness rather than pursuing basic means of survival. It does not mean we are all the same or that you cannot have wealthy and poor, it means we at least provide basic needs above the levels of starvation, stealing and crime so that we all can benefit to pursue happiness (i.e., education, food, shelter). The alternative, at the time, was London (Oliver Twist) or Chicago (Upton Sinclair's The Jungle). For a modern example, look at Rio De Janiero. The poor barely survive in the sewers and the rich have bullet proof vests, decoys, helicopters and private enclaves to avoid theft, murder and kidnapping; neither are free to pursue any kind of liberty or freedom.

Square Deal

"Let the watchwords of all our people be the old familiar watchwords of honesty, decency, fair-dealing, and commonsense."... "We must treat each man on his worth and merits as a man. We must see that each is given a square deal, because he is entitled to no more and should receive no less.""The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us."
New York State Fair, Syracuse, September 7, 1903
"A man who is good enough to shed his blood for his country is good enough to be given a square deal afterwards. More than that no man is entitled, and less than that no man shall have."
Speech to veterans, Springfield, IL, July 4, 1903
"We demand that big business give the people a square deal; in return we must insist that when anyone engaged in big business honestly endeavors to do right he shall himself be given a square deal."
Letter to Sir Edward Gray, November 15, 1913

[a500lbgorilla]

Also for all the ways anyone may be able to show that European or Chinese gov'ts work and work better than what we've got, I think it's healthy that the major gov'ts of the world (US, EU, China) are all moving in different directions. It may make sense to move towards socialism, but I think it's healthy that the world is exploring it's many avenues for governance and it would be some loss if any of them strayed before being proven wholly bunk.

[IowaSkinsFan]

"I still don't really get what you are saying so let me see if what I think you are saying is right. Are you saying wealth has many different forms, happiness can be wealth, gold can be wealth, health can be wealth, but money is just one type of wealth? It's basically the sum what you have and can do that other people value.

Is this what you're saying?"

Yes, I believe this is correct. Money is a mass representation of everyones collective values. Nothing is ever worth anything absolute. Some people would trade work or goods for a very expensive watch, some people wouldn't trade any amount of work or goods. When you start to no longer see money as money but instead a representation of the act that earned it, you see the point more and more.

As I was walking to the casino it occured to me that some of the opposing people to me probably see a very rich person like Bill Gates and see that he has 16 billion dollars, and then see that if he were to distribute that money to one million people including himself that they would now all have $16,000 and would collectively be better off.

But they wouldn't. And the reason is because money exchanged voluntarily, without force and deception, means that those who provide the most for other people will get the most of it, and those who provide the least for others will get the least of it. When you create a system where this is untrue, which is a system with high taxes, which prevents those who provide the most value to other people from making the money equivalent to the value they provide, and forces them to give it to people who have not provided value, the most value is not provided to the most people.

[a500lbgorilla]

"I still don't really get what you are saying so let me see if what I think you are saying is right. Are you saying wealth has many different forms, happiness can be wealth, gold can be wealth, health can be wealth, but money is just one type of wealth? It's basically the sum what you have and can do that other people value.

Is this what you're saying?"

Yes, I believe this is correct. Money is a mass representation of everyones collective values. Nothing is ever worth anything absolute. Some people would trade work or goods for a very expensive watch, some people wouldn't trade any amount of work or goods. When you start to no longer see money as money but instead a representation of the act that earned it, you see the point more and more.

As I was walking to the casino it occured to me that some of the opposing people to me probably see a very rich person like Bill Gates and see that he has 16 billion dollars, and then see that if he were to distribute that money to one million people including himself that they would now all have $16,000 and would collectively be better off.

But they wouldn't. And the reason is because money exchanged voluntarily, without force and deception, means that those who provide the most for other people will get the most of it, and those who provide the least for others will get the least of it. When you create a system where this is untrue, which is a system with high taxes, which prevents those who provide the most value to other people from making the money equivalent to the value they provide, and forces them to give it to people who have not provided value, the most value is not provided to the most people.

I think a more interesting line of thought as you're walking to the casino would be: are you creating any wealth as a poker player?

I'm not pressing a point, I'm just interested in your answer.

[IowaSkinsFan]

I think a more interesting line of thought as you're walking to the casino would be: are you creating any wealth as a poker player?

I'm not pressing a point, I'm just interested in your answer.

Yeah, I mean I am, but its not something phenomenal. I'm providing a poker player the opportunity to play/gamble in a tough high stakes poker game, I also increase the availability of the opportunity. Some people seem to be willing to pay a lot of money to do that. It's also kind of like the casino is paying me a large portion of someones gambling losses to create incentive for them to go to the casino.

[WillburForce]

"I still don't really get what you are saying so let me see if what I think you are saying is right. Are you saying wealth has many different forms, happiness can be wealth, gold can be wealth, health can be wealth, but money is just one type of wealth? It's basically the sum what you have and can do that other people value.

Is this what you're saying?"

Yes, I believe this is correct. Money is a mass representation of everyones collective values. Nothing is ever worth anything absolute. Some people would trade work or goods for a very expensive watch, some people wouldn't trade any amount of work or goods. When you start to no longer see money as money but instead a representation of the act that earned it, you see the point more and more.

As I was walking to the casino it occured to me that some of the opposing people to me probably see a very rich person like Bill Gates and see that he has 16 billion dollars, and then see that if he were to distribute that money to one million people including himself that they would now all have $16,000 and would collectively be better off.

But they wouldn't. And the reason is because money exchanged voluntarily, without force and deception, means that those who provide the most for other people will get the most of it, and those who provide the least for others will get the least of it. When you create a system where this is untrue, which is a system with high taxes, which prevents those who provide the most value to other people from making the money equivalent to the value they provide, and forces them to give it to people who have not provided value, the most value is not provided to the most people.

the point of taxing and providing free and good schooling/health care etc etc is to give the future Bill Gates of the world a chance to reach their potential whatever background they may have been born into.

[IowaSkinsFan]

the point of taxing and providing free and good schooling/health care etc etc is to give the future Bill Gates of the world a chance to reach their potential whatever background they may have been born into.

Money is no longer money when you force someone to give it to another person without them providing value on that exchange. The only reason money has any value is because other people produce things of value. That money is a claim on men who produce. Your money is a statement of hope that somewhere in the world there are men who will not default on the moral principle which is the root of your money. When money is redistributed from this outcome, from people who did produce to people who didn't, money loses part of its value.

Look at it this way. If you simply printed a quadrillion dollars and gave it to everyone in the US, how much would that money be worth? This isn't the same, but look at it this way too. If you took all of the money and wealth in the world from the rich and put them on the street, and gave it to the poor, the poor would find themselves in a world where there money would buy much less than it could before.

[WillburForce]

Money is no longer money when you force someone to give it to another person without them providing value on that exchange. The only reason money has any value is because other people produce things of value. That money is a claim on men who produce. Your money is a statement of hope that somewhere in the world there are men who will not default on the moral principle which is the root of your money. When money is redistributed from this outcome, from people who did produce to people who didn't, money loses part of its value.

Look at it this way. If you simply printed a quadrillion dollars and gave it to everyone in the US, how much would that money be worth? This isn't the same, but look at it this way too. If you took all of the money and wealth in the world from the rich and put them on the street, and gave it to the poor, the poor would find themselves in a world where there money would buy much less than it could before.

They are providing value. A happy, educated, healthy society is better for all. Rather than a divided society of have and have nots.

[IowaSkinsFan]

They are providing value. A happy, educated, healthy society is better for all. Rather than a divided society of have and have nots.

Your missing the point. This is not voluntary exchange. When someone is given welfare from the government from tax money that person has not been been given that money in exchange for nothing. Whether or not they choose to use that money to better themselves or not is entirely up to them. Giving someone money does not ensure a healthy or undivided society.

[boost]

Earlier I was asked for examples of more complex large scale cons. Big tobacco is a perfect example. They knowingly sold their customer a product that had terrible terrible side effects. What makes this complex, is that this product also has value. Because this product has value, when it comes time for retribution, the courts can only fine them, whereas a con man would be forced to give it all back. How much are they fined? A drop in the bucket. Yet big tobacco would never had been so successful without employing these nefarious practices.

That is the disconnect. A business is trying to increase profit margins, not increase delivered value. Another good example would be BP. They are likely no different from the rest of the oil industry. They can lower safety and environmental standards and estimate on average how long it will take for an epic disaster to happen, estimate the potential increase in revenue from lowering the standards over this time period, then they can estimate the potential fine. This scenario may not have been what happened, but it illustrates how simple risk assessment can lead a business to abandon its interest in creating more value.

You may argue that people can chose to go with an oil company who does things on the up and up and pay fifty cents more at the pump. But this is pure naivety through and through. Humans have a very difficult time comprehending the bigger picture. It is just too easy to disconnect your actions from large scale effects. This is why despite knowing about the child soldiers that are an effect of the diamond trade or the sweat shops that put cotton on our backs, we keep buying.

Through regulations we can remove products and practices that we do not believe in from the market place. As a consumer I can then consume and not worry, because I know regulations are in place that are more or less in line with my morals. Seriously, doing research on big purchases is good.. staying fairly informed is good.. but staying up to date on everything we consume so that we can make the correct choices that line up with our values is beyond a full time job. And you want us to pay for this full time job? That is why we have regulatory bodies which have power beyond giving 3rd party reviews. They are specialist who ideally (clearly our current system is far from perfect) follow the values of the people and take things off the market which do not jive with those ideals.

It is not a system in which people are being forced to do this or that, it is the same system you are suggesting, only it is more efficient. Peoples values are represented in the market place through specialized regulatory officials. In your system, I'd have to pay for, then sift through 3rd party reviews of chewing gum. In the gas station and want to try a new flavor of gum? Better hold off until you've done your due diligence! Thats utterly ridiculous.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Earlier I was asked for examples of more complex large scale cons. Big tobacco is a perfect example. They knowingly sold their customer a product that had terrible terrible side effects. What makes this complex, is that this product also has value. Because this product has value, when it comes time for retribution, the courts can only fine them, whereas a con man would be forced to give it all back. How much are they fined? A drop in the bucket. Yet big tobacco would never had been so successful without employing these nefarious practices.

Retribution was never up to the courts, people who smoke cigarettes do not care that big tobacco tried to hide the fact that smoking was bad for them.If they did big tobacco would be out of business. And you say they would never be so successful without these practices? They are just as successful. In london there is literally a label on cigarettes that says smoking kills, yet I think there are more successful here than anywhere else in the world. Big tobacco probably did not want to research if smoking was bad for you, but any consumer could have simply went "hmmmm, I really want to know what the health effects of this are before I start consuming a shitload of it." If you think the FDA needs to be doing a better job because people shouldnt have to worry if something they consume is going to be bad for them, people wouldnt assume the everything they consume is good if we werent taking care of them in the first place. It can easily be up to consumers, if they want to know if something is good or bad for them, to research it themselves. It will take less than a minute.


That is the disconnect. A business is trying to increase profit margins, not increase delivered value. Another good example would be BP. They are likely no different from the rest of the oil industry. They can lower safety and environmental standards and estimate on average how long it will take for an epic disaster to happen, estimate the potential increase in revenue from lowering the standards over this time period, then they can estimate the potential fine. This scenario may not have been what happened, but it illustrates how simple risk assessment can lead a business to abandon its interest in creating more value.

Increasing profit margins is increasing delivered value. BP is actually a great example of this. Its consumers dont care that much if it spills a bunch of oil into the gulf, you can see this because after the spill BP is still in business. People will still buy their gas from BP, and business are still buying oil from BP because they know people have seemed not to care. For BP before this incident to raise the price of gas to increase their ability to prevent risk in the gulf wouldnt have been a good profit strategy, because most of america would still buy their products despite the disaster. Very little people value the environment, max profit means not valuing it. I sure hope no one in this thread has bought gas from BP since the disaster.

At the same time, I do think spilling Oil in the ocean does do harm to others and should be a practice that is followed by jail time by the people responsible, which can be decided by the courts.

You may argue that people can chose to go with an oil company who does things on the up and up and pay fifty cents more at the pump. But this is pure naivety through and through. Humans have a very difficult time comprehending the bigger picture. It is just too easy to disconnect your actions from large scale effects. This is why despite knowing about the child soldiers that are an effect of the diamond trade or the sweat shops that put cotton on our backs, we keep buying.

Yes, and that is our fault, and we need to learn to make better decisions. I refuse to let off anyone from the gravity of the decision of how to spend their money.

Through regulations we can remove products and practices that we do not believe in from the market place. As a consumer I can then consume and not worry, because I know regulations are in place that are more or less in line with my morals. Seriously, doing research on big purchases is good.. staying fairly informed is good.. but staying up to date on everything we consume so that we can make the correct choices that line up with our values is beyond a full time job. And you want us to pay for this full time job? That is why we have regulatory bodies which have power beyond giving 3rd party reviews. They are specialist who ideally (clearly our current system is far from perfect) follow the values of the people and take things off the market which do not jive with those ideals.

Regulations simply approximate what we dont want in the marketplace. Free market says it exactly. If we dont want it no one will buy it and the business will fail.

It is not a system in which people are being forced to do this or that, it is the same system you are suggesting, only it is more efficient. Peoples values are represented in the market place through specialized regulatory officials. In your system, I'd have to pay for, then sift through 3rd party reviews of chewing gum. In the gas station and want to try a new flavor of gum? Better hold off until you've done your due diligence! Thats utterly ridiculous.

Yes, you would have to pay for and sift through a third party, just like you pay for the FDA to do the exact same thing, except the FDA doesnt require you to take one minute of your time, and the FDA costs much more than a private company would.

When you ban something from being produced, that is the same thing as forcing people from not using it. A great example is Marijuana. Marijuana is regulated in the sense that its illegal. So I am forced not to smoke it without the threat of jail time. People may want to smoke marijuana but they have to get it for an extremely high price from people who are not skilled at growing it. Is this system more efficient? Im not sure how any regulation is more efficient? Show me an example?

[Ash256]

Libertarians: Would you have any problem with the formation of workers unions?

[IowaSkinsFan]

Wilburforce, I'm wondering if you disagree that taxes devalue money. That was the crux of my argument.

[WillburForce]

I don't know exactly about devaluing money...but I'd prob say no.

And I don't think its really about giving money per se.
You're providing education, healthcare plus other benefits through taxes.

I'm not talking about taking money of person A and giving it to person B and letting person B do what they want with the money.

We're means testing person A and B to provide the basics of society to A and B.

[CoccoBill]

Since this is moving nowhere, let's try another angle.

ISF, your basic argument and philosophy is that the only thing the system should strive for is creating value for its individuals, and any values or morals upheld by its individuals will automatically ensue. The well-being or direction of progress of the society as a whole, or of any nonfunctional individuals (those that choose against their own values) are either non-consequential or acceptable losses.

The functioning of the system rests on 2 basic assumptions:

1) the system is non-zero-sum, that is, the gain of one is not automatically the loss of another
2) the value generated by the system for each of its individuals accurately represents the value they provide for it

Before I say anything else, please correct any mistakes, omissions or misrepresentations I made.

I only have one question: what is the goal of this system?

[IowaSkinsFan]

Since this is moving nowhere, let's try another angle.

ISF, your basic argument and philosophy is that the only thing the system should strive for is creating value for its individuals, and any values or morals upheld by its individuals will automatically ensue. The well-being or direction of progress of the society as a whole, or of any nonfunctional individuals (those that choose against their own values) are either non-consequential or acceptable losses.

The functioning of the system rests on 2 basic assumptions:

1) the system is non-zero-sum, that is, the gain of one is not automatically the loss of another
2) the value generated by the system for each of its individuals accurately represents the value they provide for it

Before I say anything else, please correct any mistakes, omissions or misrepresentations I made.

I only have one question: what is the goal of this system?

All of this seems to be close to correct.

"The well-being or direction of progress of the society as a whole, or of any nonfunctional individuals (those that choose against their own values) are either non-consequential or acceptable losses."

Not quite sure what you mean by this part. I believe that the only way to evolve human beings is through learning, and learning can only be achieved when a person must use a decision making process. I'm not sure what you mean by someone "choosing against their own values." Can you explain this sentence more?

The goal of the system is to maximize the happiness of every individual and to maximize the evolution of every individual.

I will also say that I emphatically agree with the two basic assumptions that I am making.

[CoccoBill]

"The well-being or direction of progress of the society as a whole, or of any nonfunctional individuals (those that choose against their own values) are either non-consequential or acceptable losses."

Not quite sure what you mean by this part. I believe that the only way to evolve human beings is through learning, and learning can only be achieved when a person must use a decision making process. I'm not sure what you mean by someone "choosing against their own values." Can you explain this sentence more?

E.g. self-destructive behavior or other choices leading to less value for the individual. I'm assuming you don't suggest that all choices made by people are always "beneficial" for them.

I'm not sure I understand your statement about learning. Do you mean learning just as a personal process, each individual's personal learning process. Do you think such a thing exists as society's knowledge and do you think it's more or less important than the personal knowledge?

The goal of the system is to maximize the happiness of every individual and to maximize the evolution of every individual.

What are your thoughts on society and it's importance?

I will also say that I emphatically agree with the two basic assumptions that I am making.

I think both of them are false, but I don't know how to prove either, nor obviously even make a convincing argument about them. Why do you agree with them?

[Numbr2intheWorld]

The functioning of the system rests on 2 basic assumptions:

1) the system is non-zero-sum, that is, the gain of one is not automatically the loss of another

Do you think this is true?

[Lyric]

Since this is moving nowhere, let's try another angle.

ISF, your basic argument and philosophy is that the only thing the system should strive for is creating value for its individuals, and any values or morals upheld by its individuals will automatically ensue. The well-being or direction of progress of the society as a whole, or of any nonfunctional individuals (those that choose against their own values) are either non-consequential or acceptable losses.

The functioning of the system rests on 2 basic assumptions:

1) the system is non-zero-sum, that is, the gain of one is not automatically the loss of another
2) the value generated by the system for each of its individuals accurately represents the value they provide for it

Before I say anything else, please correct any mistakes, omissions or misrepresentations I made.

I only have one question: what is the goal of this system?

If two men are on an island and one makes 10 wheels of cheese and the other makes 10 gallons of wine. They trade 5 wheels for 5 gallons so that each has wine and cheese. Who lost? How is the exchange making anyone worse off?

If you go into a forest and build a house from the trees, mud, and rocks and then you have created wealth and no one has lost any wealth. If one man builds a home and another trades 1,000 gallons of wine for the home, who lost?

A man's wealth is directly related to what he brings into the world. If he builds a home from trees he has created a home that did not exist before, and if he trades that home for cheese and wine (that didn't exist until the men that made them brought them into the world), he now has cheese and wine that is directly proportional to the value (wealth) that he brought into the world when he made his house.

Point one is the number one reason that people cannot understand economics -- they continue to think that the only way to be rich is at the expense of another person. The reality is that valued things can be created from raw materials, which brings more and more valued things into the world through work and intelligent organization of materials that end as a more valued product.

A car is worth much more than the metal is was built from, and a home is worth much more than its raw materials as well. In this way new wealth is created and no one on earth is hurt when one man become wealthy -- it is the opposite. When a man makes cheese and trades it for wine, both of them are better off (richer) because they have both products and neither of them has harmed the other and both have been creating food and wine for selfish reasons. Organized cooperation to divide labor and specialization is not needed to create a healthy and wealthy society.

[CoccoBill]

If two men are on an island and one makes 10 wheels of cheese and the other makes 10 gallons of wine. They trade 5 wheels for 5 gallons so that each has wine and cheese. Who lost? How is the exchange making anyone worse off?

If you go into a forest and build a house from the trees, mud, and rocks and then you have created wealth and no one has lost any wealth. If one man builds a home and another trades 1,000 gallons of wine for the home, who lost?

A man's wealth is directly related to what he brings into the world. If he builds a home from trees he has created a home that did not exist before, and if he trades that home for cheese and wine (that didn't exist until the men that made them brought them into the world), he now has cheese and wine that is directly proportional to the value (wealth) that he brought into the world when he made his house.

Point one is the number one reason that people cannot understand economics -- they continue to think that the only way to be rich is at the expense of another person. The reality is that valued things can be created from raw materials, which brings more and more valued things into the world through work and intelligent organization of materials that end as a more valued product.

A car is worth much more than the metal is was built from, and a home is worth much more than its raw materials as well. In this way new wealth is created and no one on earth is hurt when one man become wealthy -- it is the opposite. When a man makes cheese and trades it for wine, both of them are better off (richer) because they have both products and neither of them has harmed the other and both have been creating food and wine for selfish reasons. Organized cooperation to divide labor and specialization is not needed to create a healthy and wealthy society.

Is there an endless supply of cheese, wine, trees, mud and rocks? If you create something out of them, there's less of them for other people to create wealth with, right? Cheese, wine, trees, mud and rocks are not worthless, they are resources and goods, neither of which are infinite.

And when the man die's and his son inherits the house, what value did the son generate the earn the house? Or do you think the son is just some continuum of the man, essentially the same person?

Creating products from raw resources raises their value, but its not a net positive, resources are used to create them, resources that are away from the others.

[Lyric]

Is there an endless supply of cheese, wine, trees, mud and rocks? If you create something out of them, there's less of them for other people to create wealth with, right? Cheese, wine, trees, mud and rocks are not worthless, they are resources and goods, neither of which are infinite.

And when the man die's and his son inherits the house, what value did the son generate the earn the house? Or do you think the son is just some continuum of the man, essentially the same person?

Creating products from raw resources raises their value, but its not a net positive, resources are used to create them, resources that are away from the others.

There is an endless amount of trees, wine, and cheese. All of them come from the sun and the world will literally never run out of them. Cows eat grass which is made of sun and air and less than 1% earth. After the cheese is eaten the minerals return to the earth. Wine grapes are made of sun and air as well. Trees are the same. Farming them doesn't hurt anyone and only takes from the sun which is effectively infinite.

Are you ready to admit that society is not needed to generate wealth and that one working man on an island can become wealthier over time even without societies historical knowledge?

[IowaSkinsFan]

I don't believe when I buy a new car, I am harming a homeless person I didn't give the money to. Do you believe this is the case?

[CoccoBill]

I don't believe when I buy a new car, I am harming a homeless person I didn't give the money to. Do you believe this is the case?

Well, no. I look at this from the society's point of view. If the net value created by your action to the society (let's assume, a greener car with better mileage, business/revenue/labor created by the transaction etc.) doesn't outweigh the net value that would be created by giving the money to the homeless person (let's assume reduced crime rate, lower health care cost, increased "happiness", generated productivity etc.), you have harmed the society. Almost no choices in life are black and white, and I don't by any means even suggest that all choices should be made from the society's perspective, but the "system" should encourage this, and penalize choices drastically negative to the society.

We as humans like thinking individualistically, but a choice that is net positive for an individual can be drastically negative for the society, while choices net positive for the society almost always are also positive for the individual.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

Done with this thread, see ya guys

[Lyric]

Wealth is only exchange capable stuff. Happiness etc is not wealth unless it can be traded.

The sun will engulf the earth before it burns out. We talked about that earlier in the thread. Many in this thread claimed that wealth generation was impossible without society. Perhaps you missed those claims?

If two men are on an island and they split the land in half, each is responsible for his own half and they agree that each will "own" and develop half the island. If one man cuts all his trees and does not replant them he would be lowering his land value. If the other man sustainable harvests his trees slowly and replants them there is no permanent loss to his half of the island. He can farm and harvest trees until the sun absorbs the earth. His side of the island will become wealthier until he dies.

Farming takes rain and sun and his labor. His labor I directly related to his wealth because he is the only one working on his land on his side. Even if he lives for a million years he would never run out of anything, ever.

[CoccoBill]

Wealth is only exchange capable stuff. Happiness etc is not wealth unless it can be traded.

So you're essentially endorsing a system that's completely free-for-all, with no checks and balances, no regulation and no safety nets. I can't think of a more efficient system to fuck over 95% of the planets population.

The sun will engulf the earth before it burns out. We talked about that earlier in the thread.

Yes, so are the sun and the resources on earth infinite, yes or no? The funny thing is that while they probably are from your perspective, they aren't from mankind's perspective, but you're making it pretty obvious that the latter is of no interest to your system.

Many in this thread claimed that wealth generation was impossible without society. Perhaps you missed those claims?

I don't feel I'm in any way responsible for other people's claims.

If two men are on an island and they split the land in half, each is responsible for his own half and they agree that each will "own" and develop half the island. If one man cuts all his trees and does not replant them he would be lowering his land value. If the other man sustainable harvests his trees slowly and replants them there is no permanent loss to his half of the island. He can farm and harvest trees until the sun absorbs the earth. His side of the island will become wealthier until he dies.

Farming takes rain and sun and his labor. His labor I directly related to his wealth because he is the only one working on his land on his side. Even if he lives for a million years he would never run out of anything, ever.

What if there are 10 billion people on this small island, with no room for everybody to farm a crop. The fastest, fittest and the most ruthless claim their spots first, and are the only ones able to farm. Is this away from the resources of the other people or not? And as you yourself state, _IF_ the other man harvests sustainably. What if he doesn't? What's forcing him to? What if he not only screws up his own land, and after that moves to the land of the other guy because he's bigger and stronger and ruins that too? I guess based on your ideology he's free to do that because he can, long live freedom?

Is this the optimal solution for the well-being and prosperity of mankind, does anything besides this one guy's material wealth matter? It's pretty clear that you identify with the hardworking guy and can see no reason other than laziness and stupidity why the other 9.99999999 billion people wouldn't do the same. I was earlier wondering about your statement that 90% of people are generous, but I get it now.

[Lyric]

So you're essentially endorsing a system that's completely free-for-all, with no checks and balances, no regulation and no safety nets. I can't think of a more efficient system to fuck over 95% of the planets population.

There is regulation against hurting anyone else in any way.



Yes, so are the sun and the resources on earth infinite, yes or no? The funny thing is that while they probably are from your perspective, they aren't from mankind's perspective, but you're making it pretty obvious that the latter is of no interest to your system.

Sun is effectively infinite, resources are not.

I don't feel I'm in any way responsible for other people's claims.

You should read the entire thread before repeating things we've talked about before.

What if there are 10 billion people on this small island, with no room for everybody to farm a crop. The fastest, fittest and the most ruthless claim their spots first, and are the only ones able to farm. Is this away from the resources of the other people or not? And as you yourself state, _IF_ the other man harvests sustainably. What if he doesn't? What's forcing him to? What if he not only screws up his own land, and after that moves to the land of the other guy because he's bigger and stronger and ruins that too? I guess based on your ideology he's free to do that because he can, long live freedom?

They can't hurt anyone because the only laws are against hurting stealing and taking etc.

Is this the optimal solution for the well-being and prosperity of mankind, does anything besides this one guy's material wealth matter? It's pretty clear that you identify with the hardworking guy and can see no reason other than laziness and stupidity why the other 9.99999999 billion people wouldn't do the same. I was earlier wondering about your statement that 90% of people are generous, but I get it now.

Our first discussion regards wealth only. We can talk about happiness next, but let's agree on the best way to organize wealth generation and ownership first.

[CoccoBill]

I have no clue what you're talking about so for brevity I'll include the whole convo:

Are you ready to admit that society is not needed to generate wealth and that one working man on an island can become wealthier over time even without societies historical knowledge?

Of course I am, where have I said anything like that? Please stop using strawmen. We are not discussing whether free markets can exist or function at some basic level, we're discussing whether the system is optimal or even working towards the goals beneficial for all of its participants. Without societies historical knowledge we wouldn't be discussing this in the first place, unless your McGyver came up with electronics, telecommunications, computers and a whole bunch of other shit necessary to achieve this all by himself. I really fail to see what your point is.

Many in this thread claimed that wealth generation was impossible without society. Perhaps you missed those claims?

I don't feel I'm in any way responsible for other people's claims.

You should read the entire thread before repeating things we've talked about before.

Now, what is it exactly that you're talking about and what should I be reading?

Our first discussion regards wealth only. We can talk about happiness next, but let's agree on the best way to organize wealth generation and ownership first.

This discussion has included happiness and all other morals and values upheld by people since the beginning. It sounds like we agree that the system you are describing does not and cannot in any way maximize collective "wealth" in the broader sense of the term, nor does it even aim at that. That has been my point from the beginning, so thank you for agreeing.

[IowaSkinsFan]

This discussion has included happiness and all other morals and values upheld by people since the beginning. It sounds like we agree that the system you are describing does not and cannot in any way maximize collective "wealth" in the broader sense of the term, nor does it even aim at that. That has been my point from the beginning, so thank you for agreeing.

Do you have any logic that backs this up or is it just something you believe?

I doubt that Lyric agrees that the system he is describing does not maximize wealth in even the broadest sense of the term, but I suppose I can't speak for him. I believe that a free market would maximize wealth in even the most broad, reasonable sense of the term. Even in your definition, whatever that may be.

[!Luck]

Would we all agree that every man is born with a unique set of abilities? And some are stronger, some are smarter, some are both stronger and smarter?

If the proceeding is true then humans as far as abilities go are unequal. However, as human beings that live in a society we (we defined as modern western society) decided that we all should have equal rights*.


Rights, for sake of simplicity, is defined as life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (the definition of rights could/should be its own thread).

So now we have millions of people with varying skills that are put into an economic system that value certain abilities over others. Over time those with the "right" type of abilities can stack the deck against all other people in society (lobbyist, favorable tax code, access to education, ect). This is inherently what big portion of the thread is about.

What is odd to me is that so many here are trying to force an equal opportunity onto a system that by design, cannot be equal, since we have different abilities. And isn't equal in this regard just average? ISF is arguing against this equalizing of the playing field cause it retards society's growth, which it appears to me is very important to him. (Correct if I am wrong)

I, for example, hate how back when I was in high school the teacher taught to the middle (or even slightly below middle) this bored the "smarter/better prepared" kids and was still too fast for the "dumb/unprepared" kids. I think we would all love to live in a society, where each person can get specialized attention to learn at their "best" pace, but as matter of practicality that just not feasible.

Thus, as soon as we make practical not theoretical considerations, some people, despite our deep deep desire to treat everyone as equals, become less equal. They are still 100% humans and still deserve the same type of liberty and freedom, but they don't get it. The kid born to the drug addicted mother may never learn to read and without access to good education the likelihood of him having real liberty, is sadly unlikely. So what am I rambling about?

With all this talk of theoretical islands and other utopia ideals, we miss the point that, we want everyone to be equal, but we are not in practice (but in theory we are). We shouldn't create second class citizen, but we do. Is it as bad as in the Medieval ages? Hell no. Did we, as society, make progress yes. We can debate if the progress of individual rights has slowed down or reversed trends in recent history (20 years). Even the drug addicted mother's child mortality rate is probably lower than the average person in 1000 AD.

My point is that we are better of addressing a single issue in a single thread. This is hard since we live in such interconnected world, but arguing, what is effectively semantics of the word wealth, while trying to establish if the FDA is a net positive, is too cumbersome.

Lastly, we are all trying to test out own beliefs by publishing them in this forum, but we are also trying to figure out what is best. Because if we don't even know what is best in theory how can we influence society for the greater good. I think that is why are so interested in these types of threads , we all think that our ideas WOULD REALLY make a better world.

Are we all equal?
Does the good of the many outweigh the good of the few?
Do we want to live in society that achieves the highest growth or one that is more equal and are those ideas opposites?

This is all I have for now.





!luck

[Lyric]

What is odd to me is that so many here are trying to force an equal opportunity onto a system that by design, cannot be equal, since we have different abilities. And isn't equal in this regard just average? ISF is arguing against this equalizing of the playing field cause it retards society's growth, which it appears to me is very important to him. (Correct if I am wrong)

!luck

Equal opportunity (playing field) is what we want NOT equal results.

[!Luck]

Equal opportunity (playing field) is what we want NOT equal results.

My point is that what you want is impossible in the current system.

[Lyric]

My point is that what you want is impossible in the current system.

I agree that some are born smarter or richer etc. Look as this like an island with random men on it. Some are smarter and faster and harder working. Will the island have more or less salt harvested from the sea if the lucky, skilled and smart guys are forced to give some to the lazy and unlucky and stupid islanders?

If we leave them all alone more salt is collected for the entire island when everyone owns what they harvest. We can't avoid having some men being born as better salt collectors, but stepping in their way for any reason lowers the total amount of salt on the island.

Lowering the total amount of salt on the island raises its price because it is less available and a higher price means the worst collectors have to give up more fish to get salt from anyone. We can see this is true if we imagine salt is so hard to get that only the smartest guys can get any from the sea. When the smart guys have only a little salt they won't trade any of it for fish, but if they collect a ton of it over time they are willing to trade it for fish and if they collect enough salt they will be willing to virtually give it away for tiny amounts of fish, makin it cheaper and easier for the dumbest guys on the island to have salt.

[Lyric]

I agree that some are born smarter or richer etc. Look as this like an island with random men on it. Some are smarter and faster and harder working. Will the island have more or less salt harvested from the sea if the lucky, skilled and smart guys are forced to give some to the lazy and unlucky and stupid islanders?

If we leave them all alone more salt is collected for the entire island when everyone owns what they harvest. We can't avoid having some men being born as better salt collectors, but stepping in their way for any reason lowers the total amount of salt on the island.

Lowering the total amount of salt on the island raises its price because it is less available and a higher price means the worst collectors have to give up more fish to get salt from anyone. We can see this is true if we imagine salt is so hard to get that only the smartest guys can get any from the sea. When the smart guys have only a little salt they won't trade any of it for fish, but if they collect a ton of it over time they are willing to trade it for fish and if they collect enough salt they will be willing to virtually give it away for tiny amounts of fish, makin it cheaper and easier for the dumbest guys on the island to have salt.

From this example we can see that a free system maximizes the amount of salt (wealth) that the dumbest, laziest and crippled members of society own.

[CoccoBill]

!Luck, I agree with everything you say.

[IowaSkinsFan]

So you're essentially endorsing a system that's completely free-for-all, with no checks and balances, no regulation and no safety nets. I can't think of a more efficient system to fuck over 95% of the planets population.

I feel like we're going in circles, but I still have not seen an explanation for why this system would fuck over 95% of the planets population.

[CoccoBill]

I feel like we're going in circles, but I still have not seen an explanation for why this system would fuck over 95% of the planets population.

Because there is nothing in your system to ensure this doesn't happen. I feel that I have shown that neither of your basic assumptions are necessarily true, and without them your system cannot work the way you're suggesting. I think the burden of proof that it does work is on you.

You have not proven that the system isn't zero sum.
You haven't provided proof on why the system automatically distributes wealth fairly in every situation.
You have not explained how inherited wealth is earned and adds value to the system.
You have not explained how the system ensures no one is able to manipulate it to gain an unfair advantage.
You mentioned you still endorse some role for the government and some social safety nets, can you provide the criteria that makes them justified?

If we look at empirical evidence from the US, which arguably is the closest thing to a free market on the planet, we can see that financial inequality is the largest in the 1st world and 40 million people live under the poverty line.

In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth and the top 1% owned 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth.

According to this 2006 study by the Federal Reserve System, from 1989 to 2004, the distribution in the United States had been changing with indications there was a greater concentration of wealth held by the top 10% and top 1% of the population.

All studies I've seen of privatizing functions such as health care suggest that the net benefits are non-existent or even negative. Please explain how removing all regulation wouldn't make the wealth concentration for the top, and the number living under the poverty line even greater. Or are you just using circular logic saying this must be fair because it is so?

[Lyric]

Bill, you claimed that he needs "society's hostorical knowledge" to become wealthy and or create new technologies. Later you admited that one man alone can generate wealth. This is not logical.

You claim that wealth is zero sum, but one man can create wealth alone without taking from anyone else or hurting anyone else. If one man collects salt from the ocean he has created wealth for himself. If he eats it and pees in the sea the wealth has been destroyed and returned to its source; same as any other form of wealth.

[CoccoBill]

Bill, you claimed that he needs "society's hostorical knowledge" to become wealthy and or create new technologies. Later you admited that one man alone can generate wealth. This is not logical.

Could you please point where exactly I have said that.

You claim that wealth is zero sum, but one man can create wealth alone without taking from anyone else or hurting anyone else. If one man collects salt from the ocean he has created wealth for himself. If he eats it and pees in the sea the wealth has been destroyed and returned to its source; same as any other form of wealth.

If he uses the resources, those resources are away from him to use in the future, are they not? If you eat a gram of salt, you won't pee out a gram of salt.

[IowaSkinsFan]

And by "this" I mean the idea that a free market system does not maximize collective wealth.

[!Luck]

Lyric,

There in the lies the problem I believe the world is a better place when we MAX(EV Society) rather than MAX (EV of the society least fortunate).

!luck

[Lyric]

Lyric,

There in the lies the problem I believe the world is a better place when we MAX(EV Society) rather than MAX (EV of the society least fortunate).

!luck

In the simple salt example we can see that allowing everyone to keep what they harvest creates MAX (EV Society) AND MAX(EV of the society's least fortunate).

The entire island has more salt, and the dumbest and least skilled people all have more salt than they would in a controlled system. Please read it again and ask for clarification if you don't see why.

[WillburForce]

Why do you think business laws that restrict the free market are in place?

Perhaps in a Eutopian society your free market might exist - but I would guess that if the Eutopia existed it wouldn't have much need of any markets.

[Lyric]

Why do you think business laws that restrict the free market are in place?

Perhaps in a Eutopian society your free market might exist - but I would guess that if the Eutopia existed it wouldn't have much need of any markets.

You don't seem to understand what a market is. If two men are on an island and one makes cheese and trades it for the wine the other guy made, that is a free market. If a third guy comes over and intervenes in any way regarding the transaction, that is a regulated market.

[!Luck]

Lyric,

First you comment that you want equal opportunity not equal results.

Then you proceed to provide an example of the island, which honestly, I don't see how it really is equal opportunity. Just so you know I think the statement of equal opportunity in an open market is just an illogical statement. Flawed by definition. This is what I was getting at my orginal post that in an open market people would create situations where some have more opportunity than others.

You know why many(everyone) gets on you for your island examples? Because they do not capture enough complexity of the world economy. It sort of like me saying that the sun rotates around the earth, I know this because I can observe that it comes up from the same place everyday, I don't feel movement therefore, sun rotates around earth.

Some concepts that HAVE to be included in your island example are Extenalities, cost/benefit not associated with price. Like, what if those salt gathers have huge boats and they end up killing billions of fish in the process of their salt collection?


I think you are trying to create a society without government. is this true?

As side question.... Do you believe that an individual person's life is priceless? I don't. I won't write anything until you answer that question, since it is a bit fundamental.

!luck

[Lyric]

Lyric,

First you comment that you want equal opportunity not equal results.

Then you proceed to provide an example of the island, which honestly, I don't see how it really is equal opportunity. Just so you know I think the statement of equal opportunity in an open market is just an illogical statement. Flawed by definition. This is what I was getting at my orginal post that in an open market people would create situations where some have more opportunity than others.

Some on the island are born smarter and that gives them a better opportunity to harvest salt. I agree with this and I see your point. My answer to this is that the best option in this situation is to avoid taking salt from the smart guys because it lowers both the total salt available on the island and the total salt in the hands of the poor and stupid.

Calling it "equal opportunity" is just a way to differentiate from "equal results." I see that it isn't really an accurate description of avoiding restrictions and regulations, but what it means to indicate is that everyone has an equal opportunity to use whatever mind and body they were born with.

You know why many(everyone) gets on you for your island examples? Because they do not capture enough complexity of the world economy. It sort of like me saying that the sun rotates around the earth, I know this because I can observe that it comes up from the same place everyday, I don't feel movement therefore, sun rotates around earth.

Some concepts that HAVE to be included in your island example are Extenalities, cost/benefit not associated with price. Like, what if those salt gathers have huge boats and they end up killing billions of fish in the process of their salt collection?

If they end up killing fish they would be harming other people by destroying the environment. That is illegal in my Utopia. The island can relate to any modern complexity.


I think you are trying to create a society without government. is this true?

No, government is needed when free people make agreements with each other. They "hire" a government to enforce the agreements. In my Utopia government would be hired to keep people from hurting each other, and to protect the island from invasion. I think it creates the most wealth for the island over time and distributes the wealth in the most efficient manner possible, because if anything happens on the island it is without force -- if men trade they do it because they both believe it is a great idea. The only bans would be on theft and murder etc.

As side question.... Do you believe that an individual person's life is priceless? I don't. I won't write anything until you answer that question, since it is a bit fundamental.
!luck

No one really believes human life is infinitely valuable. If they claim to believe this they haven't really thought about it. We have 50,000 people die in cars each year in the US. If we valued life infinitely we would ban cars because they kill people; instead we allow them to kill a small amount of us each year because we value the ability to travel more than human life. If it were infinitely valued we would literally put infinite attention and wealth into keeping humans alive. We could ban leaving your bubble house, we could ban travel, we could do myriad things to make us live longer, but living well is important to us. So important that we smoke and drink and travel and play sports knowing that we are shortening or endangering our lives.