DD5: If somebody knows better, like all those who complain about this, why don't they buy off the land from Disneyland and make a profit?
Hmm, you wouldn't be happening to be talking about an entrepreneur would you?
"Libertarians claim that the free market puts reasources where the most demand is. This instance with Disneyland seems to be a counterexample;"
that's not true...the probelm is, you are only looking at the small picture, not the overall bigger picture....
Disney will bring in WAY MORE resources by keeping all the surrounding land to themselves...
If Disney would have allowed others to build that stuff, it would have devalued the feeling you get at Disney World considerably..... the feeling you get at Disney World being surrournded by all Disney property is worth way more to many than letting the unused property be used by someone else. This is why Disney World is the number 1 destination in the world.t true
Did no one thing my response was any good? Not worth replying to? I'd like to know why :( Maybe my next post will be more offensive so as to cajole the mises people into acknowledging me. Fart.
Here's another question: Why is Disney holding onto the land if they don't think that's the most profitable thing they can do with it? Are they trying to lose money?
Snowflake: Consider that a person who set up shop right outside disneyland would be free-riding off of disney's investment, harming disney's expected revenues. The higher disney's revenues, the more money they can invest in building a park. Seen vs unseen. Amateur economist away!
Consider that a person who set up shop right outside disneyland would be free-riding off of disney's investment, harming disney's expected revenues.
The higher disney's revenues, the more money they can invest in building a park. Seen vs unseen.
Amateur economist away!
I'm not sure that is what free-riding means. I think the issue is if disneyland ever wanted to expand the park (which they did) they would need the neighboring plots of land, if someone else owned them they could hold out and disney could not expand in a contiguous manner.
Economics informs us that its not possible for socialism to work the way leftists want it to. This is a rational point.
If socialists conceded that their system would lead to mass poverty and still preferred it, we'd have no rational argument with them.
Human action is inherently rational. Socialism is human action. Socialism is inherently rational.
----
It's not rational, it is purposeful
yessir: Human action is inherently rational. Socialism is human action. Socialism is inherently rational. ---- It's not rational, it is purposeful
As long as you don't conflate rational with correct I agree.
http://mises.org/daily/2249
If human action always aims at a purpose, which by definition it does, then human action must be rational, that is, consistent with reason or guided by one's will and intellect. It can never be termed irrational. In making this point, Mises in Human Action (p. 19) writes "Human action is necessarily always rational. The term 'rational action' is therefore pleonastic and must be rejected as such. When applied to the ultimate ends of action, the terms rational and irrational are inappropriate and meaningless. The ultimate end of action is always the satisfaction of some desires of the acting man."
>>Your rejection of socialism is based on arbitrary value judgments.
you forgot 'informed by facts about economics and consequences'
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
You use the term rational differently. I assume you mean it in terms of using your mind and coming to correct conclusions depending on your goals; which clearly as a socialist you don't
Right, no reasonably ordinary, judicious person aware of the economics and sociological factors of socialism could prefer it to the market. As for those that do? F*** 'em. Weirdos.
“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre
Libertarians hold that the free market, through the price mechanism, allocates scare resources towards their most valuable use. I have a possible counterexample to this claim, and I'm unsure of the best way to answer it. I heard a rumor that, several years back, Disneyland bought up all of the land surrounding a competing theme-park to prevent them from expanding. Nowadays, Disneyland rents out this land but refuses to sell any of it. The most valuable use of this land would be for the expansion of the competition’s theme park (evidenced by the amount of money they would be willing to pay for it) but since Disneyland doesn’t want the additional competition, this will never happen. The land is not being put towards its most valuable end. There is obviously nothing coercive going on in this situation, so libertarians couldn’t object to it on that basis. I’m tempted to take a hard-line approach; admit that this is a legitimate free-market use of property, and maintain that government interference won’t be a good alternative. If there’s a better way of answering this objection, I’m interested in hearing what it is.
I heard a rumor that, several years back, Disneyland bought up all of the land surrounding a competing theme-park to prevent them from expanding. Nowadays, Disneyland rents out this land but refuses to sell any of it. The most valuable use of this land would be for the expansion of the competition’s theme park (evidenced by the amount of money they would be willing to pay for it) but since Disneyland doesn’t want the additional competition, this will never happen. The land is not being put towards its most valuable end.
There is obviously nothing coercive going on in this situation, so libertarians couldn’t object to it on that basis. I’m tempted to take a hard-line approach; admit that this is a legitimate free-market use of property, and maintain that government interference won’t be a good alternative. If there’s a better way of answering this objection, I’m interested in hearing what it is.
"Right, no reasonably ordinary, judicious person aware of the economics and sociological factors of socialism could prefer it to the market."
I agree!
[QUOTE=DD5]And of course, it is so obvious to as why this is the case that no elaboration is necessary?[/QUOTE]
That is correct. Obviously Disney has not homesteaded said land.
Communists will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
no reasonably ordinary, judicious person aware of the economics and sociological factors of socialism could prefer it to the market.
“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini
Reasoning: That is correct. Obviously Disney has not homesteaded said land.
Do you really expect anybody to respond when you continue to be so vague in your "reasoning"?
why should I believe you that 'economics' facts are irrelevant to the question of human well being !?
yessir:It's not rational, it is purposeful
There is no difference between the terms therefore rational is purposeful.
"Action is, by definition, always rational. One is unwarranted in calling goals of action irrational simply because they are not worth striving for from the point of view of ones own valuations." - Mises; Epistemological Problems of Economics
yessir:I assume you mean it in terms of using your mind and coming to correct conclusions depending on your goals; which clearly as a socialist you don't
All socialists act purposefully for mass starvations and murdering. That's what it means to be a socialist. They even, historically, had gulags, and told some people to stop planting crops. They attack private property and don't believe in maintaining individual liberty. They are ad hoc when it comes to what they can do to other people, don't find the need to realize scarcity, and basically avoid any truth-values that have to do with private property maintenance and economic science. They are violence and disregard peace, which peace is the only way for any economic action to take place.
Wilderness: Then offer one. Now sir, by all means, you made the claim that free markets can't do the job. You made the claim that you know what consumers really want. Yet without the entrepreneaur mentality and implementation to fulfill this hypothetical assertion into an actual experiment to see if the consumers really do want the land for something other than what the consumers are paying Disney to use it for now, then by all means, show me what you got. Show me how you figured out how you know what consumers want better than the current, and thus, actual consumer actions.
Then offer one. Now sir, by all means, you made the claim that free markets can't do the job. You made the claim that you know what consumers really want. Yet without the entrepreneaur mentality and implementation to fulfill this hypothetical assertion into an actual experiment to see if the consumers really do want the land for something other than what the consumers are paying Disney to use it for now, then by all means, show me what you got. Show me how you figured out how you know what consumers want better than the current, and thus, actual consumer actions.
If you actually read what I've said on this thread, you would know that I don't agree with the objection. I'm just looking for the best way to respond to it. Being condescending and throwing the question back to me doesn't make you look smart, it makes you look like an ass.
I Samuel 8
Jesse: "If you actually read what I've said on this thread, you would know that I don't agree with the objection. I'm just looking for the best way to respond to it. Being condescending and throwing the question back to me doesn't make you look smart, it makes you look like an ass."
You could have easily said "I don't know the answer". That would have sufficed. I thought this was your argument. My bad man, don't get so upset and revert to nasty wordage.
My first post was a response to how to argue against such an objection, but then you said it wasn't "intelligient".
wilderness:You could have easily said "I don't know the answer". That would have sufficed. My first post was a response to how to argue against such an objection, but then you said it wasn't "intelligient". So this second post falls on your lap. Why wasn't it intelligient? Great run-around you got going there.
My first post was a response to how to argue against such an objection, but then you said it wasn't "intelligient". So this second post falls on your lap. Why wasn't it intelligient? Great run-around you got going there.
This what I said:
jesse:Jesse is talking about what he's talking about. I'm ready to hear a question, or an actual response to the intelligent discussion on this thread.
I said this because the response you suggested was the response that I already came up with in the OP. You added nothing to the discussion except rudeness.
Jesse: "I said this because the response you suggested was the response that I already came up with in the OP. You added nothing to the discussion except rudeness."
I already apoligized. But in no way was I being rude. I gave an argument that deals with an entrepeunar. Just because I initially thought I was arguing against you so asked you to provide an argument against the entrepeunar working in the free market doesn't make what I said rude in any sense of the word. Sorry, I thought you were who I was debating with. It's not necessary to revert to emotional rhetoric when I all I gave was, what I thought, was a decent agrument against anti-free marketers. But apparently I offered no decent argument centered on the entrepeunar, but you think that's adding nothing to this discussion. Ok, great.
I think my comments stand. Your rejection of socialism is based on arbitrary value judgments.
"I said this because the response you suggested was the response that I already came up with in the OP. You added nothing to the discussion except rudeness."
Bloom said it best.....and answered the discussion with his 2 questions...
Why is Disney holding onto the land if they don't think that's the most profitable thing they can do with it? Are they trying to lose money?
"I heard a rumor" - many times rumors such as this turn out to be fiction, but I will proceed.
"The most valuable use of this land would be for the expansion of the competition’s theme park (evidenced by the amount of money they would be willing to pay for it)" -You are claiming the most valuable use of the land can be derived from the amount of money an entity is willing to pay for it. You are also claiming that Disneyland is willing to pay more money for the land. It follows from your assumptions that Disneyland is utilizing the most value from the land. Yet you claim, "the land is not being put towards its most valuable end."
A water park known as Schlitterbahn came into a similar situation. I'm not sure of all the details of what limited their expansion. They responded by creating a separate park a few miles away and connecting the two by bus. This creation of two parks is what makes the park so popular. The themes of the two parks are able to specialize to their target consumer. In one park you have 20 somethings who want to be away from children and families, and in another park you have children and families who want the quiet of no 20 somethings. Both groups get the possibility of riding any of the rides in either park, for one price. This specific park is ranked #1 water park in the world. In conclusion, the limited expansion accomplished the opposite of what you are claiming it will.
You and mises have a different definition of rational.
If you prefer poverty and starvation, you might prefer socialism.
Mises definition is nonsense but I'm using it anyway. And according to HIS definition, which I am using, socialism is rational. Sorry, deal with it.
Ahuh. Mises wrote in german. He probably wouldn't have been this unclear in english. By rational he means purposeful. You are right that socialism is purposeful. To say it is rational is technically correct under mises, but in english rationalism connotates soundness of logic. Socialism is not optimal, or useful, which is the way most people conceptualize rationalism in english.
So you're basically just saying "ha ha ha you all reject socialism but according to you socialism is rational so that makes you hypocrites". It cheeses us off because none of us use the word rational like that, which is why myself and others attempted to correct you that human action is purposeful.
Only if you, by defintion, equate "socialism" to poverty and starvation, which is another arbitrary defition that you use to try to win the argument.
Well equating socialism with poverty is what mises tries to do through study of economics. He doesn't say that socialism is defined as poverty, rather, he studies human action to come to his conclusion. I suppose if the nature of man were different then socialism might not lead to poverty. *shrug*
The truth of the matter is that you reject a rational system (socialism)
Rational, purposeful, but nontheless sub optimal. On these grounds I reject it.
based on your arbitrary judgements of value.
Im not trying to cover up my preferences for peace prosperity and freedom. But my rejection of socialism follows from my understanding of economics. In this sense, it is not arbitrary. It is arbitrary in the sense that my values are merely personal preferences.
Also, as I mentioned earlier, poverty is subjective. Or are you going to pull some collectivistic GDP statistics to show how wealthy the west is? Number of mcdonald's burgers per capita?
When I say I prefer prosperity, I mean that I want as many wants of the individual to be satisfied as possible. This may not have anything to do with big macs. It might mean sitting under a tree waiting for meditation his whole life. *shrug*
Snowflake,
Not that I'm defending JacobM, but rational or logical doesn't necessarily mean truthful. It's important to know that logical deductions that imply false conclusions are significant. It was one of Aristotle's great achievements. Logically deducting false conclusions from truthful premises, those false conclusions are logical and are important in doing science. So even though the logical deduction is false it possibly leads to better science.
Rational doesn't necessarily mean 'soundness of logic', but maybe you could explain that more. A false logical conclusion is what hypothesis are based on. Being logical is always sound. Or being rational is always sound. It doesn't necessarily mean the truth though and sometimes what is false leads to better science.
wilderness:logical doesn't necessarily mean truthful.
wilderness:Rational doesn't necessarily mean 'soundness of logic', but maybe you could explain that more.
The truth of the matter is that you reject a rational system (socialism) based on your arbitrary judgements of value. Also, as I mentioned earlier, poverty is subjective. Or are you going to pull some collectivistic GDP statistics to show how wealthy the west is? Number of mcdonald's burgers per capita?
Why use McDonalds burgers per capita when we have this triumpth of capitalism?
Meet the Oreo Pizza. Yes...those are Oreos....on a pizza. That is what our "impoverished" citizens eat lol.
twistedbydsign99:I'm not sure that is what free-riding means.
twistedbydsign99:I think the issue is if disneyland ever wanted to expand the park (which they did) they would need the neighboring plots of land, if someone else owned them they could hold out and disney could not expand in a contiguous manner.
Socialism is human action
Socialism is a school of political/economic thought. It is not human action. Humans can act on their beliefs but beliefs themselves cannot act.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Snowflake:It does if you think that a priori truths are tautological! I don't know if you are referring to things like zeno's paradoxes but I looked at them and the more significant of them are linguistic confusions.
I may have complicated it a bit by injecting truthful and falsity into what I was saying, which actually subverted my point a bit. Let me clarify. What I mean is logical deductions that demonstrate an impossible conclusion are what hypothesis are based on.
Snowflake:I'm just bouncing around a rough version of the way that people who speak english commonly use the term rational. In the context of economic behaviour it seems to be equivalent to "optimal".
Yes, but that is counter to Mises point. Mises states one cannot say that a socialist is being irrational unless of course the socialist doesn't want the ends that socialism leads to. And formally I can say is that by the human acts of socialists they are doing what they prefer. They are being rational. I can't base my conclusions on what a socialist says is their end cause they could be lying. Their actions are what praxeology is concerned with not if they are lying or their psychic state. The assumptions of choice and preferences are just that. Assumptions that are considered self-evident and they are the means. And the ends or completion of these means is the full act, ie. there is only inaction or action no in-between. It is the acts that are observed that we can all point out as the preferences. And in this case, the preferences of socialists are those acts leading to such ends that socialism leads to. It is logical that their means will lead to such ends. It is only rational.
wilderness:Yes, but that is counter to Mises point.
I agree that if a person wants what socialism actually entails, he is acting rationally *and* optimally. But if a man wants freedom, and falsly believes socialism is his path, he is still acting "rationally" but sup optimally. This is really simple. I guess JakobM doesn't get the distinction and just wants to claim victory over a bunch of strangers who challenge his ego driven world views.
"Intro. to Logic and Scientific Method" Cohen (the same book Mises had recommend; just saying so it doesn't appear far-fetched or a different kind of logic):
Morris Cohen:Logical Implication Does Not Depend on the Truth of Our Premises. The specific logical relation of implication may hold (1) between false propositions or (2) between a false and a true one, and (3) may fail to hold between true propositions. Consider the argument If Sparta was a democracy and no democracy has any kings, it follows that Sparta had no king. The falsity of the proposition, Sparta was a democracy, does not prevent it from having certain implications nor from determining definite logical consequences.... It is a great error to suppose, as many have unthinkingly done, that in the reasoning we call scientific we proceed only from facts or propositions that are true. This view ignores the necessity for deduction from false hypotheses. In science as well as in practical choices, we are constantly confronted with alternative hypotheses which cannot all be true.... We generally decide between such conflicting propositions by deducing the consequences of each and ruling out as false that hypothesis which leads to false conclusions, that is, to results which do not prevail in the field of obervable facts. If false hypotheses had no logical consequences we should not thus be able to test their falsity. That a proposition has definite logical consequences even if it is false follows also from the fact that these logical consequences or implications are part of its meaning. And we must know the meaning of a proposition before we can tell whether it is true.
Consider the argument If Sparta was a democracy and no democracy has any kings, it follows that Sparta had no king. The falsity of the proposition, Sparta was a democracy, does not prevent it from having certain implications nor from determining definite logical consequences....
It is a great error to suppose, as many have unthinkingly done, that in the reasoning we call scientific we proceed only from facts or propositions that are true. This view ignores the necessity for deduction from false hypotheses. In science as well as in practical choices, we are constantly confronted with alternative hypotheses which cannot all be true.... We generally decide between such conflicting propositions by deducing the consequences of each and ruling out as false that hypothesis which leads to false conclusions, that is, to results which do not prevail in the field of obervable facts. If false hypotheses had no logical consequences we should not thus be able to test their falsity.
That a proposition has definite logical consequences even if it is false follows also from the fact that these logical consequences or implications are part of its meaning. And we must know the meaning of a proposition before we can tell whether it is true.
Snowflake:I agree that if a person wants what socialism actually entails, he is acting rationally *and* optimally. But if a man wants freedom, and falsly believes socialism is his path, he is still acting "rationally" but sup optimally. This is really simple. I guess JakobM doesn't get the distinction and just wants to claim victory over a bunch of strangers who challenge his ego driven world views.
I really don't know what JakobM wants. I was going in accord with Mises definition which JakobM is correctly using.
Except the capitalists, special interest groups and individuals who benefit from the state... which is where ethics & political philosophy come into play.
Bro, that's such a good plan for achieving liberty.. give the statists & socialists the moral highground!?
...
"Except the capitalists, special interest groups and individuals who benefit from the state... which is where ethics & political philosophy come into play."
"The average American worker enjoys amenities for which Croesus, Crassus, the Medici, and Louis XIV would have envied him." (Mises, HA)
Had Louis XIV established economic liberty at the beginning of his reign, capitalist France would have poured a greater cornucopia of goods and services upon his head than his crippling taxes ever did. VERY few (if any) people benefit from the interventionist state more than they would benefit from capitalism. Mises knew what he was talking about: there truly is a harmony of interests.
Economics education is the way forward. Specious philosophical doctrines are nothing but a vicious distraction. Recognizing that doesn't give "statists & socialists the moral highground". Rather, it is a matter of shifting altogether from the moralist battleground (which is equally flat and muddy for all its spurious disputants) to the scientific battleground of economics, where the battle is fought over existential propositions that can actually be meaningfully affirmed or denied, and where the scientific case for capitalism is invincible.