"the non-human and future generations, and is clearly elitist, your ethical position is clearly weaker."
I resent that. because in your society their is no aspiration to earn anything. how can you feel like you have earned anything. Im sure you will say "well, in my society people wouldnt need to earn anything" or wouldnt want to earn anything.
But isnt a key human element the feeling accomplishment? Personally, your world sounds like that huge craft on Wall-E, wherr no one walks or doesnt anything toimprove the current state. Essentailly we become the herd of the shepard who in turn is the herd.
Note, the problem with the use of linear programming here is that it can't be really shoehorned into graph theory (easily). You'll have to create mappings (morphisms) between functions. If you're lost before this post, apfelstrudel, I suggest taking up a few compsci courses at your local uni (LOL). :3
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
Felipe, You mean how you made something up that did not occur? My logic is based on philosophical ideas stretching back to Aristotle, and is very much all about this world. If anyone's ideas are "not of this world" it is those of the "I don't give a shit about nature" crowd. Perhaps you at least have time to get that irony detector checked out. It seems to be broken.
Bearchu, Not holier than thou. But slavery is a tough thing to defend ethically, and so is a market in children. And a lot of other things... people in the lower classes acutally enjoy their lives more than the rich Wow, you are right! So by keeping them poor we are actually doing them a service! Yeah like I said, a lot of though things to defend...
ladyattis, I know enough linear programming to grasp the issue, but not enough comp. sci. to grasp what you're saying... something I plan to rectify.
Start with complexity theory, at least those that deal with Turing machines, because that's where you'll get a general test of whether or not something is computable. For example, we can't construct a turing machine that can compute factors as there's nothing that can determine one factor from another (in terms of priority or preference). Then work your way to graph theory (and maybe even pick up Abstract algebra as this will give you the chops to handle morphisms and the like).
The key here is to understand what *is* an algorithm in the general sense of the Church-Turing thesis and how that works out in all the permutations of the idea.
So far, no one has addressed the following issues:
-How little shit you give about nature is beside the point. You are absolutely dependant on it for survival; no such thing as being "too cool for clean air and water and a healthy topsoil". So how does a market address environmental issues, when money does not carry the information needed?
-Related; what about those who cannot participate in a market? I am thinking here mostly about future generations (since you cannot call them lazy, like the poor, or unimportant, like animals).
-What exactly the problem is. I notice not even you can agree that the central issue of the ECP is; is it how we produce or what we produce?
-Your response to the ethical issues I brought up. This, I think, should include why a person ought not to be able to influence decisions affecting him/her.
-You response to my assertion that the algorithmic account of practical reason moves away from Hayek's (admittedly strong) position, and sides with your opposition on a vital issue.
ladyattis,
Thanx.
But as a someone who understand comp.sci., what do you say about Cockshott's article? Purely scientifically, and not involving politics here. As I understand it, he is a professor in the subject, with a background in Economics.
I don't think it gives a basis for his conclusions. ODV is a very shakey (and possibly arbitrary) concept. All it does is shift marginal utility into a new form, it doesn't add anything better or new to the debate. In fact, if VP people want anything that may be the future of economics, it's not this paper. Try the work surrounding Bitcoin, gift economics, and the like.
Who said i was defending slavery? I thought we cleared that notion up, when we discussed how salvery is inneficient.
The market for "children" has been discussed post-rothbard and the problems he encountered.
Wow, you are right! So by keeping them poor we are actually doing them a service! Yeah like I said, a lot of though things to defend...
So you went and asked someone? Because you seem to be assuming what you do not know. google it "are poor people happier than rich people"
Another problem come to mind for me in regards to ECA: are values countable? If they're not, then no algorithm can be design to be in P-time, therefore we're back at the start and no linear programs that can be beat the NP-time in their implementations.
Reference: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1806294&show=html
You response to my assertion that the algorithmic account of practical reason moves away from Hayek's (admittedly strong) position, and sides with your opposition on a vital issue.
We dont all agree with hayek.
What exactly the problem is. I notice not even you can agree that the central issue of the ECP is; is it how we produce or what we produce?
the problem is that we need to find the best way decide how we are going to produce what. Its not a dichotomy.
We simply disagree about what the "best" way to do it is.
Your claim that your solution is ethicaly supperior, really doesnt resonnate. I grew up poor, worked hard, and went to school and never had a handout. I put into the market, which in turn allowed me to benefit. My opinion is that ethics dont even matter in your society. I imagine drones wondering about aimlessly, no sense of purpose. I dont mean to offend, i just cant imagine it too many other ways.
Lets not get all heated up over an intelectuall debate, okay?
But here's a summary of my argument(s).
1. Humans aren't reducible to some observable factors or patterns (this is a deeply philosophical, but not arbitrary, it's more about the fundamental nature of Existence than anything: Monism vs Pluralism).
2. Given any set of productions that can be computed, can they be assigned to any set of consumptions (or groups of consumers) effectively? This an assignment problem yet to be fully examined for me, and it maybe a feasibility problem as well.
3. Given a set of productions are their economic values (sans LTV) countable? If this part can't be done, then any other debate on the matter is moot as anything that's uncountable is not even algorithm (see the proof that real numbers are not countable for a grasp of this implication). But, if they are countable, then the question is are they countable in P-time or NP-time? If the latter is the case, then any attempt to make any system more efficient than what we have now (the price system) is dead in the water too. If it's the case it can be done in P-time, then we have an argument for an alternative to the price system. But that's a pretty damn big if in my book.
Apfelstrudel: So how does a market address environmental issues, when money does not carry the information needed?
So how does a market address environmental issues, when money does not carry the information needed?
If you shit on my lawn you better pick/clean it up or I will get medieval on your a**. Does this carry enough environmental information for you?
Who appointed you as someone else's spokesperson/defender? As I said, you commies are nothing but a bunch of megalomaniac busybodies: the defenders of the victims of voluntary action! How about you mind your own business and stop "protecting" ones that never asked for your help or concern in the first place? What about the short and bald dudes? I think they might be having difficulties getting laid. I think we should force women to have sex with them. Are you with me on that one?
The problem is that there's no "we", nor is there a problem of what "we do" (much less, produce). Get it? Or go back and answer my question on what values exist apart from subjective ones.
Thanks for sharing your subjective valuations. What else do you think a person (including all persons that are not yourself) ought to do or have? Roasted chickens?
That's the real issue I have with VP supporters is that they confuse ought for is. Lets accept this one obvious truth: Ought != Is.
love the mathematical break down ladyattis- kudos
But here's why I think we can't get past the ECA in terms of computer science: the number of production and consumption nodes (u and v) is not certain. These two change all the time: production cycles start and stop on their own schedules free from consideration of consumers (and their demands) and consumers consume free from production cycles (consumption and production are decoupled/independent of each other). Take this and expand it out in terms of combinations (through time) who will produce and who will consume, and when. This makes it a halting problem. When we do know stop producing and when we do know when to stop consuming?
The latter is self-derived, but the former can only be approximated by figuring out the curves for a firm (where MC = MR, and MC is above the ATC curve in an monopolistic competition). These don't stay the same through time, they always change with the independent factor/variable of consumers. This means producers are always guessing regardless of what system you choose to adopt. The reason why the price system is the best option is because it's turing recognizable, but it doesn't attempt to decide when either consumption or production ought to halt. This allows for humans to make this decision with ease, among other goodies it provides (stability in face of uncertainty inherent to Existence, more configurations of Factors of Production, and etc).
Again, ignoring economics and philosophy for a sec, is it technically possible?
Cockshott is a supporter of central planning, and I reject some of his conclusions as well (on ethical grounds, since I don't know anything about comp.sci.)
Bearchu,
Love to hear more on how Rothbard's foot was removed from his mouth by others.
Robert Nozick believes that a free system would allow the individual to sell himself into slavery. Walter Block also supports this position, arguing that one does not truly own something if one cannot sell it; thus self-ownership requires one to be able to sell oneself into slavery. Even Locke and Rothbard can be included here, if one extends slavery to include things like sweatshops.
Are you seriously saying that the evidence that money does not provide happiness ought to be interpreted, not as a sign that the pursuit of profit does not improve life, but that keeping others poor is OK because "hey, they seem to be happy anyway! Fuck 'em!"
As for not agreeing with Hayek... fuuuuuuck, really? He is like the one guy you have on your side that actually makes sense sometimes.
never had a handout
Was it a public school? A lot of people never get the chance to go to school. They starve to death before they hit that age.
1. As I said I reject monism. However, monism does not follow from being able to objectively assert needs. While we are on that subject, my last assertion on objective valuation has not been addressed.
3. Well done, thank you. I'll get back with an answer when I understand what you are talking about :) (If you could explain the basics in stupid-english it would be awesome!)
z1235,
Ehm, no?
I mean, like in the example I gave before, if choosing between two methods of production (or two products to consume), A and B, how do you choose the one that is the most environmentally sound if price is the only info you have? Price says nothing about environmental impact.
On the second point, anger, ad hominem and reducto ad absurdum are not going to distract me from the fact that you don't have an answer. You know I am not a communist, that I am against force and coercion, and that I find it of outmost importance that people affected by something get to influence the decision (that is, if you have actually read what I post). So drop it and give me and actual answer, or at least say you don't give a shit, that's at least a slightly stronger response.
On the third point, I already did this. Feel free to comment on it.
Fourth point is again a combo of ad hominem and reducto ad absurdum. All I said was that any response to the ethical issues I brought up should include why a person ought not to be able to influence decisions affecting him/her, since that is a major ethical issue that I brought up. Also I know you are trying to make it seem like I contradict myself, but I clearly allow for different personal opinions (as I have pointed out).
Don't bring up VP from out of nowhere you too. Ought != is? Well, duuuuh. Ought = should be* *why it should be is not a part of the meaning of the word itself; an argument for it must be made on it's own, and this I have done.
It is not technically possible as the economic value is at the margins of any algorithm. It's not inborn to any definition of any unit within the algorithm. So, all you get is approximations from the algorithm (heuristics). This doesn't mean it's not useful, but it does mean it doesn't offer anything in terms of usefulness as a replacement to the price system.
Also, I bring up the VP because the majority of criticisms have been laid at the VP on YT. Also, the reason why I bring up Ought != Is because there's a huge issue in terms of individuals confusing a moral statement for a scientific statement (normative versus positive sciences).
Though I know no cs, I can tell that your reasoning is deeply within the context of a capitalist economy. I recall encountering the same issue with you on the TZM forums. How familiar are you with Marxist and/or anarchist theory? Not being a condescending dick here, just wondering.
I am, and have always been, very clear on this being a ethical/philosophical question. The inability of some VP-followes to comprehend that is a reason that I think the TVP-TZM split was friggin' awesome. Hopefully one of the parties will fuggin learn...
Apfelstrudel: I can tell that your reasoning is deeply within the context of a capitalist economy.
Praxeology is not a context which fits inside of a capitalist economy. It's the other way around. A capitalist economy is an economic system which fits inside the context of praxeology, as all economic systems fit inside that context. LadyAttis's comment has nothing to do with the "context" of a capitalist society but of society in general, although I could see how you superficially could draw that conclusion if had no idea what LA was talking about.
Economic calculation is always present, whether you allow capitalism or not. Removing capitalism does not remove the innate praxeological structure of man.
Strudel, you don't answer anything. You merely type words. Then type some more, repeating the same fallacies that have been pointed out to you ad nauseaum. Re-read this thread -- jokes included. It's all in there for you. As for...
Apfelstrudel: why a person ought not to be able to influence decisions affecting him/her, since that is a major ethical issue that I brought up.
why a person ought not to be able to influence decisions affecting him/her, since that is a major ethical issue that I brought up.
I enjoy peeing on your carpet. I ought to be able to influence your decision to kick me out of your house, as it would affect me profoundly.
filc,
Is praxeology another way of saying "human nature"? For I find few instances of it being used by others that Mises and those following his tradition. And how is the way people act not dependent on the context and environment?
I usually do not respond to insults, but this time I will, if only to point out that I have given answers to everything that has been asked (apart from the CS bits; that I cannot do).
Yes, this strage desire to harm another person for no reason is certainly a problem. I can always get a new carpet, so it's OK, I forgive you. Now lets make sure you get some help. Don't worry, no one will coerce you into anything; just remember that the whole community is on your side here, and all we want is for you to feel better.
[A systemic approach takes all the available possibilities into account. That, coupled with an ethical commitment to liberty and well-being for all insures that the my answer is the only proper response to the scenario above.]
VVVVV
In addition, a mentally ill person is mentally ill regardless of the economic system in place. The existence of whack-jobs who want to piss on people's heads does not disprove economic theories. You accuse me of "just typing words". What is exactly do you call this talk about pissing, a constructive critique? I'd hate to see you mock someone...
Apfelstrudel: Don't worry, no one will coerce you into anything;
Don't worry, no one will coerce you into anything;
Thanks for letting me pee on your carpet. I think I'd also like to pee on your head on Sunday mornings. Ought I not be able to influence decisions affecting all of my peeing habits?
Apfelstrudel:Is praxeology another way of saying "human nature"? For I find few instances of it being used by others that Mises and those following his tradition. And how is the way people act not dependent on the context and environment?
no.
This is the main part that we all seem to disagree. Apfel feels like in his society people arent subject to praxeology? And that we inherently believe this because its what we see in front of us and what is tought to us.
To him, the whole idea of a mechanized ordinal rank of values, doesnt sufficienly translate in to prices that he thinks are morally accpetable.
I am wondering what exactly you think poverty is. And why you think a sweatshop is slavery, and how that is not the fault of the state. I am interested to hear.
And just because poor people are happy, doesnt mean I hold the position "since they are happy fuck em."
I dont understand who you are defending, do you know alot of poor people who hate their lives? Where are you from BTW?
PS No school for me till UNIVERSITY.
"Though I know no cs, I can tell that your reasoning is deeply within the context of a capitalist economy."
Actually, it's from the perspective of pure exchange. So, we could be talking about tribal societies using skins, foods, and jewelry to trade or talking about a market index, but the nature of the exchange is a given regardless of formal theory/narrative. When you drop the assumptions of Marxism or any other school of thought, you get to see the nature of how a person may or may not consider an exchange (should I exchange? is this valuable to me? Do I want to give up X for Y?). When trying to figure out when to make a good available to trade for that of another (be it money or another good as commodity), these aren't computable for the very reason I've been pointing out in every post (these valuations are based on whether or not one is willing to consume it or not [marginal utility]). No where have you come to the argument with a coherent refutation or replacement for marginal utility, so I have no reason to accept your position sans marginal utility.
filc, That was very informative. Bearchu,
Apfel feels like in his society people arent subject to praxeology? Don't be absurd. What I mean is that, surely, people act differently in different context and situations? Is then not praxeology, the study of human action, dependent on the environment and context? To him, the whole idea of a mechanized ordinal rank of values, doesnt sufficienly translate in to prices that he thinks are morally accpetable. Actually I, and I believe ancom in general, rejects an ordinal rank of value. At least rank singular. I am wondering what exactly you think poverty is. And why you think a sweatshop is slavery, and how that is not the fault of the state. I am interested to hear. What I think is irrelevant. What matters is a person's practical opportunities, what they have access to. One could argue that it is a matter of how well their needs are satisfied. A sweatshop is slavery because, ignoring the abuse and coercion clearly present for a moment, the person who works in one has no real choice. "Work or die of starvation" is not a valid option. They are forced into it by circumstances; circumstances that would not need to exist if we decided to change society. Why would it be the fault of the state? What do they have to do with it, apart from perhaps perpetuating the system in some cases? Those places are created by corporations in order to exploit cheap labour and make more profit. It is the direct result of a system that values monetary gain over ethical concerns and human well-being.
I am Bosnian, grew up in Sweden. Why?
Praxeology is talking about the basic understanding of logic as applied to action. In this context, it has components which are apriori true (like what we have in naturalistic logic). This means regardless of environment, or accidents of history, is it true (and consistent) or it is not.
Apfelstrudel: A sweatshop is slavery because, ignoring the abuse and coercion clearly present for a moment, the person who works in one has no real choice. "Work or die of starvation" is not a valid option.
A sweatshop is slavery because, ignoring the abuse and coercion clearly present for a moment, the person who works in one has no real choice. "Work or die of starvation" is not a valid option.
So if it weren't for the shops in which people are sweating, they'd all be dead? Was there anyone alive before "sweat" shops came to be?
Actually, it's from the perspective of pure exchange.
I know. Exchange however does not occur in an ancom society in that manner. Saying that you where stuck in a capitalist mode of thinking was wrong of me; I should have said “a market oriented way” or “an exchange oriented way”.
http://struggle.ws/anarchism/writers/anarcho/anarchism/exchange.html http://nefac.net/node/157
No where have you come to the argument with a coherent refutation or replacement for marginal utility...
Nor have the proponents of MU ever debunked the older account of human well-being, that the classics used. It just... stopped being used.My point that not everyone can get at this marginal utility still stands. More points are made in Ch. 3 and partially 4 of the Market, as I have said before.
Absurd. If it weren't for capitalist exploitation, they wouldn't be facing the "choice" to begin with. How you can defend such clear exploitation and inflicting of pain on others, and paint it up as something good, boggles the mind...
apfel-
Thats where I am not convinced, because the theory behind human action make the most sense. Im just not sure that people are capable of what you suggest.
"Why would it be the fault of the state? What do they have to do with it, apart from perhaps perpetuating the system in some cases? Those places are created by corporations in order to exploit cheap labour and make more profit. It is the direct result of a system that values monetary gain over ethical concerns and human well-being."
Thats just it, the state could easily set command and control minimum wage laws. A shorter work week, whatever. Its not so much the fault of the state for letting the free trade happen, rather, that their inaction produces these results what results in this.
Just wondering. I am lebanese, grew up in Abidjan, CI and live in San DIego. In Abidjan, you can get a first hand view of what capitalism+corrupt quasi-statism produces, which is more opportunity than there otherwise would be. You say there is no choice, but living a subsistance lifestyle is perfectly possible in ABidjan.
Likewise, "most either work in sweatshops or become prostitutes." Although this is a false dichotomy, prostitution is perfectly legal in someplaces.
I know we arent talking about the ECP anymore, but eh.
Apfelstrudel: Absurd. If it weren't for capitalist exploitation, they wouldn't be facing the "choice" to begin with.
Absurd. If it weren't for capitalist exploitation, they wouldn't be facing the "choice" to begin with.
What choices would they be facing without the "exploitative sweat" shop? In what way does the sweatshop's existence limit anyone's choices?
Marginal Utility solves the Diamond-Bread(Water, depending on the textbook) paradox. LTV and other theories, even John Law's scarcity theory of value, don't come close to solving it. And if you think other theories can, I'm all ears on it, but don't expect me to agree with you automatically.
LadyAttis:Actually, it's from the perspective of pure exchange.
Apfelstrudel: I know. Exchange however does not occur in an ancom society in that manner. Saying that you where stuck in a capitalist mode of thinking was wrong of me; I should have said “a market oriented way” or “an exchange oriented way”. http://struggle.ws/anarchism/writers/anarcho/anarchism/exchange.html http://nefac.net/node/157
The articles provided do not address interpersonal exchange or human action. Yet your statement insinuates that they do. I have a feeling that you don't know what praxeology is and you know little about interpersonal exchange. When you say "Exchange in that waY" you seem to imply that exchange functions differently somehow. Exchanging one object for another mutually with another individual. Does this somehow magically change in communism? Nope. The only argument you provided was that labor exchange would't be feasible but such an assertion is impossible to prove. Especially given both logical and modern empirical evidence suggestion otherwise.
What little you do know about exchange comes from rhetorical antagonists from texts that you cited. Their arguments are 80% semantic and rhetorical. Very little if any of it could be classified as scientific.
BTW, people really should read this. This is a great example of someone who's deeply confused about economics.
http://struggle.ws/anarchism/writers/anarcho/anarchism/exchange.html
Here are some juicy parts.
While the idea that people will happily become wage slaves
How can you become a slave if you consent? Also, the irony of a communist passing judgement on someone else's happyness....
private property in favour of possession
I abolish alcohol in favour of beer. Did that make sense? Neither does the statement above.
I oppose the state too, remember:) Also, one could argue that the reason that the state does not do this, is because it is influenced by corporations, or itself profits on it.
Just because it is possible to make it, does not mean it is morally acceptable to refrain from changing the system that gives rise to the problems in question.
Say you see a man drowning, struggling to make it ashore. Would you help him? Technically, he could make it on his own, maybe. You didn't push him in, his situation is not your fault. You don't really have any obligation to help him. But would it really be ethical to do nothing? Now say you decide to save him, but before you toss him something to grab hold of you shout "$1000 for rescue services! Do you accept?" and wait for confirmation. Technically you saved his life, and had he not accepted your deal he may very well have died. Again, technically you are not an evil person here; you didn't push him in after all. What situation he was in is not your fault. You did not force him, just made him an offer that he was perfectly free to refuse. Buuutt.... do you really think that was ethical of you, taking advantage of his desperate situation like that?
Common misunderstanding. Marx's LTV deals with commodities only, to begin with (so water would not count, bread would), and only claims that labour is a vital part of value (a part that Marx then focuses on, mostly because no one else did). It does not state that labour alone is the source of all value, that would be absurd. It allows for subjective valuation, market forces, etc. to play their part.
Please elaborate on why you find Law's response inadequate.
Umm, I'm going to call bullshit on Marx being the creator of LTV. Smith and Ricardo were the forebearers of LTV, nothing personal, but you need to bone up on economic history before making such bold claims.
As for Law's scarcity theory of value, it's flawed because many things are scarce, but have little value. Uranium is quite scarce, more scarce than gold, but pound for pound gold out paces it in terms of price and general economic (perceived) value.
I know very little about praxeology, but will read up more on it. I did not understand that it was such an important concept for ancap.
You, however, know equally little about ancom. Concepts such as wage slavery and possession seem foreign to you, and you grossly misunderstand them.
"Exchanging one object for another mutually with another individual" would not be outlawed or anything, it being anarchism, but it would not be the basis of the economy. Exchange only makes sense if there is property; I must own something in order to exchange it for something you own. When property is abolished, the role of exchange either disapears or is marginalised.
I did not imply he was it's creator, sorry for the misunderstanding. He did modify it from Smith and Ricardo, this is not some big secret, anyone who's reached Marx is aware of this. But it is important to point out that I am talking about Marx's LTV, seeing as it is different, thus me saying "Marx's LTV". Should've said "Marx's version of the LTV".
I thought Law used supply and demand analys, not just supply. Haven't read anything of his though, just found this:
>>Although Galiani vaguely accounted for the cost of production in his utility value theory, he failed to develop it into a fully-fledged supply and demand analysis. This monumental project was taken up by the Scotsman John Law (1671-1729). In his Essay on a Land Bank, Law outlined the old water / diamond paradox of value, in which comparatively 'useless' diamonds are more highly valued than the more 'useful' water and reconciled the mystery by using a supply and demand analysis. Unlike his predecessors and his immediate successors (until Walras and Marshall), Law used both demand and supply factors in determining the value of a good which has a use in society. Henceforth any changes in the value of goods were due to a change in the quantity supplied or demanded.
Although John Locke (1632-1704) in, Some Considerations on the Consequences of Lowering of Interest and the Raising the Value of Money, had developed a theory of price determination earlier, it lacked the clarity, precision and understanding of Law. In Money and Trade Considered, Law corrects Locke's unpolished value by stating that "The prices of goods are not according to the quantity in proportion to the vent, but in proportion to the demand" <<
apfel- i really like apple struddles. btw
"Also, one could argue that the reason that the state does not do this, is because it is influenced by corporations, or itself profits on it."
Right, which is perfectly logical, but one of the main reasons these corporations are the way they are and do what do they do is is because of the tax structure,monopoly privledges, subsidies and other things that the state allowed. Thats why we hate the state.
However, one can only theorize if the situation would be the same with out the state.
Why is the man drowning? not that it matters but honestly, i wouldn't hesitate to jump in and save him, free of charge. as a matter of fact just because i believe in capitalism doesnt mean that i constantly go around trying to queeze money out of people. I mean come on, we already agree that you dont know the ethical basis of our existence is transformable.
In addition, how could you assume that someone in a ancom society would jump in and save him?
Not every one is ethical or competent and i understand your frustration, but like we agreed how can you change that
Consider a child/wife who was given a teddy bear/earings by his father/husband before his father/husband was killed by a volunteer manning the trolley. And now there seems to be a synthetic fiber/gem that scoiety is running out of, which this teddy/earings happens to be made out of. And society really needs this fiber/gem.
So they ask, and they ask, and they ask the child/wife to give up with teddy/earings for "society." but heshe cant let go; his/her father/husband gave it to him!
>>>At this point, would the child/wife be ok with letting it go?
So everyone deliberates on every level of the polycentric decision machine, and they decide, that they need this teddy/earings.
Does someone show up to collect? No way right? because we couldnt coerced into doing anything, right?
Not sure why, but this seems relevant. From fmylife.com:
Today, I once again told my son he needed a job and a girlfriend because I simply could not keep him in my house anymore. He yelled, "No, I can do whatever I want!" Then went back to playing video games. He's 38. FML
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/Rae2_1_2.pdf
for the rest
http://mises.org/misesuniv.asp