Stumbled upon this argument and got stuck:When there is a shortage, prices on a free market rise accordingly to signal high demand as compared to low supply which victimizes poor customers since rich buyers could simply buy up all the reserves until the crisis is over. In some cases, e.g. drinking water production, this would severely endanger the well-being of the poor. Thus, government must ration these important products should they be in short supply, to ensure the survival of poor citizens.Any ideas? Thanks in advance.
Morty:So property rights cease to be legitimate when it is convenient for you? Does that apply to other people too? For example, if you were somewhere, say Africa, and you had some food, would it be legitimate for starving Africans to take that food from you by force?
If they could, I could not blame them for robbing me to feed their families. Who would do differently? Doesn't mean I won't resist.
Morty:It would seem we could take this principle even farther. All criminals would simply have to make themselves poor just before they committed a crime, perhaps by giving it to a close friend, then it would be justifiable and legitimate. Then they could have the friend buy them things to enjoy the fruits of their criminal actions, only to momentarily transfer them over to the friend just before a crime is committed so they could use the JCFolsom poverty defense if caught.
"In a world where retards rule..." Dude, we have laws on the books right now that make exceptions for duress, and people don't go around deliberately putting themselves in life-threatening situations just to legitimize violence, and if they did and one found out about it, you could refuse them the defense.
JCFolsom: If they could, I could not blame them for robbing me to feed their families. Who would do differently? Doesn't mean I won't resist.
What does it matter whether they act out of desperation or act in spite of being prosperous? From a rational point of view the two are no different. You may feel more sympathetic toward one than the other, but don't conflate that with their moral standing.
Diminishing Marginal Utility - IT'S THE LAW!
JCFolsom:"In a world where retards rule..." Dude, we have laws on the books right now that make exceptions for duress, and people don't go around deliberately putting themselves in life-threatening situations just to legitimize violence, and if they did and one found out about it, you could refuse them the defense.
That's simply because the laws will not be enforced as they are written. I was examining your principle, so I assumed that you would have your rules actually be consistently instituted, rather than being arbitrary and whim-based.
Thanks for your efforts, got some excellent points out of it.
Morty:That's simply because the laws will not be enforced as they are written. I was examining your principle, so I assumed that you would have your rules actually be consistently instituted, rather than being arbitrary and whim-based.
Yes, because having a rigid and absolute set of rules is far better than actually making decisions based on the particular circumstance involved. What was I thinking?
If your rules are employed arbitrarily, at the whim of whoever is considering the case, then what stops anyone from deciding the current United States as a just system? Or the Soviet Union, or Nazi Germany, for that matter. If nothing is "rigid and absolute" then why even have rules to begin with? As guidelines for judicial whim?
Morty:If your rules are employed arbitrarily, at the whim of whoever is considering the case, then what stops anyone from deciding the current United States as a just system? Or the Soviet Union, or Nazi Germany, for that matter. If nothing is "rigid and absolute" then why even have rules to begin with? As guidelines for judicial whim?
My wording will be a bit unformed. Oh, well.
Attacking another person to take what they have is a very serious act, and I would evaluate it by characterizations: was it greedy, cruel, et cetera. These are the ways one determines if a serious action is a crime. What were the virtues of the act? The rule "don't lie" clearly can be stupid or even cruel at times. "Don't kill"; what if they're trying to kill you or any old innocent on the street?
Name me one absolute rule, one rule that operates independent of context or circumstance. Then start your hyperbole about Nazis. We are always, everywhere, dependent upon the rational actions of others for our safety and the conduct of affairs. The writers of the Constitution tried to make some hard and fast rules, and they have been rendered almost meaningless at the time, and were quite meaningless for some people right from the start. Unbending, simplistic rules are for the lazy and arrogant who are unwilling to look at each case on its individual merits.
JCFolsom:Name me one absolute rule, one rule that operates independent of context or circumstance.
Rules don't operate, people operate on rules, so I don't quite follow, but I would say the Non-agression principle ought to be followed independant of context.
nhaag: There is a free market solution that really works. It is called profiteers. The moment prices shot into the sky businessmen will encounter a huge opportunity and start bringing the desired good, water in this cas, to the place it is in high demand. Now, the place gets swamped with water and prices will drop heavily again.
There is a free market solution that really works. It is called profiteers. The moment prices shot into the sky businessmen will encounter a huge opportunity and start bringing the desired good, water in this cas, to the place it is in high demand. Now, the place gets swamped with water and prices will drop heavily again.
I think this is the best argument to use in this case. The best cure for high prices is high prices. There's no avoiding it.
How about "don't rape"? You think we could handle that as an absolute rule? "Don't murder" seems to be one we can handle being absolute too. I would say the non-aggression principle should be absolutely followed. I think "don't lie" is a legitimate absolute moral rule, though I don't believe that should be legally enforced. And so on. There are plenty of rules which work independent of context and circumstance.
JCFolsom:Unbending, simplistic rules are for the lazy and arrogant who are unwilling to look at each case on its individual merits.
Entirely arbitrary and constantly shifting rules are for the lazy and fraudulent who are unwilling to follow their principles to their logical conclusion and don't wish to deal with the internal contradictions of their belief systems.
banned:Rules don't operate, people operate on rules, so I don't quite follow, but I would say the Non-agression principle ought to be followed independant of context.
Then follow it independent of context... except you know you won't. Besides which, most people interpret the non-agression principle in an inconsistent way to begin with. There is actually no reason why trying to harm an agressor is less agression than agressing against them for any other reasons. One can at least attempt to defend oneself without trying to harm an attacker. In the end, the non-agression principle is only logically consistent as true pacifism. The situation becomes even worse with the rationalizations people have for agressing against people for previous crimes.
Morty:How about "don't rape"? You think we could handle that as an absolute rule? "Don't murder" seems to be one we can handle being absolute too. I would say the non-aggression principle should be absolutely followed. I think "don't lie" is a legitimate absolute moral rule, though I don't believe that should be legally enforced. And so on. There are plenty of rules which work independent of context and circumstance.
Can't you rape with an object? What if a retarded person, who resists (and cannot give truly informed consent anyway), needs a colonoscopy? Anal rape with a big tube... Try again.
JCFolsom:In the end, the non-agression principle is only logically consistent as true pacifism.
How so?
JCFolsom:Can't you rape with an object? What if a retarded person, who resists (and cannot give truly informed consent anyway), needs a colonoscopy? Anal rape with a big tube... Try again.
Maybe if you'd read any of the relevant literature on consent for the mentally impaired (children, mentally handicapped), you'd know that your attempt at disproving this rule fails.
Furthermore, why do you assume that I would say it is okay to give a colonoscopy to someone who could not consent or to someone who actively resists?