I'm not the one who constructed the semantics argument, Jon did. My point is trade is an artifical construct; Jon brought up the issue of language.
No, you did when you insisted that "natural" can only be an antonym to artificial (and you had little to say about my point regarding how deeply ingrained it is in primates, if I were to accept your word as the solely valid term.) So please don't try pull some "get out of jail for free" card now. I said your use of the word is merely a fetish, and given its multiple uses I have no reason to accept your dislike of my use of it. So far the unsubstantiated thesis is yours entirely.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jon Irenicus: I'm not the one who constructed the semantics argument, Jon did. My point is trade is an artifical construct; Jon brought up the issue of language. No, you did when you insisted that "natural" can only be an antonym to artificial (and you had little to say about my point regarding how deeply ingrained it is in primates, if I were to accept your word as the solely valid term.) So please don't try pull some "get out of jail for free" card now. I said your use of the word is merely a fetish, and given its multiple uses I have no reason to accept your dislike of my use of it. So far the unsubstantiated thesis is yours entirely.
You seem to have confused the chronology of this thread: this discussion turned towards definitions as opposed to concepts when you said, and I quote: -
"Only if you have some fetishised usage of the word [natural]."
My comment that natural is an antonym (Incidentaly, I never said "natural can only be an antonym to artifical", you've just made that up) came after the above comment.
Want to try again?
Then your criticism of my usage of the word (you see, it was semantics on your part whether you like to admit it or not because it was implicit in your comment that I was misusing the word - I just explicitly pointed it out) is misplaced, because you concede the word has more than one possible usages, and that the one I used was perfectly fine.
Lord Shore-Twilly:I guess that is 15/love to me.
Jon Irenicus:Then your criticism of my usage of the word is misplaced, because you concede the word has more than one possible usages, and that the one I used was perfectly fine.
It would be, if that was your implication (that trade, the Empire State and baseball are natural because they are the product of natural beings); but it clearly wasn't. Thus this rather meagre attempt at an argument is rendered somewhat academic.
Also, as stated it wouldn't be an semantic discussion (until you made it one by discussing the actual word) but a conceptual discussion of 'nature'.
Your're still playing everytime you respond sunshine.
30/love.
No, what I had implied is that trade is a means of dealing with natural hindrances such as the fact that food does not just produce itself and show up on a plate, and hence if anything is to blame for the fact that man must labour it is nature; that was my original argument. You then implied trade is unnatural because artificial (which I countered is untrue if it is in the nature of the being - hence natural - in question to trade, to fulfill its needs), and I said that is only if you adhere to one possible meaning of the word, i.e. one which takes artefacts and nature to be strict antonyms, rather than the former to be expressions of the latter in the case of a specific entity.
Well what on earth do you think will follow if you question the particular usage of a word, if not a semantic argument?
@ Twilly & BAAWA
Most boring argument ever.
Base model cars of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but quarter-mile races.
Lord Shore-Twilly: Your're still playing everytime you respond sunshine. 30/love.
Jon Irenicus:the fact that food does not just produce itself
Prior to the development of farming techniques, how do you suppose species survived?
Jon Irenicus:and hence if anything is to blame for the fact that man must labour it is nature; that was my original argument.
That isn't what you said. You said that trade is 'natural', I'm still waiting for you to prove that assertion, incidentally.
Jon Irenicus:which I countered is untrue if it is in the nature of the being
'If' being the operative word in that statement. I don't buy any of bizarre theories regarding 'human nature' postulated on this board.
Captalism and Communism are two different systems and therefore wages are two different things. In Captalism, the supply and demand decides your wage. In a communist society there is no supply and demand, and wages are determined different. Therefore it's senseless to talk about workers not getting their full pay in captalism.
However, communism doesn't work at all, not in theory, not in practice. For a society to evolve we will need to have new ideas. For instance the interenet. However, there are no incentives to come with those ideas. No ordinary people can ever start a firm in a communist society because you don't have capital and you won't get profits. Therefore it must be created by the government, but they have no incentives to do so, they will rather make sure that people get hospitals.. Also the government has no incentives to create different products for the consumers and that's why communist societies end up gray and dull with very few products and lags behind.
However, this is not the worst. As communist societies is a classless society where everyone shares everything, then there is no incentives to take dirty jobs, no incentives to work hard. For instance in the Sovjet society people stopped caring about their collective farms, because it didn't matter and it caused starvation. The only solution to this problem and keep the communist society is to force people to take these jobs and this never creates a happy society.
Poor countries need to have bad working conditions, or else companies won't find it profitable to start businesses in that particular country. Remember that companies needs to earn more than their costs, and that will be much harder if people demand good working conditions in a poor country. Not a single country in the entire world had gone through the industrial revolution as socialist countries. Even countries such as Sweden had a very small state and very bad working conditions in the 1900s, and if they didn't they would have been a third world country by now.
Lord Shore-Twilly:Prior to the development of farming techniques, how do you suppose species survived?
with the utmost difficulty, hence the modern population boom. the population used to be trapped malthusianistically.
Lord Shore-Twilly:That isn't what you said. You said that trade is 'natural', I'm still waiting for you to prove that assertion, incidentally.
trade is as natural as intercourse.
Lord Shore-Twilly:'If' being the operative word in that statement. I don't buy any of bizarre theories regarding 'human nature' postulated on this board.
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
Lord Shore-Twilly:how am I 'ignorining content'?
Your claim that Jon was misusing "natural" did not answer the notion that costs are an inherent part to human action which was the thrust of his statement.
Lord Shore-Twilly:Secondly, I'm not the one who constructed the semantics argument, Jon did.
"When did 'paying' become 'natural', i.e. part of 'nature'? I wasn't aware that non-sentient life forms had established trade or currency."
Oh right, I must have confused this semantic insistence for a semantic insistence.
Lord Shore-Twilly:Thirdly in answer to your question 'How is that not 'intelectual dishonesty'?', this is a complete dodge of your intellectual obligations. You make the charge, thus the onus is upon you to provide proof, not upon me to disprove your delusions.
I'm afraid you've only further exhibited the trait by responding like such to an obvious rhetorical question.
Lord Shore-Twilly:is based upon unsubstanciated assertions, not proofs. It also doesn't disprove my central thesis.
Oh, no. In fact, the idea that known human actions are limited, temporally, is unsubstantiated, is, itself, unsubstantiated. I would like you to show me where action exists outside the reference of time. Except, you wont, because, by its nature, action is causally driven. Contesting this is itself an exhibit of such a notion.
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
Lord Shore-Twilly:Your're still playing everytime you respond sunshine. 30/love.
You just don't like it when someone dismisses you, do you? You can't believe that anyone would do that to you, so you keep responding, hoping that your existence will be validated. How sad.
Now then, given your sophist nonsense and prediliction for prevarication (which, like the good little trained dancing monkey you are, you will whine and cry and demand evidence, even though it's been shown to you before, and you're doing a bang-up job of such behavior with Jon), I just see no reason that you're actually here.
Lord Shore-Twilly: That isn't what you said. You said that trade is 'natural', I'm still waiting for you to prove that assertion, incidentally.
A) There is an entire blue planet called "Earth" in which animals and humans live on which disproves this argument. Trade exists in all living breathing animals. It's just as natural for monkey's and squirrels as it is for humans.
B) Trade exists in the absence of others. You do not need two or more to trade. Alone, you still have to trade your leisure time with labour. You trade with yourself on a daily basis as do all living breathing animals.
By exerting effort to gather food. Or do you think it dropped out of the sky into people's mouths?
It is exactly what I said (to make it clearer, that survival requires effort on the part of man, or as banned put it, all action implies costs), you took it to mean trade; however I do indeed maintain that trade is natural. Care to explain in what way it is "unnatural", except via recourse of calling it "artificial", as if this somehow would rule it out from being so?
I don't care what you do "buy" into or not; your own dismissal of the usage of the word is bizarre in itself...
Jon Irenicus:By exerting effort to gather food. Or do you think it dropped out of the sky into people's mouths?
FreedomIsYellow: @ Twilly & BAAWA Most boring argument ever.
The first party has to demand that the second party sign a contract to allow the first party to beat the second party up, before it can become THAT boring.
Jon,
I think Knight just debunked you.
nirgrahamUK:with the utmost difficulty, hence the modern population boom.
But by your own admission, survive they did.
nirgrahamUK:trade is as natural as intercourse.
Well no, without interource the species dies, the same cannot be said of trade. Trade is something we have developed as a means of simplifying the process of obtaining what we desire. It is natural, in the sense that Jon is trying to peddle, but by the same logic so is the Sears Tower.
nirgrahamUK:perhaps you need to produce some goods before you can attempt to buy any theories.
How witty. But actually no, I don't. The onus is on the individual who makes the initial claim. However, that said, i have proffered an alternative view, and that is that trade is a construction of human ingenuity as opposed to something natural, such as your example, the desire to procreate.
@ Knight of BAAWA - 40/love.
Certainly one must exert effort, but that is a rather disengenous use of the word 'payment' in the orginional context it was used back at the beginning of this thread. And if you recall the origional discussion was about the commodification of water, and yet it does just fall out of the sky. And have you ever heard of the story of Sir Isaac Newton's apple?
Jon Irenicus:It is exactly what I said (to make it clearer, that survival requires effort on the part of man, or as banned put it, all action implies costs), you took it to mean trade;
Well yes, because that was the context in which the word was being used. As opposed, and I apologise for returning us a semantic argument, to the dubious use of the words 'cost' and 'payment' in the context you are using them.
Jon Irenicus:Care to explain in what way it is "unnatural", except via recourse of calling it "artificial", as if this somehow would rule it out from being so?
But if something is artificial isn't natural, unless of course we argue natural to mean an indirect product of the natural world. Which of course makes everything natural rendering this discussion moot. However we are still left with the issue that we distinguish between things that we have created and things that appear without our influence.
Lord Shore-Twilly: However we are still left with the issue that we distinguish between things that we have created and things that appear without our influence.
However we are still left with the issue that we distinguish between things that we have created and things that appear without our influence.
Of course the natural-artificial divide, valued by some people, has always led to these kind of absurd conclusions, 'What people make simply isn't natural." Yes by interpretation this denotes humans are such perverted abominations upon this pristine earth. It's a dead end. Time to re-evaluate your worldview I think, Lord Shore-Twilly.
Payment is simply that which is needed to give the recipient reason to give up what they have put in effort to acquire (and all actions involve costs, mainly time, so I don't see what's wrong with using the term.) And water may fall out of the sky, but that doesn't mean it's directly usable or even easily available everywhere, as time and effort must go into its gathering, storage, transfer &c. Even Newton would have to pick up the apple to eat it, expending energy, and consuming time. And as for the word natural, if the being in question has a nature such that it uses tools, why should those tools not be called "natural", if they express that nature?
wilderness: Lord Shore-Twilly: However we are still left with the issue that we distinguish between things that we have created and things that appear without our influence. Of course the natural-artificial divide, valued by some people, has always led to these kind of absurd conclusions, 'What people make simply isn't natural." Yes by interpretation this denotes humans are such perverted abominations upon this pristine earth. It's a dead end. Time to re-evaluate your worldview I think, Lord Shore-Twilly.
An impressive argument, a pity that it doesn't in any way hold relevence to the actual positions I have levelled in this thread. For example, where did I suggest that because something is artifical it is inherently a "perverted abomination"? Why don't you try addressing what I've actually said as opposed to inventing a ludicrous primitavist position, attributing it to me, and then ridiculing it?
Time to drop the strawman arguments I think, Wilderness.
Lord Shore-Twilly: wilderness: Lord Shore-Twilly: However we are still left with the issue that we distinguish between things that we have created and things that appear without our influence. Of course the natural-artificial divide, valued by some people, has always led to these kind of absurd conclusions, 'What people make simply isn't natural." Yes by interpretation this denotes humans are such perverted abominations upon this pristine earth. It's a dead end. Time to re-evaluate your worldview I think, Lord Shore-Twilly. An impressive argument, a pity that it doesn't in any way hold relevence to the actual positions I have levelled in this thread. For example, where did I suggest that because something is artifical it is inherently a "perverted abomination"? Why don't you try addressing what I've actually said as opposed to inventing a ludicrous primitavist position, attributing it to me, and then ridiculing it? Time to drop the strawman arguments I think, Wilderness.
At least I know, now, that you don't conclude it that way. I've met other people that have. Chalk it up to bad probing by me.
Lord Shore-Twilly:Certainly one must exert effort, but that is a rather disengenous use of the word 'payment' in the orginional context it was used back at the beginning of this thread.
A payment of any sort is the expression of cost in terms of some commodity (what the payment is made in [in the case of labor-cost this would be exerted effort]). In other words, a cost is what an acting man is willing to forgo in order to achieve a desired end.
Lord Shore-Twilly:Well yes, because that was the context in which the word was being used. As opposed, and I apologise for returning us a semantic argument, to the dubious use of the words 'cost' and 'payment' in the context you are using them.
And trade is merely a means of expressing cost on an interpersonal level. While the act of trade may be considered "artificial" in the sense that it is driven by humans, the cost incurred through the acquisition of a resource is entirely natural and in the case of trade, interpersonal exchange is simply the means by which this natural trait is realized.
There really should be no more reason to argue on semantics, what has been said has been made very clear. If you won't accept the use of 'natural' for it being "unorthodox", fine, however the point is not altered by such a refusal, and further discussions on language are utterly useless to the topic.
BarleyLegal: Truthisnonexistent, profits do not equal exploitation. That's PHISICALY impossible. This is the simplest way that I can put it. Lets say you, and I are hobby farmers, and we both live in the upper northern hemisphere. I produce 100 oranges this year, and you produce 100 apples. You want oranges, and I want apples. Will you exchange with me 50 apples for 1 orange? No? How about 1 apple for 1 orange? Is that fair? Lets say that I think so. I really want apples. I have enough oranges, and an apple or two would be nice. I agree to this exchange. EVEN THOUGH, my factors of production are more expensive for me.. I have to build a big a green house. Water the trees. Deal with disease, and pest issues that orange trees don't normally experience. You on the other hand just let your apple trees grow in the front yard, with a minimum amount of care. EVEN IF you get hit with a tent caterpillar infestation, you will still produce 100 perfectly fine apples. Still, I'm happy that I was able to exchange 1 orange for one apple. Who is exploiting who? My *profit* is that I value one apple more than one orange. Your profit is that you value one orange more than one apple. How many apples you have in total, and how much they cost you to produce does not invalidate MY value judgment of one of your apples. For a third party to say that this exchange is gratuitous because your so wealthy with easy apples, and I'm so poor with difficult oranges, would it's self be a value judgement of apples, vs oranges. A value judgement which the two of us obviously don't share, as we have traded. In short, if there was no profit to be had, no one would trade anything-- AT ALL... Ever.
Truthisnonexistent, profits do not equal exploitation. That's PHISICALY impossible.
This is the simplest way that I can put it.
Lets say you, and I are hobby farmers, and we both live in the upper northern hemisphere. I produce 100 oranges this year, and you produce 100 apples. You want oranges, and I want apples. Will you exchange with me 50 apples for 1 orange? No? How about 1 apple for 1 orange? Is that fair?
Lets say that I think so. I really want apples. I have enough oranges, and an apple or two would be nice. I agree to this exchange. EVEN THOUGH, my factors of production are more expensive for me.. I have to build a big a green house. Water the trees. Deal with disease, and pest issues that orange trees don't normally experience. You on the other hand just let your apple trees grow in the front yard, with a minimum amount of care. EVEN IF you get hit with a tent caterpillar infestation, you will still produce 100 perfectly fine apples.
Still, I'm happy that I was able to exchange 1 orange for one apple.
Who is exploiting who?
My *profit* is that I value one apple more than one orange. Your profit is that you value one orange more than one apple. How many apples you have in total, and how much they cost you to produce does not invalidate MY value judgment of one of your apples.
For a third party to say that this exchange is gratuitous because your so wealthy with easy apples, and I'm so poor with difficult oranges, would it's self be a value judgement of apples, vs oranges. A value judgement which the two of us obviously don't share, as we have traded.
In short, if there was no profit to be had, no one would trade anything-- AT ALL... Ever.
You can't compare the complexity of the modern market to you and your friend trading fruit. You are also not taking into account the social experience of the worker.
Truthisnonexistent:You can't compare the complexity of the modern market to you and your friend trading fruit. You are also not taking into account the social experience of the worker.
Here I am, the worker....
I agreed to the terms of my employment, therefore I am not exploited by definition....
Take your communism and shove it...
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
Harry Felker: Truthisnonexistent:You can't compare the complexity of the modern market to you and your friend trading fruit. You are also not taking into account the social experience of the worker. Here I am, the worker.... I agreed to the terms of my employment, therefore I am not exploited by definition.... Take your communism and shove it...
I'm not a communist but thanks for keeping this a mature debate.. and I don't know what definition you are citing, please link a source.
Yes you agree to the terms of your employment but there are no other fiscally non-exploitative, practical alternatives. Not everyone can be self-employed or be a business owner. The market isn't an all loving God.
1) use or utilization, esp. for profit
2)selfish utilization
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exploitation
Truthisnonexistent: 1) use or utilization, esp. for profit 2)selfish utilization http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exploitation
So what's wrong with use or utilization, especially for profit?What's wrong with selfish utilization?Please, no circular reasoning from you this time.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Truthisnonexistent: Harry Felker: Truthisnonexistent:You can't compare the complexity of the modern market to you and your friend trading fruit. You are also not taking into account the social experience of the worker. Here I am, the worker.... I agreed to the terms of my employment, therefore I am not exploited by definition.... Take your communism and shove it... I'm not a communist but thanks for keeping this a mature debate...
I'm not a communist but thanks for keeping this a mature debate...
Since when was it immature to use an opinionated description of another's opinion?
Maybe if you didn't except politically correct nonsense from everyone else in the argument, you'd be taken more seriously.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Nitroadict: Truthisnonexistent: Harry Felker: Truthisnonexistent:You can't compare the complexity of the modern market to you and your friend trading fruit. You are also not taking into account the social experience of the worker. Here I am, the worker.... I agreed to the terms of my employment, therefore I am not exploited by definition.... Take your communism and shove it... I'm not a communist but thanks for keeping this a mature debate... Since when was it immature to use an opinionated description of another's opinion? Maybe if you didn't except politically correct nonsense from everyone else in the argument, you'd be taken more seriously.
I don't tell him to take his capitalism and shove it. You manage to slip in political correctness into your overreaction.. What should I take from that?
Maybe if I didn't get banned for nothing and your mods didn't call me a little kid and at the same time say the dictionary is wrong, I would take you more seriously.
Daniel: Truthisnonexistent: 1) use or utilization, esp. for profit 2)selfish utilization http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exploitation So what's wrong with use or utilization, especially for profit?What's wrong with selfish utilization?Please, no circular reasoning from you this time.
I have a moral objection to selfishness and I see selflessness as better, desirable alternative for all of society. Now go ahead and argue that the selfishness of one benefits society as a whole and I'll respond.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Truthisnonexistent:You can't compare the complexity of the modern market to you and your friend trading fruit. You are also not taking into account the social experience of the worker.Yes you can, and "social experience of the worker" is just code for "I'm making this up as I go along".
Oh okay, sorry.
No social experience as in, the hardship of the workers, the sacrifice of the workers. Just for the record, workers are concious beings not just "hands".
Truthisnonexistent:Maybe if I didn't get banned for nothing and your mods didn't call me a little kid and at the same time say the dictionary is wrong, I would take you more seriously.
Truthisnonexistent:I have a moral objection to selfishness and I see selflessness as better, desirable alternative for all of society. Now go ahead and argue that the selfishness of one benefits society as a whole and I'll respond.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Yes you can, and "social experience of the worker" is just code for "I'm making this up as I go along".
Truthisnonexistent:Oh okay, sorry. No social experience as in, the hardship of the workers, the sacrifice of the workers. Just for the record, workers are concious beings not just "hands".
Knight_of_BAAWA: Truthisnonexistent:Maybe if I didn't get banned for nothing and your mods didn't call me a little kid and at the same time say the dictionary is wrong, I would take you more seriously.You're not taken seriously because you're spouting the economics equivalent of young-earth creationism.
Because I have a moral objection to the institutions and practices which make up capitalism?
Let me respond to your prior response so this doesn't get messy, please.
Truthisnonexistent:Because I have a moral objection to the institutions and practices which make up capitalism?