Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Friends

rated by 0 users
This post has 6 Replies | 4 Followers

Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,113
Points 60,515
Esuric Posted: Sat, Feb 12 2011 1:15 AM

.

"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."

  • | Post Points: 80
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 104
Points 1,585

It's not logically coherent, per se - but it's just that most people like things the way they are used to them being.

They are used to a few teams dominating soccer and any team being able to win the Super Bowl. It's just custom.

 

That being said : Bill Maher so missed the analogy. He compared the NFL to socialism - arguing socialism is a good thing. Well, the correct socialism analogy would have been that the NFL must share revenue with every other sport - even the WNBA. Now, that would be like real world socialism.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 233
Points 4,125
Metus replied on Sat, Feb 12 2011 5:08 AM

Well it is and it is not, depending on how you see the situation. If your friends say that that they prefer many teams in one sport and few in others the statement is incoherent if they use the same line of reasoning, i.e. inherent desirability of competition or not. If, on the other hand they state that in some cases they like randomness in other they like a few dominating teams and it just happens to be that football is less competitive than soccer, their statement is coherent.

Though I am afraid that their stance is more similar to the first than the latter. There is no intrinsic value in the mentioned configuration (competition in football, small number of teams in soccer) over the reverse.

Honeste vivere, nemimen laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 850
Points 13,615

Well, competition in the market is, obviously, different than competition in a sport. Both approaches to competition in sports seem to be logically coherent: one where all teams have an equal chance and one where there are a few teams dominating the scene. Both have pro's and con's (looking at it from the point of the consumer, i.e. the sportsfan.) 

The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is. 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,249
Points 70,775

1. Walt Whitman:

 
Logic is important when trying to prove or achieve something. Human desires and wishes do not have to be, and usually aren't, logical. Ask the poets.
 
2. As for NFL and socialism, there is a huge difference. Like a boxer fighting soft opponents, the good teams benefit from the existence of the bad teams. They have more games to play, which brings in money. It makes the fans happy to have their team win, meaning they will attend the games.
 
The losing teams, on the other hand, suffer from being losers. People don't attend their games. Ticket prices for the few who do show up have to be low. Unless compensated by the winning teams, they would close up shop.
 
None of this applies to other industries, obviously. Microsoft does not need Apple, etc.

My humble blog

It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,434
Points 29,210

The statement really doesn't seem logically coherent. They're saying that they enjoy two opposite things. Plus, they're asking the wrong people how they feel about it. There are two groups of people you need to ask.

1. The people who live in the cities with large-market NFL shares. Every year, they spend their own money going to games, purchasing merchandise, etc. Now the money they used to support a team they love is going to another football team whom they've probably never even watched on television. That's not fair. If I found out that In-N-Out Burger (I love) was being forced* to give half of their money to McDonalds (I hate), I wouldn't want to go there as much because only 50% of the money I spend will be allowed to stay at In-N-Out where they can make their chain better.

2. The players. How do they feel having their hard-earned money go to another team that sucks? People always act like it's so easy being a professional athlete considering how much money they make, but it's extremely difficult to maintain that strength and everything. It's as if Pacquiao fought Mayweather, but, even though Mayweather knocks out Pacquiao (hopefully laugh), they're forced to split the money. What the hell is the incentive for them to keep fighting and training as hard as they do?

Now, if he wants to compare it to socialism, maybe an audience of people would have a lot of fun watching us fake-compete from the outside, but we know that, on the inside, we'd be having a very shitty time.

*The teams also aren't being forced to stay in the NFL.

That being said : Bill Maher so missed the analogy. He compared the NFL to socialism - arguing socialism is a good thing. Well, the correct socialism analogy would have been that the NFL must share revenue with every other sport - even the WNBA. Now, that would be like real world socialism.

yes

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,129
Points 16,635
Giant_Joe replied on Sat, Feb 12 2011 8:11 AM

is this statement logically coherent?

It's sports. You won't find much in the way of logic, here. Not that I don't like sports. I do. It's just that I realize that it's barbarous tendencies realized in a civilized manner. :)

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (7 items) | RSS