General

Re: A problem with the free-market?

JakobM — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 23:36:46 GMT

Stating that people accept or reject things "because of arbitrary value judgements" might be true, but it's so unspecific as to be practically meaningless.

Take it up with von Mises. I'm simply using his technique. But yes, I agree. Mises' analyses and 'philosophy' are meaningless.

I reject putting sugar in the gas tank because I desire to avoid the deleterious consequences. I reject socialism for the same reason.

Socialism puts sugar in your gas tank!? I didn't know that. I admit that Socialism is bad then.

Re: A problem with the free-market?

Nitroadict — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 17:49:38 GMT

Alright, after a little bit of proofreading, I think I've determined when & where the thread went completly off-topic from the OP. I will be (attempting to) split the thread, so those who are anxiously writing follow-ups to the discussion should sit tight for a moment.

Re: A problem with the free-market?

Nitroadict — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 17:40:18 GMT

Daniel Muffinburg:

Gratefully, there are plenty of mods in this thread to split the off-topic threads. :P

I will admit to attempting this a few minutes ago, but I will require another look-over the thread, because the point where the thread deviates from the OP is fairly seamless & probably would involve gutting the original thread down to less than a page :\

Re: A problem with the free-market?

MMMark — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:57:45 GMT

Mon. 10/04/26 10:56 EDT
.post #77

JakobM:
JakobM:
Ultimately you reject socialism because of arbitrary value judgments.
MMMark:
Ultimately, I reject putting sugar in the gas tank because of arbitrary value judgements.
Thanks. You are pretending that you have it all figured out as if you were dealing with a small, well defined, physical problem. That clearly shows that

1) you are a positivist and your 'economics' is just positivism.
2) you are completly mischaracterizing the problem at hand.

Jakob, slapping labels on me is not the way to understand what I am saying.

I wasn't making any statement about socialism or economics. I was making a statement about language, specifically, your use of it.

Stating that people accept or reject things "because of arbitrary value judgements" might be true, but it's so unspecific as to be practically meaningless.

I reject putting sugar in the gas tank because I desire to avoid the deleterious consequences.

I reject socialism for the same reason.

Re: A problem with the free-market?

cret — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:54:00 GMT

"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."

if i can determine that you have a communicalble plague i will coerce you into qurantine.

Re: A problem with the free-market?

cret — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:48:44 GMT

i am not a spammer. and i dont want your humor. just truth and genuine opinions...not games or disingenuous opinions. i guess that is difficult to come by in the interenet.

but if bad socialism is increasing what should be showing up in the human condition??? more povrety??? death?? starvation and disease???

wouldnt a decresing free market level begin to show more detrimental effects in human living???

Re: A problem with the free-market?

cret — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:40:28 GMT

i have a life. i am thankful that it is not yours too.

have positive market outcomes taken place with increasing socialism???

life expectancies??? have they increased within increasing socialst govts/insitutions???

Re: A problem with the free-market?

cret — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:37:14 GMT

Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.

i dunno if it does or not. can it also mean to be everyones master??

Re: A problem with the free-market?

eesterbauer — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 10:55:02 GMT

The original premise holds true because Disneyland has outbid the competitor for the land use rights. When purchasing the land, Disneyland may have had a number of considerations such as; the future value of the land, plans for future expansion, income streams from rent or asa way to protect its brand. The fact they haven't yet sold the land for capital gain does not mean that the land is not being used for its most valuable use. The value of the land is apparently higher for Disneyland thanit is for its competitor.

Disneyland have a use for the land in mind and were prepared to outbid competitors. Are the competitors seeking to locate near Disneyland to get a free ride from locating near this icon of theme park entertainment? If so, Disneyland is merely protecting its brand. Disneyland has not used coercion to stop the competitor, they have only valued the land more highly than the competitor.

Thus the current use remains the most valuable use. The competitor they may feel aggrieved they were unprepared to pay a higher price. What the competitor seeks is a cheap ride on the back of Disneyland.

Re: A problem with the free-market?

JakobM — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 22:17:02 GMT

Ultimately you reject socialism because of arbitrary value judgments.

Ultimately, I reject putting sugar in the gas tank because of arbitrary value judgements.

Thanks. You are pretending that you have it all figured out as if you were dealing with a small, well defined, physical problem. That clearly shows that

1) you are a positivist and your 'economics' is just positivism.
2) you are completly mischaracterizing the problem at hand.

Re: A problem with the free-market?

Daniel James Sanchez — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 22:06:24 GMT

ERO,

Your analogy would only work if your lazy, "But what about Argumentation Ethics?" could even be considered a "swing". It can't.

Again, if you want something from me, give me something concrete to respond to that you think undermines my position, even if it's only a single paragraph, and I'll respond.

But I don't write monographs on cue.

Re: A problem with the free-market?

E. R. Olovetto — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 21:57:04 GMT

Re: A problem with the free-market?

Daniel James Sanchez — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 21:28:26 GMT

ERO,

I don't have time right now to formulate and execute on my own an essay evaluating Hoppe's entire ArgEth theory. Like I told Conza, if you were to start a new thread with some concrete propositions that you think undermine my position, I would respond.

Re: A problem with the free-market?

MMMark — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 18:50:34 GMT

Sun. 10/04/25 13:49 EDT
.post #75

JakobM:
Ultimately you reject socialism because of arbitrary value judgements.

Ultimately, I reject putting sugar in the gas tank because of arbitrary value judgements.

JakobM:
Only if you, by defintion, equate "socialism" to poverty and starvation,...

Socialism is the means, poverty and starvation is the end.
Socialism is the theory, poverty and starvation is the practice.
Socialism is the dream, poverty and starvation is the reality.

For some arbitrary reason, I value wealth and abundance more than poverty and starvation. Call me crazy!

Nitroadict:
It's been proven that state-socialism is unworkable, time & time again.

...but not, apparently, to enough people...yet.

History is a great teacher; unfortunately, many people are poor students.

Re: A problem with the free-market?

Conza88 — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:49:13 GMT

"No"

Yes - they do benefit actually, as you concede with: "for their special area". Yeah, obviously. It's just that every capitalist tends to have their own "special area".

Some of those "areas" also entail the stuff that has nothing to do with the market economy, i.e the ability to print money out of thin air.

"Interventionism - state subsidies, decrees, prohibitions, etc. are not socialism. They are a hampered market economy. In Mises' terminology socialism is a totally different thing. Statism is not socialism. Only total state ownership of capital and originary factors of production can be considered socialism. The Soviet Union was not socialist."

This is a red herring. What exactly is the point of needlessly interjecting with this? Well corporatism, soft fascism, I've have this discussion before. Nothing you just mentioned is enlightening at all. The point which kicked this off, is applicable to statism. There are numerous other forms of statism, why confine it to just one technical economic def. The point I made earlier still stands. Even in the Soviet Union; Rulers vs Ruled.