Economics Questions

Re: Why do you keep saying that businesses in the free-market will not be exploitative?

John James — Sat, 15 Sep 2012 04:17:14 GMT

Autolykos:
I'm going to repeat my request. And I'm going to continue repeating it in every post that I make to you in this thread (at least). Do you understand? I sure hope so.

He'll do it too!

Re: Why do you keep saying that businesses in the free-market will not be exploitative?

Autolykos — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 18:43:41 GMT

I'm going to repeat my request. And I'm going to continue repeating it in every post that I make to you in this thread (at least). Do you understand? I sure hope so.

Please explain how you see self-ownership as an a priori norm of argumentation. That is, I'm asking for your view here, in your own words (not Hoppe's or anyone else's).

Re: Why do you keep saying that businesses in the free-market will not be exploitative?

Papirius — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 18:37:46 GMT

That is, I'm asking for your view here, in your own words (not Hoppe's or anyone else's).

No need, go read Hoppe.

Re: Why do you keep saying that businesses in the free-market will not be exploitative?

Autolykos — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 18:33:13 GMT

Papirius:
You proved it youself by talking to people [sic], even though you're trolling [sic]. Selfownership is an apriori norm of argumentation.

Do I need to call your bluff here as well?

Please explain how you see self-ownership as an a priori norm of argumentation. That is, I'm asking for your view here, in your own words (not Hoppe's or anyone else's).

Re: Why do you keep saying that businesses in the free-market will not be exploitative?

Papirius — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 18:28:50 GMT

You proved it youself by talking to people, even though you're trolling. Selfownership is an apriori norm of argumentation.

Re: Why do you keep saying that businesses in the free-market will not be exploitative?

Autolykos — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 18:25:29 GMT

Papirius:
Yes you are, three laws of logic are apriori of argumentation, being that they're apriori of language.

I'm well aware of the three laws of thought. I can even list them for you: the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of the excluded middle. But saying "aggression is wrong except on Tuesdays" doesn't violate any of them. Technically, that statement involves considering aggression on Tuesdays as separate from aggression on other days, but I didn't think that needed explicating.

Papirius:
You can't legitimately have selfownership and then not have it, because it's inalienable by itself.

And it's inalienable by itself because... well, apparently because you say so. Here again you seem to be trying to jump over the infinitely long chasm between is-statements and ought-statements. The only way I can see to understand your statement logically is to take it as your way of saying that you'll consider a person to still own himself even if he no longer considers himself to own himself. That's fine, but that also has no necessary bearing on what he thinks.

On another note, my position does indeed contradict yours - because we don't share the same premises. I thought that would've been clear to you by now, but I guess I was mistaken.

Papirius:
Maybe if could read the explanation in the next sentence before trolling how I've offered no explanation.

I did read it, and I don't think it constitutes an explanation. Otherwise, I wouldn't have said that you haven't provided any explanation. Is your goal here to help me understand your position? Or what?

Papirius:
Which has nothing to do with selfownership being inalienable.

Why not? And what would you say it has to do with, if anything?

Papirius:
There is. The notion of selfownership being alienable is contradictory because of it's axiomatic nature, because it's not founded on something, but it is the foundation, by rejecting it you're left with nothing, it collapses. Saying that rejecting an axiom is it's aplication or confirmation is a contradiction.

Are you now asserting that your notion of self-ownership cannot be disproven? If so, could you please provide a logical proof of that?

Re: Why do you keep saying that businesses in the free-market will not be exploitative?

grant.w.underwood — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 18:14:59 GMT

literally just saw on my facebook wall from one of my friends, 'so i quit my job last week because they werent paying me enough. Just got a phone call from the VP apologizing and now im getting $5 an hour more and FULL benefits.'

Re: Why do you keep saying that businesses in the free-market will not be exploitative?

Papirius — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 18:02:14 GMT

There's no contradiction in saying "aggression is wrong except on Tuesdays" per se. But it seems like you're treating "something either is or isn't right" as an additional premise. That's fine, but no one else is a priori obligated to accept it.

Yes you are, three laws of logic are apriori of argumentation, being that they're apriori of language.

For him to then claim ownership of himself would be illegitimate, sure, but since I don't think he has self-ownership any longer

You can't legitimately have selfownership and then not have it, because it's inalienable by itself.

Saying something is contradictory doesn't explain how it's contradictory. So with the above, you say that ownership of the self is inalienable because alienability would make it contradictory. But that doesn't tell me how. It's just an assertion with no explanation behind it. I'd really appreciate it if you'd provide an explanation.

Maybe if could read the explanation in the next sentence before trolling how I've offered no explanation.

Which has nothing to do with selfownership being inalienable.

there's no contradiction inherent in the notion of selling oneself

There is. The notion of selfownership being alienable is contradictory because of it's axiomatic nature, because it's not founded on something, but it is the foundation, by rejecting it you're left with nothing, it collapses. Saying that rejecting an axiom is it's aplication or confirmation is a contradiction.

Re: Why do you keep saying that businesses in the free-market will not be exploitative?

DanielMuff — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 17:29:29 GMT

kylio27:

If people were willing to pay a fair wage for a good job then we wouldn't have had to create laws telling people to pay a fair wage. We needed government to step in and protect people. Ironically, their rights were made clear by government intervention. If the free-market is so good, why was there such exploitation before, particularly of children? There shouldn't have been the need for laws, right?

Let us not forget that the government not only allowed the exploitation of African slaves in America, but also forced those slaves to be returned to their masters if they escaped.

Re: Why do you keep saying that businesses in the free-market will not be exploitative?

Autolykos — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 17:14:18 GMT

Papirius:
Principle of selfownership cannot be an a priori norm of argumentation if it's not, well, a norm. NAP can be a APOA, but "aggression is wrong on almost all days, but it's ok on tuesdays" cannot, it's double standard makes it self-contradictory, becouse something either is or isn't right. Likewise with your selfownership is sometimes right and sometimes wrong.

I think you're confusing the notion of self-ownership, which is normative, with the notion of self-control, which is descriptive. Where do you think I said that self-ownership is sometimes right and sometimes wrong? As I see it, if a person gives up his self-ownership, then he no longer has it. For him to then claim ownership of himself would be illegitimate, sure, but since I don't think he has self-ownership any longer, the notion that his self-ownership at that point is right or wrong strikes me as nonsensical.

Papirius:
As I said already "ownership of self is inalienable because alienability would make it contradictory. Property follows from selfownership (labor theory of property) and you can't use a definition of the word property that includes alienability to show the self to be alienable, because that would make selfownership contradictory and thus impossible, making property non existant, because it would have nothing to stem from, but if property is non existant, how can then it's definition prove the ownership of self to be alienable? Making that line of reasoning contradictory.'.

Papirius:
And this, too, I said already: "Saying that you can sell yourself because you own yourself, is the same as saying you can reject an axiom because you accept it - it is a plain contradition."

Okay, I think I see what you're saying here. You're assuming that a person can't (in the normative sense) own anything else if he doesn't already own himself, correct? In that case, the notion of selling oneself is indeed contradictory - at least assuming that "selling oneself" entails taking ownership of what he received in exchange while he doesn't own himself.

I recognize that, in order to exercise ownership rights one has over an external object, one must have the right to exercise himself with/over that object. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that he therefore has the right to exercise himself with/over any other external object. So without the assumption that a person can't (again in the normative sense) own anything else if he doesn't already own himself, there's no contradiction inherent in the notion of selling oneself. It simply means that one retains the right to exercise himself with/over what he receives in exchange, but nothing else.

Papirius:
If you take suicide to be a part of the meaning of self-alienation, that would mean that suicide is illegitimate because self is not legitimately alienable.

Assuming (because it is an assumption, like all normative propositions) that the self isn't legitimately alienable, of course. If one assumes otherwise, then one must logically find suicide to be legitimate.

Re: Why do you keep saying that businesses in the free-market will not be exploitative?

Papirius — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 16:50:43 GMT

Principle of selfownership cannot be an a priori norm of argumentation if it's not, well, a norm. NAP can be, but "aggression is wrong on almost all days, but it's ok on tuesdays" cannot, it's double standard makes it self-contradictory, becouse something either is or isn't right. Likewise with your selfownership is sometimes right and sometimes wrong.

What contradiction do you see as stemming from the notion (in place of your "fact", which is incorrect - another instance of you running headlong into the is-ought problem) that property follows from self-ownership?

As I said already "ownership of self is inalienable because alienability would make it contradictory. Property follows from selfownership (labor theory of property) and you can't use a definition of the word property that includes alienability to show the self to be alienable, because that would make selfownership contradictory and thus impossible, making property non existant, because it would have nothing to stem from, but if property is non existant, how can then it's definition prove the ownership of self to be alienable? Making that line of reasoning contradictory.'.

And this, too, I said already: "Saying that you can sell yourself because you own yourself, is the same as saying you can reject an axiom because you accept it - it is a plain contradition."

And why is that necessarily the case?

If you take suicide to be a part of the meaning of self-alienation, that would mean that suicide is illegitimate because self is not legitimately alienable.

Re: Why do you keep saying that businesses in the free-market will not be exploitative?

Autolykos — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:44:12 GMT

Papirius:
If denying principle of selfownership in an argument is a performative contradiction, then rejecting it in practice is one too. Rejecting an axiom cannot be seen as of confirmation or aplication of that axiom.

What are you positing as the principle of self-ownership? If I don't believe that people always and necessarily own themselves, then certainly I'm rejecting the principle that people always and necessarily own themselves. Where do you see a performative contradiction here?

Papirius:
Alienate means transfer the title (sell, rent, give as a gift). You seem to like to do that- take a specific definition of a word that you like and apply it to something else that the word in it's other definitions doesn't apply, coincidentally, the one's people you talk to use, to prove them wrong (like taking the word property to mean something alienable in order to prove selfownership alienable, disregarding the contradiction stemming from the fact that property follows from selfownership).

There are no right or wrong definitions - only different ones. If you don't like the definitions I'm using, that's fine. But I do try to indicate them explicitly.

Papirius:
Let's say that alienate means give up all rights. Let's say that suicide is self-alienation. That would not make slavery legitimate, it would make suicide illegitimate.

And why is that necessarily the case?

Re: Why do you keep saying that businesses in the free-market will not be exploitative?

Papirius — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:37:54 GMT

How do you see alienating self-ownership as contradictory to the principle of self-ownership?

If denying principle of selfownership in an argument is a performative contradiction, then rejecting it in practice is one too. Rejecting an axiom cannot be seen as of confirmation or aplication of that axiom.

Clearly I do. A person alienates himself (i.e. gives up all rights he purports to have over himself) if he commits suicide, for example. Whether one considers it legitimate for a person to alienate himself is another story (see the is-ought problem). Here I'm speaking descriptively, not normatively.

Now normatively speaking, I do consider it legitimate for a person to alienate his self-ownership.

Alienate means transfer the title (sell, rent, give as a gift). You seem to like to do that- take a specific definition of a word that you like and apply it to something else that the word in it's other definitions doesn't apply, coincidentally, the one's people you talk to use, to prove them wrong (like taking the word property to mean something alienable in order to prove selfownership alienable, disregarding the contradiction stemming from the fact that property follows from selfownership).

Let's say that alienate means give up all rights. Let's say that suicide is self-alienation. That would not make slavery legitimate, it would make suicide illegitimate.

Re: Why do you keep saying that businesses in the free-market will not be exploitative?

Autolykos — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:26:53 GMT

Papirius:
Actually Rothbard did that.

He most certainly did. I'm not a Rothbardian because of it.

Papirius:
I don't think that selfownership is inalienable because one cannot physacally alienate one's control of the body, but because it contradictory to the priciple of selfownership (which is an ethical axiom not derived from facts of nature, but argumentation ethics).

Right, so you simply think it's illegitimate for a person to abandon what you see as his inherent self-ownership, which is entirely normative in nature.

How do you see alienating self-ownership as contradictory to the principle of self-ownership?

Papirius:
You think that the self in alienable?

Now normatively speaking, I do consider it legitimate for a person to alienate his self-ownership.

Re: Why do you keep saying that businesses in the free-market will not be exploitative?

Papirius — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:25:03 GMT

Actually Rothbard did that. I don't think that selfownership is inalienable because one cannot physacally alienate one's control of the body, but because it contradictory to the priciple of selfownership (which is an ethical axiom not derived from facts of nature, but argumentation ethics).

You think that the self in alienable?