 |
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:31
|
|
Kid,
quote: Again with the freedom to make the best decision available. How am I free if the best decision to make results in my own exploitation? |
OK, let's play your game. It's "exploitive" for Vel to charge you to use his tool. But even if this is so, why is this bad? If you don't get the tool, you don't produce any more, and if you do get the tool, you produce 10 more units, with the drawback that you give one to Vel and end up with an extra 9 - 9 units that you did nothing extra for.
So, you come out ahead on the deal. Now, Vel also has to find some way to come out ahead, right? I mean, he spent time and money inventing his machine, didn't he? And he's only asking for 10% of your EXTRA production - if you don't take his tool, he isn't demanding any of your original production, so his cut only comes from what you are producing AS A RESULT of his invention that he's allowing you to use. Remember, you don't HAVE to use the new tool, but you're only hurting yourself is you do not.
Getting back to the point, though, freedom is simply the absence of coercion. In this example, you are perfectly free to either refuse to use the tool, or to agree to use the tool and give 10% of your extra production to the toolmaker. You aren't hurt either way - although refusing the tool certainly doesn't help you any. If you are hurt as a result of your competitor using the tool, well, then we can just chalk that up to your own stupidity - if you aren't smart enough to take advantage of opportunities, then why should you be in business to begin with?
Ramo,
So it's unfair that you don't own what I build?
quote: Sure, but I happen to think that force can be wrong regardless of who initiates it. |
And I agree - ASSUMING that you have not VOLUNTARILY agreed to be subject to certain rules. That is, if you wish to enter into a contract with another person, you are voluntarily agreeing to give them certain things in exchange for certain things. This is only coercive if you didn't voluntarily agree to the contract in the first place.
For example, you are implying that it is wrong for an employer to expect you to work for your wages, and that it is wrong for the employer to fire you if you don't do what is expected of you. Is this your claim?
quote: If by "right," you mean state sanction, freedom means both. |
Rights have nothing to do with state sanctions. State sanctions are called laws, and laws can just as easily infringe on rights as they can protect rights.
quote: No. Lack of money can be even more of a constraint (i.e. lack of freedom) than a law. For instance, I smoked up without much worry of being imprisoned this weekend, but for instance if I wanted to get a car, it'd be much, much more difficult. |
That's silly. Freedom is simply the absence of constraints, and if you think freedom means the ability to take what you want for free, then what you are saying is that freedom is the ability to put constraints on others (taking someone else's car is certainly a constraint). So, then, in a free society, do you think it is required that you be able to take the property of another person?
As for smoking up, if a cop had been around you would be arrested. That's a constraint on your freedom. If you were browsing for cars at a car dealership, and a cop saw you, the cop wouldn't arrest you. That's an example of your freedom not being constrained. Surely you see the difference.
quote: But that isn't relevant as I was addressing Vel's argument, not something that didn't exist in his post. |
Morality is implicit in any argument, whether or not it is being recognized.
quote: Why should the amount of money spent on education be proportion to the wage a worker recieves? |
Because the amount of money spent on education TENDS to be be proportionate to the value of that person's labor, in the eyes of most people. Little amount of money spent on education = little worth in the job market. Lots of money spent on education (law school, medical school) = lots of worth on the job market.
Why is this true? Well, because doctors and lawyers are finite resources. Not everyone - and in fact very few people - can be a doctor or a lawyer, so the value of the labor of a doctor or a lawyer is necessarily higher than the value of the labor of a janitor. Anyone can be a janitor, it isn't that tough.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999 time: 05:31
|
|
Oh yes....and there's the crux of it.
Kid wants to pluck the idea from my (individual) head, co-opt it to the state, so he can use it for nothing. That way, he can exploit me without *calling* it exploitation.
What he does not realize is that if I have no means of getting any sort of compensation for my invention, it will never get invention, and he'll be stuck at 10/day.
Kid, people enter into contracts all the time.
If you have children, and have to PAY a daycare center to watch them while you're at work, they're not exploiting you when they charge you, EVEN THO they're (to couch it in your language) "robbing you of some of the value of your day's production" - the point is, you don't HAVE to make use of their service! If you choose to, you pay the price for it (some of your day's production). If you don't choose to, then you keep that bit.
Choice.
Contrast that to your utopia where there IS no choice. It's the state's way, or die.
If you want, I'll buy you a ticket to China. Go get a taste of heaven firsthand....
-=Vel=-
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31. Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|