Women and children first: Why single motherhood is on the rise

[Andrew Usher]

Production whether goods or services is the source of all wealth.

Human  wants and desires are  infinite.  There is never  a shortage of human wants and desires. Consumption doesn't mean any as far as economic strength.

It is true that production should not be of things people don't want, but if the free market is allowed to function that doesn't happen.  The market  produces things that people want.

There must be production for wealth.  This production allows people to consume.

It is ass backwards to say consumption drives wealth creation.

Well, that's just libertarian economics I guess.

[Andrew Usher]

OK, those are minor corrections. But the biggest source of coercion in most people's lives is their employer. Funny how libertarians omit that one.

You voluntarily work for someone. Any employer using coercion illegally is fined or charged. How is "work" coercion? (at least to someone honorable enough to work).

Most employees have no reasonable choice but to work for some employer. That's economic coercion. Honor has nothing to do with it.

I don't know how you get that from my argument. Of course the pie isn't fixed - there are things that expand it, but having children clearly isn't one of them.

Never said having children does. It was your poor description of economic forces that lead me to think you thought life was a zero sum game.

You argued that when rich people increase their consumption we all benefit. Increasing consumption without increasing production drives up (real) prices, and thus makes us worse off, not better.

Regardless, any move a rich person makes creates more weath than anything a poor person does. Be it investment or spending, when rich people act, jobs are created and production goes up.

This is just magical thinking. Rich people do not have magic wands, and they create wealth the same way as anyone else does - by useful work.

Given your logic GM could get out of its slump by producting 10 times more cars and have them sitting in lots with no buyers.

GM's problem is that they can't sell their cars at a profit. Whatever the reason for this, it is industry-specific and not a general example of how the economy works.

Consumption drives production, not the other way around.

Only in the sense that people produce things that will be consumed. The ability to produce is primary.

If there are more cars and less buyers, the value of the cars go DOWN meaning wealth SHRINKS.

Not necessarily - the total value of all the cars could rise even though each one was worth less. But this in any case is merely an example of how the market directs production to where there's a demand. If cars were not in demand, that labor and capital would eventually shift to something that was.

Again if production creates wealth then merely making a million more cars would create wealth even if the cars sit and collect dust. Sorry someone's gotta buy those cars for them to be worth something and that price is driven by the market which is driven by supply and demand. More cars = less value = less wealth.

This is a silly argument. Of course producing useless things doesn't create wealth; that doesn't imply that consumption does!

A society without murder is also not possible yet we strive everyday to eliminate murder.

But one can fight murder without using murder. One can't fight coercion without using coercion.

Coercion certainly cannot be used as a tool to obtain one's goals which is the system you endorse on your page with the minimum income. Who pays for that? Collected taxes by force. Sanctioned coercion. If there is no right to coercion then your advocated system can never use force to obtain its goals.

Taxes for that purpose are no more coercive than any other taxes.

A definition can't be wrong.

That is BS relativistic thinking.

Actually it's standard logic.

Words have distinct meaning. They are not whatever you want them to be. Using your reasoning I could declare liberty to mean locking everyone up and torturing them for life since that's "my" definition of liberty and its useful to me.

Prove that your definition is the generally accepted one (which is the hidden premiss of this).

Government cannot create freedom because the mechanisms government uses are coercion. You are implying teleological ethics, the ethics of judging the outcome or intended outcome. You cannot create good from 1000 evils.

This is another article of faith. Of course, if 'good' and 'evil' are defined (as you'd like to do) with reference only to libertarian ethics, they will 'prove' that libertarianism is right.

Liberty is not a zero-sum commodity, or a commodity at all.

Good you understand this so then you don't advocate the redistribution of liberty in the name of equality?

Precisely because it is not zero-sum, it is not impossible to increase the total amount of it by changing its distribution. To take an extreme example: it is morally legitimate to kill a tyrannical dictator, at least if there is no other way to end his reign, even though that reduces his liberty.

If I consider the capitalist system an 'arbitrary obstacle', you can't prove me wrong.

In free market is coercion used to keep those arbitray obstacles in place? No. As for "accidental" obstacles yes I'm sure there are tons of examples. But the difference is coercion is not used to limit others. Again you are implying equality of outcomes. Me not "giving" you a car and expecting your to pay for a car is not coercion. Me being forced to give you a car or a minimum wage at my expense IS coercion. Liberty talks about removal of the coercive limitations. Sorry of that wasn't clear.

I guess I was right, since you didn't even try.

Again, definitions can't be wrong.

So if you were in school and the teacher asked you "what is an elephant" and you said its a metal vehicle with four tires and an engine that we drive around do you think you'd get that question wrong?

'Elephant' is not a philosophical concept.

All this proves is that you haven't changed since then! Simply calling arguments irrational does not make them so.

Wait, maybe I can just redefine the word "irrational" to mean anything I want. That's your game. You're even more dishonest because you merely redefined "liberty" to suit your purposes. Now THAT is irrational.

You could, but when you used 'irrational' you clearly intended it to be taken as the standard definition. Look, definitions are not right or wrong, but they are more or less useful. Within my philosophical system, my use of 'freedom' is more useful while yours would make no sense.

[Mr. X]

Most employees have no reasonable choice but to work for some employer. That's economic coercion. Honor has nothing to do with it.

Is someone forcing to work? yes or no? You have the right to survive but NOT at the expense of others. Liberty does NOT gaurentee protection from reality, from nature, from the need to survive. If no humans existed to work for you would STILL have to hunt/gather/ grow food to survive. The ONLY thing liberty talks about is the elimination of coercive obstructions to your ability to interact with other moral agents through non-coercive means. You are not gaurenteed food, a roof or anything els because to obtain such items in this fashion would require you to use coercion against others. Your survival CANNOT be at the sake of another moral agent. Your assessment is flawed. Liberty is NOT choices. Liberty is about removal of abitrary coercive obstructions. If someone PREVENTS you from working using coercion then removal of that is the pursuit of liberty. It is NOT the gaurentee of income, food or shelter at the expense of others.

You argued that when rich people increase their consumption we all benefit. Increasing consumption without increasing production drives up (real) prices, and thus makes us worse off, not better.

Yes increased demand drives up price until production increases to meet demand then price drops. Check today's housing market. Tons of houses and no buyers. Given your logic we all should be much wealthier because there exists so many houses but no buyers. This apparently is NOT the case. A lot full of cars is not wealth, not if they are not sold.

This is another article of faith. Of course, if 'good' and 'evil' are defined (as you'd like to do) with reference only to libertarian ethics, they will 'prove' that libertarianism is right.

Good and evil are define by universal standards not by consensus or ideology. God you read just like a carbon copy liberal. If good and evil are relative terms to ones ideology then there is no reason to fight for gay rights, men's rights or the choices of the people you wish to use coercion for because you are merely fighting for an arbitrary reason... a reason based on preference... because you think good and evil is merely what someone thinks it is.

Given that reasoning, bigotry, rape, racism, murder are all GOOD based on the relative viewpoint of the person practicing that act. You are talking moral relativism which is irrational. No cause can exist under those circumstance since all causes would then be mere preference as is your cause to provide minimum wage to everyone. It can never be defined as good or evil because those words would be relative to others' opinions/thoughts/moods/feelings/preferences. Completely subjective which then makes the definition and discussion of good and evil as impossible as deciding which color is the best red, yellow or blue. Certianly then no coercion can be justified because how does one justify coercion based on an arbitray, subjective standard? What makes elimiating the things you think are coercive if that basis is only opinion in your mind? You would use force on millions based on subjective opinion?

You again are merely redefining words to suit your purposes. If good and evil are merely relative then I can merely think raping and kill 7 year old girls is "good" because I decide its good or I get some consensus to decide its good.

Precisely because it is not zero-sum, it is not impossible to increase the total amount of it by changing its distribution. To take an extreme example: it is morally legitimate to kill a tyrannical dictator, at least if there is no other way to end his reign, even though that reduces his liberty.

By using the definition of words you use the term "tyrannical dictator" which is someone who violates others' liberty. In that case killing him in self defense is not murder. Or are we to believe "tyrannical dictator" means innocent little 7 year old girl in your flippy floppy world of convienent definitions. If words have no definition then nothing you stated here can be right or wrong. Do you wish to continue playing this game? You cannot have it both ways. If I use your mentality I can merely redefine tyrannical dictator to mean anything I want.

words have meaning. A tyrannical dictator BY THE DEFINITION of tyrannical and dictator means this person has already been violating liberty and freedom so they have forfieted their lives.

This is just magical thinking. Rich people do not have magic wands, and they create wealth the same way as anyone else does - by useful work.

Wealthy people have wealth... or they wouldn't be wealthy. Wealth is required for investment and to pay fro production. Given your rational Ethiopia is the wealthy nation on Earth because its loaded with poor labor. Apparently that is not the case.

GM's problem is that they can't sell their cars at a profit. Whatever the reason for this, it is industry-specific and not a general example of how the economy works.

No it is the same problem. More cars than buyers mean GM can't sell the cars at a profit. Check the housing market then for an example. More houses than buyers... the housing prices are DOWN not UP.

Only in the sense that people produce things that will be consumed. The ability to produce is primary.

If nobody buys the product the product is useless. Did you read a book on Marxist LTV? Just curious. Because Marx is horrible flawed. Price is not set by labor its set by demand. You seriously got brain washed in some college class somewhere and I think you're just reciting what you were taught. I got taught the same crap but I kept reading and got a few years under my belt. You'll grow out of this. Just keep questioning.

Not necessarily - the total value of all the cars could rise even though each one was worth less. But this in any case is merely an example of how the market directs production to where there's a demand. If cars were not in demand, that labor and capital would eventually shift to something that was.

Hwo would the total of cars rise if there are more cars than buyers. Can you show a real world example of this occuring in any other market or the car market? Your last sentence is SPOT on! You are right! Which shows DEMAND DRIVES PRICE. You JUST ADMITTED I'm right. Yes the price drops due to lack of demand and the market shifts and they produce something else. DING DING DING DING DING. Consumption/demand driving the market NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

This is a silly argument. Of course producing useless things doesn't create wealth; that doesn't imply that consumption does!

Check your previous reply. Consumption creates wealth because consumption is demand. Demand drives price. Production responds to demand. Without purchase all the production int he world means nothing. QUIT reading Marx. His LTV does not work. One cannot set an arbitrary price on labor and you ar seriously spewing Marxist LTV here.

But one can fight murder without using murder.

OMG! You ARE GETTING IT! Good! Yes murder cannot be fought with murder.

One can't fight coercion without using coercion.

Coercion is the use of force against an innocent the same as murder is the taking of an innocent's life. WORDS HAVE MEANING. They aren't what you wish them to be. No you cannot combat coercion WITH COERCION. You can combat coercion with self defense. You can combat coercion with protection of life and property. In fact what IS the point of fighting coercion if you use coercion in the first place? Yes I cannot stop murder by killing inncoent people (which is murder). I can, however, kill an aggressor. I cannot stop coercion (which is aggression against an innocent) with aggression against the innocent. But I CAN stop coercion with self defense.

Taxes for that purpose are no more coercive than any other taxes.

No they are not since ALL tax is coercion.

Actually it's standard logic.

Really? so which definition of logic are we using today? the one you made up this morning. If words do not have meaning then you never passed 3rd grade grammar. If there are no wrong definitions then I can declare all I say correct because I merely redefine words to suit my purposes. A car is a piece of fruit you peal and eat. An orange is something you drive around in while I hold that orange in my hand. If there is no such thing as a wromg definition then NO CONCEPT can ever be wrong or right. Its an impossibility. In fact communication itself would be impossible. Wankle rotary engine orange to the watermellon asphalt. So what did I just say in that sentence since there is not such thing as a wrong definition? I guess that sentence can mean anything right? In fact I can declare myself a liberal socialist right now and merely use whatever definition suits my purposes.

How can you possibly convince anyone of your position if none of the owrds you use have any real meaning other than what you decide to assign at the moment. That's just rotten intellectual dishonesty. Why bother using the word "liberty" at all then? Why not use the words that really describe what you discuss. Or are the phrases like socialism, substantive equality, social justice too damning?

Prove that your definition is the generally accepted one (which is the hidden premiss of this).

Fair enough. Read anything from before the 1950s on liberty (before progressives showed up). Literature from the 1790s, the constitution, declaration of independance. Nearly every piece of literature on freedom and independance. "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" does not refer to gaurentees choices, only the removal of coercive obstacles. Try works by Thomas Jefferson or any of the founding fathers. 17th century material on classic liberalism.

I guess I was right, since you didn't even try.

Bull I explained it quite clearly. it is you that thinks not being given a free car, home, food and entertainment is destruction of liberty which is clealry false. Liberty is the removal of coercive, arbitrary rules that prevent access. It is not the giving of things to people by taking those things from others or obligating others to pay for them. I love your circular logic. You state above an employer is using coercion by insisting a person work for a paycheck. THEN you claim this is destruction of liberty because you consider work to be an obstacle. THEN you claim coercion MUST BE used against others so people don't have to work. So if me voluntarily working for someone is coercion and wrong then isn't forcing others to give me a minimum wage so I don't have to work ALSO coercion and wrong? Or will you now tell me 1. coercion is necessary and 2. good and evil are relative?

If you think working to support yourself through a voluntary system is coercion then forcing people to pay your way for you so your don't have to work... IS COERCION. You cannot have it both ways. Why do you attack a system that is the best possible voluntary system while at the same time promote the worst possible coercive system ALL IN THE NAME OF STOPPING WHAT YOU INCORRECTLY THINK IS COERCION?

There is a difference between a physical obstacle like collecting food and an arbitrary coercive obstacle like someone TAKING food from you to give to another who won't work.

'Elephant' is not a philosophical concept.

EEEEEE! WRONG! according to you there are NO incorrect definitions. Or has the word "NO" now been redefined to mean "maybe?"

You could, but when you used 'irrational' you clearly intended it to be taken as the standard definition. Look, definitions are not right or wrong, but they are more or less useful. Within my philosophical system, my use of 'freedom' is more useful while yours would make no sense.

Ah so now you admit this. So Pol Pot murdering millions in Cambodia for his ideology can merely redefine good to suit his purposes... its more useful? Didn't think you'd actually admit something that intellectually dishonest. So then why BOTHER redefining the word? do you need some justification for coercion? Why use the word "freedom" at all and instead use the word "smerg" or.. oh I don't know... OPPRESSION.

If you are freely admitting you are redefining words with established meaning to suit your purposes then there is nothing you can say that can make logical or rational sense. Yes history is full of people like you redefining "murder" to mean "justice" or "bigotry and racism" to mean "social justice". How do you expect anyone to trust you or for you to carry any integrity if you alter words to "suit your purposes". Yes plenty of people like you in history redefining meanings to suit thier purposes and millions pay with their lives because of it.