Started by CG9603, May 24, 2009, 09:34 AM
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.
QuoteOK, 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).
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.
QuoteI 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.
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.
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.
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.
Consumption drives production, not the other way around.
If there are more cars and less buyers, the value of the cars go DOWN meaning wealth SHRINKS.
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.
A society without murder is also not possible yet we strive everyday to eliminate murder.
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.
QuoteA definition can't be wrong. That is BS relativistic thinking.
A definition can't be wrong.
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.
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.
QuoteLiberty 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?
Liberty is not a zero-sum commodity, or a commodity at all.
QuoteIf 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.
If I consider the capitalist system an 'arbitrary obstacle', you can't prove me wrong.
QuoteAgain, 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?
Again, definitions can't be wrong.
QuoteAll 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.
All this proves is that you haven't changed since then! Simply calling arguments irrational does not make them so.
Most employees have no reasonable choice but to work for some employer. That's economic coercion. Honor has nothing to do with it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Only in the sense that people produce things that will be consumed. The ability to produce is primary.
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.
This is a silly argument. Of course producing useless things doesn't create wealth; that doesn't imply that consumption does!
But one can fight murder without using murder.
One can't fight coercion without using coercion.
Taxes for that purpose are no more coercive than any other taxes.
Actually it's standard logic.
Prove that your definition is the generally accepted one (which is the hidden premiss of this).
I guess I was right, since you didn't even try.
'Elephant' is not a philosophical concept.
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.