I'm not the one who constructed the semantics argument, Jon did. My point is trade is an artifical construct; Jon brought up the issue of language.
No, you did when you insisted that "natural" can only be an antonym to artificial (and you had little to say about my point regarding how deeply ingrained it is in primates, if I were to accept your word as the solely valid term.) So please don't try pull some "get out of jail for free" card now. I said your use of the word is merely a fetish, and given its multiple uses I have no reason to accept your dislike of my use of it. So far the unsubstantiated thesis is yours entirely.
To darkness I condemn you...
Jon Irenicus: I'm not the one who constructed the semantics argument, Jon did. My point is trade is an artifical construct; Jon brought up the issue of language. No, you did when you insisted that "natural" can only be an antonym to artificial (and you had little to say about my point regarding how deeply ingrained it is in primates, if I were to accept your word as the solely valid term.) So please don't try pull some "get out of jail for free" card now. I said your use of the word is merely a fetish, and given its multiple uses I have no reason to accept your dislike of my use of it. So far the unsubstantiated thesis is yours entirely.
You seem to have confused the chronology of this thread: this discussion turned towards definitions as opposed to concepts when you said, and I quote: -
"Only if you have some fetishised usage of the word [natural]."
My comment that natural is an antonym (Incidentaly, I never said "natural can only be an antonym to artifical", you've just made that up) came after the above comment.
Want to try again?
Then your criticism of my usage of the word (you see, it was semantics on your part whether you like to admit it or not because it was implicit in your comment that I was misusing the word - I just explicitly pointed it out) is misplaced, because you concede the word has more than one possible usages, and that the one I used was perfectly fine.
Lord Shore-Twilly:I guess that is 15/love to me.
Jon Irenicus:Then your criticism of my usage of the word is misplaced, because you concede the word has more than one possible usages, and that the one I used was perfectly fine.
It would be, if that was your implication (that trade, the Empire State and baseball are natural because they are the product of natural beings); but it clearly wasn't. Thus this rather meagre attempt at an argument is rendered somewhat academic.
Also, as stated it wouldn't be an semantic discussion (until you made it one by discussing the actual word) but a conceptual discussion of 'nature'.
Your're still playing everytime you respond sunshine.
30/love.
No, what I had implied is that trade is a means of dealing with natural hindrances such as the fact that food does not just produce itself and show up on a plate, and hence if anything is to blame for the fact that man must labour it is nature; that was my original argument. You then implied trade is unnatural because artificial (which I countered is untrue if it is in the nature of the being - hence natural - in question to trade, to fulfill its needs), and I said that is only if you adhere to one possible meaning of the word, i.e. one which takes artefacts and nature to be strict antonyms, rather than the former to be expressions of the latter in the case of a specific entity.
Well what on earth do you think will follow if you question the particular usage of a word, if not a semantic argument?
@ Twilly & BAAWA
Most boring argument ever.
Base model cars of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but quarter-mile races.
Lord Shore-Twilly: Your're still playing everytime you respond sunshine. 30/love.
Jon Irenicus:the fact that food does not just produce itself
Prior to the development of farming techniques, how do you suppose species survived?
Jon Irenicus:and hence if anything is to blame for the fact that man must labour it is nature; that was my original argument.
That isn't what you said. You said that trade is 'natural', I'm still waiting for you to prove that assertion, incidentally.
Jon Irenicus:which I countered is untrue if it is in the nature of the being
'If' being the operative word in that statement. I don't buy any of bizarre theories regarding 'human nature' postulated on this board.
Captalism and Communism are two different systems and therefore wages are two different things. In Captalism, the supply and demand decides your wage. In a communist society there is no supply and demand, and wages are determined different. Therefore it's senseless to talk about workers not getting their full pay in captalism.
However, communism doesn't work at all, not in theory, not in practice. For a society to evolve we will need to have new ideas. For instance the interenet. However, there are no incentives to come with those ideas. No ordinary people can ever start a firm in a communist society because you don't have capital and you won't get profits. Therefore it must be created by the government, but they have no incentives to do so, they will rather make sure that people get hospitals.. Also the government has no incentives to create different products for the consumers and that's why communist societies end up gray and dull with very few products and lags behind.
However, this is not the worst. As communist societies is a classless society where everyone shares everything, then there is no incentives to take dirty jobs, no incentives to work hard. For instance in the Sovjet society people stopped caring about their collective farms, because it didn't matter and it caused starvation. The only solution to this problem and keep the communist society is to force people to take these jobs and this never creates a happy society.
Poor countries need to have bad working conditions, or else companies won't find it profitable to start businesses in that particular country. Remember that companies needs to earn more than their costs, and that will be much harder if people demand good working conditions in a poor country. Not a single country in the entire world had gone through the industrial revolution as socialist countries. Even countries such as Sweden had a very small state and very bad working conditions in the 1900s, and if they didn't they would have been a third world country by now.
Lord Shore-Twilly:Prior to the development of farming techniques, how do you suppose species survived?
with the utmost difficulty, hence the modern population boom. the population used to be trapped malthusianistically.
Lord Shore-Twilly:That isn't what you said. You said that trade is 'natural', I'm still waiting for you to prove that assertion, incidentally.
trade is as natural as intercourse.
Lord Shore-Twilly:'If' being the operative word in that statement. I don't buy any of bizarre theories regarding 'human nature' postulated on this board.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Lord Shore-Twilly:how am I 'ignorining content'?
Your claim that Jon was misusing "natural" did not answer the notion that costs are an inherent part to human action which was the thrust of his statement.
Lord Shore-Twilly:Secondly, I'm not the one who constructed the semantics argument, Jon did.
"When did 'paying' become 'natural', i.e. part of 'nature'? I wasn't aware that non-sentient life forms had established trade or currency."
Oh right, I must have confused this semantic insistence for a semantic insistence.
Lord Shore-Twilly:Thirdly in answer to your question 'How is that not 'intelectual dishonesty'?', this is a complete dodge of your intellectual obligations. You make the charge, thus the onus is upon you to provide proof, not upon me to disprove your delusions.
I'm afraid you've only further exhibited the trait by responding like such to an obvious rhetorical question.
Lord Shore-Twilly:is based upon unsubstanciated assertions, not proofs. It also doesn't disprove my central thesis.
Oh, no. In fact, the idea that known human actions are limited, temporally, is unsubstantiated, is, itself, unsubstantiated. I would like you to show me where action exists outside the reference of time. Except, you wont, because, by its nature, action is causally driven. Contesting this is itself an exhibit of such a notion.
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
Lord Shore-Twilly:Your're still playing everytime you respond sunshine. 30/love.
You just don't like it when someone dismisses you, do you? You can't believe that anyone would do that to you, so you keep responding, hoping that your existence will be validated. How sad.
Now then, given your sophist nonsense and prediliction for prevarication (which, like the good little trained dancing monkey you are, you will whine and cry and demand evidence, even though it's been shown to you before, and you're doing a bang-up job of such behavior with Jon), I just see no reason that you're actually here.
Lord Shore-Twilly: That isn't what you said. You said that trade is 'natural', I'm still waiting for you to prove that assertion, incidentally.
A) There is an entire blue planet called "Earth" in which animals and humans live on which disproves this argument. Trade exists in all living breathing animals. It's just as natural for monkey's and squirrels as it is for humans.
B) Trade exists in the absence of others. You do not need two or more to trade. Alone, you still have to trade your leisure time with labour. You trade with yourself on a daily basis as do all living breathing animals.
Statism is a religion.
By exerting effort to gather food. Or do you think it dropped out of the sky into people's mouths?
It is exactly what I said (to make it clearer, that survival requires effort on the part of man, or as banned put it, all action implies costs), you took it to mean trade; however I do indeed maintain that trade is natural. Care to explain in what way it is "unnatural", except via recourse of calling it "artificial", as if this somehow would rule it out from being so?
I don't care what you do "buy" into or not; your own dismissal of the usage of the word is bizarre in itself...
Jon Irenicus:By exerting effort to gather food. Or do you think it dropped out of the sky into people's mouths?
FreedomIsYellow: @ Twilly & BAAWA Most boring argument ever.
The first party has to demand that the second party sign a contract to allow the first party to beat the second party up, before it can become THAT boring.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap