Jon,
I think Knight just debunked you.
"I used to see a mountain as a mountain.. Thereafter.. when I saw a mountain; lo! it was not a mountain.. yet now of final tranquillity: I see a mountain just as a mountain as I used to.." - Master Yuan; molon labe
nirgrahamUK:with the utmost difficulty, hence the modern population boom.
But by your own admission, survive they did.
nirgrahamUK:trade is as natural as intercourse.
Well no, without interource the species dies, the same cannot be said of trade. Trade is something we have developed as a means of simplifying the process of obtaining what we desire. It is natural, in the sense that Jon is trying to peddle, but by the same logic so is the Sears Tower.
nirgrahamUK:perhaps you need to produce some goods before you can attempt to buy any theories.
How witty. But actually no, I don't. The onus is on the individual who makes the initial claim. However, that said, i have proffered an alternative view, and that is that trade is a construction of human ingenuity as opposed to something natural, such as your example, the desire to procreate.
@ Knight of BAAWA - 40/love.
Jon Irenicus:By exerting effort to gather food. Or do you think it dropped out of the sky into people's mouths?
Certainly one must exert effort, but that is a rather disengenous use of the word 'payment' in the orginional context it was used back at the beginning of this thread. And if you recall the origional discussion was about the commodification of water, and yet it does just fall out of the sky. And have you ever heard of the story of Sir Isaac Newton's apple?
Jon Irenicus: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;
Well yes, because that was the context in which the word was being used. As opposed, and I apologise for returning us a semantic argument, to the dubious use of the words 'cost' and 'payment' in the context you are using them.
Jon Irenicus: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?
But if something is artificial isn't natural, unless of course we argue natural to mean an indirect product of the natural world. Which of course makes everything natural rendering this discussion moot. However we are still left with the issue that we distinguish between things that we have created and things that appear without our influence.
Lord Shore-Twilly: However we are still left with the issue that we distinguish between things that we have created and things that appear without our influence.
However we are still left with the issue that we distinguish between things that we have created and things that appear without our influence.
Of course the natural-artificial divide, valued by some people, has always led to these kind of absurd conclusions, 'What people make simply isn't natural." Yes by interpretation this denotes humans are such perverted abominations upon this pristine earth. It's a dead end. Time to re-evaluate your worldview I think, Lord Shore-Twilly.
Payment is simply that which is needed to give the recipient reason to give up what they have put in effort to acquire (and all actions involve costs, mainly time, so I don't see what's wrong with using the term.) And water may fall out of the sky, but that doesn't mean it's directly usable or even easily available everywhere, as time and effort must go into its gathering, storage, transfer &c. Even Newton would have to pick up the apple to eat it, expending energy, and consuming time. And as for the word natural, if the being in question has a nature such that it uses tools, why should those tools not be called "natural", if they express that nature?
To darkness I condemn you...
wilderness: Lord Shore-Twilly: However we are still left with the issue that we distinguish between things that we have created and things that appear without our influence. Of course the natural-artificial divide, valued by some people, has always led to these kind of absurd conclusions, 'What people make simply isn't natural." Yes by interpretation this denotes humans are such perverted abominations upon this pristine earth. It's a dead end. Time to re-evaluate your worldview I think, Lord Shore-Twilly.
An impressive argument, a pity that it doesn't in any way hold relevence to the actual positions I have levelled in this thread. For example, where did I suggest that because something is artifical it is inherently a "perverted abomination"? Why don't you try addressing what I've actually said as opposed to inventing a ludicrous primitavist position, attributing it to me, and then ridiculing it?
Time to drop the strawman arguments I think, Wilderness.
Lord Shore-Twilly: wilderness: Lord Shore-Twilly: However we are still left with the issue that we distinguish between things that we have created and things that appear without our influence. Of course the natural-artificial divide, valued by some people, has always led to these kind of absurd conclusions, 'What people make simply isn't natural." Yes by interpretation this denotes humans are such perverted abominations upon this pristine earth. It's a dead end. Time to re-evaluate your worldview I think, Lord Shore-Twilly. An impressive argument, a pity that it doesn't in any way hold relevence to the actual positions I have levelled in this thread. For example, where did I suggest that because something is artifical it is inherently a "perverted abomination"? Why don't you try addressing what I've actually said as opposed to inventing a ludicrous primitavist position, attributing it to me, and then ridiculing it? Time to drop the strawman arguments I think, Wilderness.
At least I know, now, that you don't conclude it that way. I've met other people that have. Chalk it up to bad probing by me.
Lord Shore-Twilly:Certainly one must exert effort, but that is a rather disengenous use of the word 'payment' in the orginional context it was used back at the beginning of this thread.
A payment of any sort is the expression of cost in terms of some commodity (what the payment is made in [in the case of labor-cost this would be exerted effort]). In other words, a cost is what an acting man is willing to forgo in order to achieve a desired end.
Lord Shore-Twilly:Well yes, because that was the context in which the word was being used. As opposed, and I apologise for returning us a semantic argument, to the dubious use of the words 'cost' and 'payment' in the context you are using them.
And trade is merely a means of expressing cost on an interpersonal level. While the act of trade may be considered "artificial" in the sense that it is driven by humans, the cost incurred through the acquisition of a resource is entirely natural and in the case of trade, interpersonal exchange is simply the means by which this natural trait is realized.
There really should be no more reason to argue on semantics, what has been said has been made very clear. If you won't accept the use of 'natural' for it being "unorthodox", fine, however the point is not altered by such a refusal, and further discussions on language are utterly useless to the topic.
BarleyLegal: Truthisnonexistent, profits do not equal exploitation. That's PHISICALY impossible. This is the simplest way that I can put it. Lets say you, and I are hobby farmers, and we both live in the upper northern hemisphere. I produce 100 oranges this year, and you produce 100 apples. You want oranges, and I want apples. Will you exchange with me 50 apples for 1 orange? No? How about 1 apple for 1 orange? Is that fair? Lets say that I think so. I really want apples. I have enough oranges, and an apple or two would be nice. I agree to this exchange. EVEN THOUGH, my factors of production are more expensive for me.. I have to build a big a green house. Water the trees. Deal with disease, and pest issues that orange trees don't normally experience. You on the other hand just let your apple trees grow in the front yard, with a minimum amount of care. EVEN IF you get hit with a tent caterpillar infestation, you will still produce 100 perfectly fine apples. Still, I'm happy that I was able to exchange 1 orange for one apple. Who is exploiting who? My *profit* is that I value one apple more than one orange. Your profit is that you value one orange more than one apple. How many apples you have in total, and how much they cost you to produce does not invalidate MY value judgment of one of your apples. For a third party to say that this exchange is gratuitous because your so wealthy with easy apples, and I'm so poor with difficult oranges, would it's self be a value judgement of apples, vs oranges. A value judgement which the two of us obviously don't share, as we have traded. In short, if there was no profit to be had, no one would trade anything-- AT ALL... Ever.
Truthisnonexistent, profits do not equal exploitation. That's PHISICALY impossible.
This is the simplest way that I can put it.
Lets say you, and I are hobby farmers, and we both live in the upper northern hemisphere. I produce 100 oranges this year, and you produce 100 apples. You want oranges, and I want apples. Will you exchange with me 50 apples for 1 orange? No? How about 1 apple for 1 orange? Is that fair?
Lets say that I think so. I really want apples. I have enough oranges, and an apple or two would be nice. I agree to this exchange. EVEN THOUGH, my factors of production are more expensive for me.. I have to build a big a green house. Water the trees. Deal with disease, and pest issues that orange trees don't normally experience. You on the other hand just let your apple trees grow in the front yard, with a minimum amount of care. EVEN IF you get hit with a tent caterpillar infestation, you will still produce 100 perfectly fine apples.
Still, I'm happy that I was able to exchange 1 orange for one apple.
Who is exploiting who?
My *profit* is that I value one apple more than one orange. Your profit is that you value one orange more than one apple. How many apples you have in total, and how much they cost you to produce does not invalidate MY value judgment of one of your apples.
For a third party to say that this exchange is gratuitous because your so wealthy with easy apples, and I'm so poor with difficult oranges, would it's self be a value judgement of apples, vs oranges. A value judgement which the two of us obviously don't share, as we have traded.
In short, if there was no profit to be had, no one would trade anything-- AT ALL... Ever.
You can't compare the complexity of the modern market to you and your friend trading fruit. You are also not taking into account the social experience of the worker.
Truthisnonexistent:You can't compare the complexity of the modern market to you and your friend trading fruit. You are also not taking into account the social experience of the worker.
Here I am, the worker....
I agreed to the terms of my employment, therefore I am not exploited by definition....
Take your communism and shove it...
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
Harry Felker: Truthisnonexistent:You can't compare the complexity of the modern market to you and your friend trading fruit. You are also not taking into account the social experience of the worker. Here I am, the worker.... I agreed to the terms of my employment, therefore I am not exploited by definition.... Take your communism and shove it...
I'm not a communist but thanks for keeping this a mature debate.. and I don't know what definition you are citing, please link a source.
Yes you agree to the terms of your employment but there are no other fiscally non-exploitative, practical alternatives. Not everyone can be self-employed or be a business owner. The market isn't an all loving God.
1) use or utilization, esp. for profit
2)selfish utilization
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exploitation
Truthisnonexistent: 1) use or utilization, esp. for profit 2)selfish utilization http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exploitation
So what's wrong with use or utilization, especially for profit?What's wrong with selfish utilization?Please, no circular reasoning from you this time.
My favorite online shop: www.cafepress.com/libertyphile
Truthisnonexistent: Harry Felker: Truthisnonexistent:You can't compare the complexity of the modern market to you and your friend trading fruit. You are also not taking into account the social experience of the worker. Here I am, the worker.... I agreed to the terms of my employment, therefore I am not exploited by definition.... Take your communism and shove it... I'm not a communist but thanks for keeping this a mature debate...
I'm not a communist but thanks for keeping this a mature debate...
Since when was it immature to use an opinionated description of another's opinion?
Maybe if you didn't except politically correct nonsense from everyone else in the argument, you'd be taken more seriously.
WARNING: This signature violates Rule 5. Stay classy!
Nitroadict: Truthisnonexistent: Harry Felker: Truthisnonexistent:You can't compare the complexity of the modern market to you and your friend trading fruit. You are also not taking into account the social experience of the worker. Here I am, the worker.... I agreed to the terms of my employment, therefore I am not exploited by definition.... Take your communism and shove it... I'm not a communist but thanks for keeping this a mature debate... Since when was it immature to use an opinionated description of another's opinion? Maybe if you didn't except politically correct nonsense from everyone else in the argument, you'd be taken more seriously.
I don't tell him to take his capitalism and shove it. You manage to slip in political correctness into your overreaction.. What should I take from that?
Maybe if I didn't get banned for nothing and your mods didn't call me a little kid and at the same time say the dictionary is wrong, I would take you more seriously.
Daniel: Truthisnonexistent: 1) use or utilization, esp. for profit 2)selfish utilization http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exploitation So what's wrong with use or utilization, especially for profit?What's wrong with selfish utilization?Please, no circular reasoning from you this time.
I have a moral objection to selfishness and I see selflessness as better, desirable alternative for all of society. Now go ahead and argue that the selfishness of one benefits society as a whole and I'll respond.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Truthisnonexistent:You can't compare the complexity of the modern market to you and your friend trading fruit. You are also not taking into account the social experience of the worker.Yes you can, and "social experience of the worker" is just code for "I'm making this up as I go along".
Oh okay, sorry.
No social experience as in, the hardship of the workers, the sacrifice of the workers. Just for the record, workers are concious beings not just "hands".
Truthisnonexistent:Maybe if I didn't get banned for nothing and your mods didn't call me a little kid and at the same time say the dictionary is wrong, I would take you more seriously.
Truthisnonexistent:I have a moral objection to selfishness and I see selflessness as better, desirable alternative for all of society. Now go ahead and argue that the selfishness of one benefits society as a whole and I'll respond.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Yes you can, and "social experience of the worker" is just code for "I'm making this up as I go along".
Truthisnonexistent:Oh okay, sorry. No social experience as in, the hardship of the workers, the sacrifice of the workers. Just for the record, workers are concious beings not just "hands".
Knight_of_BAAWA: Truthisnonexistent:Maybe if I didn't get banned for nothing and your mods didn't call me a little kid and at the same time say the dictionary is wrong, I would take you more seriously.You're not taken seriously because you're spouting the economics equivalent of young-earth creationism.
Because I have a moral objection to the institutions and practices which make up capitalism?
Let me respond to your prior response so this doesn't get messy, please.
Truthisnonexistent:Because I have a moral objection to the institutions and practices which make up capitalism?
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