Economics Questions

Re: Rationing protects the poor?

Morty — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 03:25:03 GMT

JCFolsom:
Can't you rape with an object? What if a retarded person, who resists (and cannot give truly informed consent anyway), needs a colonoscopy? Anal rape with a big tube... Try again.

Maybe if you'd read any of the relevant literature on consent for the mentally impaired (children, mentally handicapped), you'd know that your attempt at disproving this rule fails.

Furthermore, why do you assume that I would say it is okay to give a colonoscopy to someone who could not consent or to someone who actively resists?

Re: Rationing protects the poor?

banned — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 03:10:44 GMT

JCFolsom:
In the end, the non-agression principle is only logically consistent as true pacifism.

How so?

Re: Rationing protects the poor?

JCFolsom — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 03:06:19 GMT

Morty:
How about "don't rape"? You think we could handle that as an absolute rule? "Don't murder" seems to be one we can handle being absolute too. I would say the non-aggression principle should be absolutely followed. I think "don't lie" is a legitimate absolute moral rule, though I don't believe that should be legally enforced. And so on. There are plenty of rules which work independent of context and circumstance.

Can't you rape with an object? What if a retarded person, who resists (and cannot give truly informed consent anyway), needs a colonoscopy? Anal rape with a big tube... Try again.

Re: Rationing protects the poor?

JCFolsom — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 03:02:24 GMT

banned:
Rules don't operate, people operate on rules, so I don't quite follow, but I would say the Non-agression principle ought to be followed independant of context.

Then follow it independent of context... except you know you won't. Besides which, most people interpret the non-agression principle in an inconsistent way to begin with. There is actually no reason why trying to harm an agressor is less agression than agressing against them for any other reasons. One can at least attempt to defend oneself without trying to harm an attacker. In the end, the non-agression principle is only logically consistent as true pacifism. The situation becomes even worse with the rationalizations people have for agressing against people for previous crimes.

Re: Rationing protects the poor?

Morty — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 02:59:17 GMT

JCFolsom:
Name me one absolute rule, one rule that operates independent of context or circumstance.

How about "don't rape"? You think we could handle that as an absolute rule? "Don't murder" seems to be one we can handle being absolute too. I would say the non-aggression principle should be absolutely followed. I think "don't lie" is a legitimate absolute moral rule, though I don't believe that should be legally enforced. And so on. There are plenty of rules which work independent of context and circumstance.

JCFolsom:
Unbending, simplistic rules are for the lazy and arrogant who are unwilling to look at each case on its individual merits.

Entirely arbitrary and constantly shifting rules are for the lazy and fraudulent who are unwilling to follow their principles to their logical conclusion and don't wish to deal with the internal contradictions of their belief systems.

Re: Rationing protects the poor?

Zlatko — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:53:34 GMT

nhaag:

There is a free market solution that really works. It is called profiteers. The moment prices shot into the sky businessmen will encounter a huge opportunity and start bringing the desired good, water in this cas, to the place it is in high demand. Now, the place gets swamped with water and prices will drop heavily again.

I think this is the best argument to use in this case. The best cure for high prices is high prices. There's no avoiding it.

Re: Rationing protects the poor?

banned — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:35:58 GMT

JCFolsom:
Name me one absolute rule, one rule that operates independent of context or circumstance.

Rules don't operate, people operate on rules, so I don't quite follow, but I would say the Non-agression principle ought to be followed independant of context.

Re: Rationing protects the poor?

JCFolsom — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:00:00 GMT

Morty:
If your rules are employed arbitrarily, at the whim of whoever is considering the case, then what stops anyone from deciding the current United States as a just system? Or the Soviet Union, or Nazi Germany, for that matter. If nothing is "rigid and absolute" then why even have rules to begin with? As guidelines for judicial whim?

My wording will be a bit unformed. Oh, well.

Attacking another person to take what they have is a very serious act, and I would evaluate it by characterizations: was it greedy, cruel, et cetera. These are the ways one determines if a serious action is a crime. What were the virtues of the act? The rule "don't lie" clearly can be stupid or even cruel at times. "Don't kill"; what if they're trying to kill you or any old innocent on the street?

Name me one absolute rule, one rule that operates independent of context or circumstance. Then start your hyperbole about Nazis. We are always, everywhere, dependent upon the rational actions of others for our safety and the conduct of affairs. The writers of the Constitution tried to make some hard and fast rules, and they have been rendered almost meaningless at the time, and were quite meaningless for some people right from the start. Unbending, simplistic rules are for the lazy and arrogant who are unwilling to look at each case on its individual merits.

Re: Rationing protects the poor?

Morty — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 22:08:01 GMT

If your rules are employed arbitrarily, at the whim of whoever is considering the case, then what stops anyone from deciding the current United States as a just system? Or the Soviet Union, or Nazi Germany, for that matter. If nothing is "rigid and absolute" then why even have rules to begin with? As guidelines for judicial whim?

Re: Rationing protects the poor?

JCFolsom — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:09:51 GMT

Morty:
That's simply because the laws will not be enforced as they are written. I was examining your principle, so I assumed that you would have your rules actually be consistently instituted, rather than being arbitrary and whim-based.

Yes, because having a rigid and absolute set of rules is far better than actually making decisions based on the particular circumstance involved. What was I thinking?

Re: Rationing protects the poor?

Sphairon — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:55:50 GMT

Thanks for your efforts, got some excellent points out of it.

Re: Rationing protects the poor?

Morty — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 01:25:42 GMT

JCFolsom:
"In a world where retards rule..." Dude, we have laws on the books right now that make exceptions for duress, and people don't go around deliberately putting themselves in life-threatening situations just to legitimize violence, and if they did and one found out about it, you could refuse them the defense.

That's simply because the laws will not be enforced as they are written. I was examining your principle, so I assumed that you would have your rules actually be consistently instituted, rather than being arbitrary and whim-based.

Re: Rationing protects the poor?

Solomon — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:59:09 GMT

JCFolsom:
If they could, I could not blame them for robbing me to feed their families. Who would do differently? Doesn't mean I won't resist.

What does it matter whether they act out of desperation or act in spite of being prosperous? From a rational point of view the two are no different. You may feel more sympathetic toward one than the other, but don't conflate that with their moral standing.

Re: Rationing protects the poor?

JCFolsom — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:39:45 GMT

Morty:
So property rights cease to be legitimate when it is convenient for you? Does that apply to other people too? For example, if you were somewhere, say Africa, and you had some food, would it be legitimate for starving Africans to take that food from you by force?

If they could, I could not blame them for robbing me to feed their families. Who would do differently? Doesn't mean I won't resist.

Morty:
It would seem we could take this principle even farther. All criminals would simply have to make themselves poor just before they committed a crime, perhaps by giving it to a close friend, then it would be justifiable and legitimate. Then they could have the friend buy them things to enjoy the fruits of their criminal actions, only to momentarily transfer them over to the friend just before a crime is committed so they could use the JCFolsom poverty defense if caught.

"In a world where retards rule..." Dude, we have laws on the books right now that make exceptions for duress, and people don't go around deliberately putting themselves in life-threatening situations just to legitimize violence, and if they did and one found out about it, you could refuse them the defense.

Re: Rationing protects the poor?

nhaag — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 19:58:49 GMT

And buying by the government doesn't disrupt the market?

Why in the world would someone who is rich (whatever that means) buy up all resources if the usual scarcity of that resource is so low, that, after the temporary shortage is resolved, the price will go down to its usual range?

Let's suppose in a specific area water, which tends to be very cheap, becomes scarces because of a decontamination of the existing resources. What happens now? People will first decrease their usage of water, maybe to a point where it is only used for drinking. Those in excess possession of water might start selling it to ever increasing prices. This in turn will draw businessmen from other areas to enter that "market" in hope of a great opportunity. The result is, that the scarcity of water declines with every bottle that comes from the outside. Or to rephrase it, the supply side increases which in turn will put pressure on the price until it will level off a little higher than before the shortage took place (because of increased transportation cost).

Now, given this scenario, which is, in my view the only realistic scenerio, what could be the benefit a so called rich man could possibly have to buy all water, knowing if he wants it for personal use he would enter a very expensive insurance deal? Now, if the rich man hopse to sell the water for a profit, he has to hurry, because his competitors are already on the scene and will very soon underbit him. He is in a clear loose-loose situation. What any decend man will do is to buy as much water as he needs and can effort for his own support over whatever time he thinks the crisis will extend.

If the government provides water for the poor, whatever that means, than there is no incentive to either increase the amount of water significant nor to fix the problem as fast as possible. Another loose-loose game me thinks :-)