|
|
#21
11-22-2005, 03:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
[ QUOTE ]
because you don't own the materials. [/ QUOTE ] You didn't specify that case. If one uses someone else's materials without that person's agreement, then they're stealing, and would not have legitimate rights to the product. 
|
|
#23
11-22-2005, 04:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
[ QUOTE ]
I've never been involved in one of these. Where does "society" sign on the contracts? [/ QUOTE ] Good luck enforcing your contract without the third-party help of society.
|
|
#24
11-23-2005, 02:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
[ QUOTE ]
because you don't own the materials. edit: cause that's sort of a jackass answer and i'll explain my thinking a little further. Your idea implies that there is some sort of original ownership of materials, which is frankly pretty silly. [/ QUOTE ] No, it doesn't. It assumes that one can obtain a property right in unowned materials by mixing one's labor into the material. I've already had this discussion with you before: here [ QUOTE ] There is an entire market system that relies on inertia as to who owns what, but the orignial distribution follows no principal of "justice" or even "natural law". [/ QUOTE ] It's precisely derrived from natural law, as explained in the post I linked to. [ QUOTE ] The reason why a person owns the rights to their labor is that they actual control such rights, and can act or not act. The reason why they don't own property in the same manner is that they only control the use of that property so far as the rest of the world recognizes the legitamacy of that ownership. It cannot nor will not ever have anywhere near the validity of ownership of labor. [/ QUOTE ] If someone else can take the product of your labor, they have effectively enslaved you. [ QUOTE ] property rights over anything but a person's own labor are inherantly impossible to completely delinate (and by that i do mean ANY property other than an individual's labor). [/ QUOTE ] This is the best point you've made so far. However, the fact that we can't be 100% certain about property rights is not enough to discredit the system, especially in the absence of any credible alternative. Uncertainty can never be 100% absolutely eliminated. Modern physics seems to be doing OK despite the ramifications of the uncertainty principle.
|
|
#25
11-23-2005, 03:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I've never been involved in one of these. Where does "society" sign on the contracts? [/ QUOTE ] Good luck enforcing your contract without the third-party help of society. [/ QUOTE ] The implication of your statement is that we should be accept any action of society as legitimate because without a society and rule of law we'd have nothing. But we both know where that can go. Yes, the rule of law is why we have a free and prosperous society. No that does not make that every tyrannical whim of the majority into a just or even legitimate action. This is especially so when it comes to price controls. Society may feel like they have an interest but that interest amounts to little more than "wah wah wah I don't like that price so I'll recruit the power of the state to give it to me at the price I like". of course, that always fails too because price controls merely result in massive shortages and then... higher prices. Nevermind explaining that to someone who feels the prices are "unjust". History and facts don't matter to them. the fact that price controls make things worse just doesn't compute, much less the notion that they have no right to dictate to two parties what they can be allowed to charge and sell each other. natedogg
|
|
#26
11-23-2005, 04:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
I'm pissed at MSFT for setting reverse price controls by pricing their xbox360 too low for the limited supply, thereby increasing demand and making it impossible for me to get one at a store with a return policy.
actually, if you think about it, they are manipulating demand through pricing. i wonder if it's possible that other companies would do similar things. i'm not arguing for price controls mind you. i'm just saying even free markets can be imperfect.
|
|
#27
11-23-2005, 04:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
[ QUOTE ]
i'm not arguing for price controls mind you. i'm just saying even free markets can be imperfect. [/ QUOTE ] No one is claiming that free markets are perfect. Undesirable things happen (Ignoring for now the fact that "perfect" is subjective anyway). But the state-enforced "solutions" are usually worse. natedogg
|
|
#28
11-23-2005, 05:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
[ QUOTE ]
If someone else can take the product of your labor, they have effectively enslaved you. [/ QUOTE ] This was in response to something i said about property rights being seen as illegitamte leading to revolution. Suppose that in a system where many people have very little property (due largely to the fact that over the years very little has been handed down to them, unlike other elements of society which inherit large amounts of non-human capital) a revolution occurs, with wealth distribution as its motive. Would you say that the rich in this society have been enslaved, and that the poor therefore are their masters? I get at these issues because i disagree with your idea that people create their own property, most owned property in the world is heavily linked to the inertia of property allocations in previous generations.
|
|
#29
11-23-2005, 07:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
[ QUOTE ]
I've never been involved in one of these. Where does "society" sign on the contracts? [/ QUOTE ] Based on this I have to conclude that you have never actually read a contract or negotiated one. At a minimum I refer you to the ubiquitous clause that clearly states under which states laws that contract is being signed under. Hint there are other examples. All good contract negotiators understand this.
|
|
#30
11-23-2005, 08:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If someone else can take the product of your labor, they have effectively enslaved you. [/ QUOTE ] This was in response to something i said about property rights being seen as illegitamte leading to revolution. Suppose that in a system where many people have very little property (due largely to the fact that over the years very little has been handed down to them, unlike other elements of society which inherit large amounts of non-human capital) a revolution occurs, with wealth distribution as its motive. Would you say that the rich in this society have been enslaved, and that the poor therefore are their masters? [/ QUOTE ] Without any other information, I'd have to say this is possible. Just because the masses "feel" that property rights are illegitimate doesn't make it so. However, it seems likely (given the situation you set up) that some have used force to amass wealth - and that certainly doesn't convey a legitimate property right. [ QUOTE ] I get at these issues because i disagree with your idea that people create their own property, most owned property in the world is heavily linked to the inertia of property allocations in previous generations. [/ QUOTE ] And that makes it illegitimate somehow? Are you arguing that inheritance is an illegitimate way of obtaining property? Who has more right to direct the disposal of your property upon death than you do?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
