“No man is qualified to declare what would make another
man happier or less discontented. The critic either tells us what he believes he
would aim at if he were in the place of his fellow; or, in dictatorial arrogance
blithely disposing of his fellow’s will and aspirations, declares what condition
of this other man would better suit himself, the critic.”
I came across this gem while listening to Human Action on the way to school today. (Chaper 1) I will definitely use it in the future.
Demonstrated preference.
Yeah, that’s just what you think is a good quote, but yes, it is a nice pick. — In my humble preference.
“No man is qualified to declare what would make another man happier or less discontented. The critic either tells us what he believes he would aim at if he were in the place of his fellow; or, in dictatorial arrogance blithely disposing of his fellow’s will and aspirations, declares what condition of this other man would better suit himself, the critic.”
Also great to use when debating moralists.
I love how amoralists smile even more than when they are first all happy and contented, taking a crap in my lawn, and I curb-stomp them.
“Also great to use when debating moralists.”
Who here is a moralist? Are you referring to anyone specifically? i.e Libertarians?
Who here is a moralist? Are you referring to anyone specifically? i.e Libertarians?
Almost everyone, I suspect.
Actually, that’s a good argument for utilitarians who are pro-free markets.
Beautiful quote. How tragic when all they will do in response is attempt to justify the enforcement of their subjective preferences against others, only more adamantly this time. lol
If the critic is in need of luxury or power then the critic is wrong. If the critic is unable to change circumstances to equitably benefit himself and his target then he is correct in his assumption.
Luxury is the assumption of desserts. Desserts are granted on the basis of work.
Power is the assumption of force for force’s sake. This is dictatorial tendency to enslave.
Inability to change circumstances to an equitable arrangement based on his own production is an objective value.
Assuming there is a return of a socialist state (not a welfare state, not a mercantilist state) then I would err on the side of the socialist state in terms of net redistribution.
Why?
Equitably according to whose value judgments?
Luxury is an addendum, an item or idea conceived of for masturbation. Luxuries are not fulfilling primitive needs. They are limited, and thusly competition for them is based on subjective valuations.
If the critic wishes to isolate another for power then the critic becomes an exploiter.
Equitable according to objective valuations on the economy. A worker who produces a certain amount of product and is not compensated for that product sufficiently is able to stress grievance. I do not believe in the role of the owner (as you might have guessed) so this valuation will be calculated based on his performance in the workplace. To deny this performance’s work is to deny the man his just desserts. Equitable is according to what the man needs for survival in relation to the work he has manufactured. A man who works ten hours in a sawmill cutting down trees suggesting that he needs the personal living quarters the size of the state of Nevada is not equitable.
Equitable means fair. You seem to perceive fairness as being determined by a certain formula that determines what is paid to the worker for a certain quantity and/or quality of work. My question to you is, why should I give a damn about your formula or what you think is fair?
Rock solid!
“Equitable” = subsistence wages?