Yes, it is.
What does this even mean?
Logic is not an object. What are you talking about?
Meaningless jibberish.
Demonstrate it’s gibberish, which words and which statements are incorrect, else you have no valid claim. A claim to know the error, is a claim to show it, now cough it up.
That sure promises to get interesting.
What is it precisely you’re against? Subjective valuing? Why cannot every individual “pile of particles” make his zero-one approach towards what he needs and desires?
And how can one formula account for the needs and desires of every “pile of particles” since, as I pointed out two posts earlier, even if free will was non-existent, determination would also occur through personal experience and we’d therefore have many individualized “piles of particles”?
As to how “monetary flow behaves”, I have a guess: Either it is being exchanged in mutually beneficial transactions or being voluntarily donated (free market, persuasion) or it is being taken by force (crime, government, coercion).
I guess, however, we have a more fundamental disagreement here; the contradictions and fallacies you talk about are probably connected with the way we treat property and property rights.
Most of it is being derived from the principle of self-ownership. You apparently don’t accept this premise since for you, we are all made of particles that nobody can own because they have always been there, so we cannot own ourselves either. But if we do not own ourselves, who does? At the time you have written your arguments, you have obviously made use of “your” brain, “your” fingers, “your” eyes and maybe other parts of the “pile of particles” that is “your” body. But if you do not own yourself, who granted you the right to use these particles in the way you did? Maybe some alligator would have liked to digest these particles that belong to “your” body. Who should decide how to use “your” body if you do not own it, and nobody else can own it either? A catch-22.
If I’m wrong and you do accept self-ownership but no property rights, that’d be another story.
You’re doing exactly what you have criticized others for: you do not point out actual flaws, but merely refer to outside sources as explanations of your views.
Sure, scarcity implies measures to distribute resources. Without scarcity, these measures would likely disappear. Until then, we need a system which closely resembles the fairest possible distribution of scarce resources. Right now, it is “self-ownership and its consequences” versus “formulae”.
Yes. But I don’t see what’s wrong with the guy in your thought experiment. If he sells 10 or 1000 or 100000 widgets for 1$, it’s still the same widget; why is it “immoral” when he sells it a 100000 times, but not when he sells it only 10 times?
Now it’s getting confusing. “Illegal value”? Why is it illegal as long as you have a mutually beneficial transaction? Why does consent break down with population geometry? If there are only 10 people, why is consent more “true” than with 10000 people around?
Socialism advocates the abolition of private property and so do you.
What precisely do you consider flawed? Interest?
Alternatively one could say that free market schools would be more likely to meet the demands of their customers and therefore, offer better learning and studying opportunities at the same price for their attendees than public schools which are getting more money by producing big problems that need to be fixed (with monetary aid, of course).
And yes, I also had the delightful experience of compulsory public schooling. That alone makes at least me believe in freedom of learning.
And because AMD wants to lose as little money as possible, they will try to reuse or sell the ingredients of their CPUs to build something which is actually being demanded (compare Rockefeller and byproducts of oil refining). All the while, customers paid a lower price because competition spurred creativity. I wouldn’t call that a failure.
As you always bring up your population geometry argument:
Would you consider it moral if person A, who has built a widget that sells fantastically, had to give lots of “excess profit money” to be redistributed to person B who does nothing all day? By force?
You may not like to hear it, but you basically advocate egalitarian social democracy in mathematical clothes.
Of course you do, because if it wasn’t for your labor, this specific good or service would not be available at all. And no availability is even worse than a high price.
And because human beings have a lack of information and only very rough imaginations of what their fellow men desire, they do very rarely have rational choices as planners as well (even with formulae).
I rearranged it in a way that I find more desirable. That’s what producing things is about.
Because the “creator”, if there is one, has obviously left all this land to be settled. If he came back with the proof of being the creator and reclaimed it, that’d be fine. But just so long, we might take care of it.
On the rationality of ownership, or rather the irrationality of non-ownership, I wrote a few sentences above.
By itself, everything is energy, of course. But how does that damage the assumption that energy can and should be valued subjectively?
Profits are the result of voluntary, mutually beneficial transactions. If person A hires a hooker, you may not consider that to be a good deal or beneficial, but since you allegedly don’t even own yourself, who are you to make judgements about someone else’s evaluations?
Taxation, to the contrary, is taken by force.
And just like that, customers can use their spending power as a weapon against me. So I guess we’ll have to find a mutually beneficial agreement?
Apart from the really bad incentive structure that would create:
If nobody can possible own anything because we are all made of particles, how can you demand particles to be redistributed in one way or another? You don’t own them, leave the particles alone !
Right, you assert. I assert that different individuals value things differently and thus, their decisions seem irrational to you.
By the way, you’re not entitled to infinite value because you produce something. You’re entitled to the goods (including money) and services others are willing to pay for it. If people are willing to pay infinite goods for yours, so be it.
Most people here adhere to the non-aggression principle.
Plato, mhhm. Wasn’t that the guy who accused “the mob” of being gluttonous like cattle, and who therefore proposed a 1984-style caste society with no upwards mobility and a philosopher (like, uh, Plato) at the top? Oh, and didn’t he assume you needed specific mathematical procedures to calculate the “right breeding”?
Yes, Plato sure has an unbiased view on personal liberty.
That’s an assertion of yours. It furthermore depends on whether existing property owners want to sell to him which is indeed not directly connected to how productive and wealthy he is.
Your proposals: egalitarian redistribution schemes, price controls, tinkering with formulae. Maybe we’ll see where this had led Europe’s legendary social democracies in a few decades.
No, we invented mathematics to help us count things. Then, we expanded the uses from there. Of course, the more we tried to describe the universe, the more we approximated things. For instance, there are no perfect circles, so far as we can tell, nor squares nor even truly, absolutely straight lines. It’s all just a simplified ideal of the universe. Squares don’t actually exist. Even so simple a discipline as geometry describes something that isn’t really there.
Eventually (particularly in physics) we started to try to figure things out we couldn’t observe directly. So, we extrapolated from the math of the things we already knew. Of course, this only exacerbated the fact that math described things only in an ideal, rather than a real way. As time progressed, we developed new equipment that could perceive things (to some degree) we couldn’t when we came up with our models. In many cases, these observations did not match the predictions of the models. Did we then discard the models? No, by then, mathematicians had taken over science, and so they demanded that our theories of the universe conformed to extant mathematical models. Thus, compensating BS like dark matter.
In any case, “spacetime” is just such a part of the error-laden extrapolation of mathematical “physics”. As is the “curve of space” (what a hill of dung that is; it doesn’t even make any sense). Your entire thesis rests in the deep-seated fear of humans (and the rest of the world, but particularly humans) as unpredictable and dangerous beings. You want to impose an easily comprehended theory on reality, particularly human behavior, because you feel out of control in your own life. How much easier it would be, if the minds of your fellow men could be revealed by a few physics equations. Alas, it is not so. The world is chaotic, and unpredictable, and none moreso, at least to an outside observer, than the self-willed human being.
So, wrap yourself in the security blanket of your little theory if you like, but you’re not convincing anyone here, and you likely won’t anywhere else either.
It’s jibberish because it doesn’t make any sense.
So let’s see, the asshole who was jabbering on about logic being universal etc. now claims it isn’t prior to empirical observations? Well then, could you explain how empirical observations mean anything without causality, which must be assumed, without the law of non-contradiction, again which must be assumed and so on? Or are you just a loud moron who is clueless as to what a priori means in this context? Methinks you’re the latter, econocrank.
-Jon
You can’t even respond to him you stupid whelp. Why do you bother? To waste our time? Again, you’d be better off sticking to one-liners. Even that is a bit too much given the amount of real information you have to convey. Which is to say, none.
-Jon
There’s really no point debating this guy. He’s not just deluded; he’s intellectually dishonest, as I realized when he tried to use the example of a lawyer’s bill as evidence of a problem with the concept of money.
He can’t honestly be ignorant enough not to realize that the lawyer would be justified in charging him $500 for one hour’s worth of work that he could only do in days (at best), so long as it was a voluntary transaction? I don’t know. It’s possible he’s this economically ignorant. It’s possible he doesn’t see the value in the lawyer’s years of training and experience, in the amount of time the lawyer can save him if he purchases the guy’s services. Perhaps he’s an ignorant socialist who believes “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” 
I was thinking along the lines of his using an example that he has to know is heavily distorted by the force of the state rather than any supposed flaw in money itself. The nature of the legal system and the sheer volume of arcane and arbitrary laws decreed by the state artificially increase the demand for legal expertise, while the state simultaneously constricts its supply by restricting who may practice. He fails even as an empirical scientist, because he has deliberately chosen an example in which factors other than the one he wishes to prove quite obviously play a major role. He might as well put a glass of iced tea in a blast furnace and then triumphantly declare that ice cubes don’t cool beverages.
Yes. There’s that too. The profession of law is a coercive guild supported by the state. Artificial scarcity in legal services results in prices that are higher than would otherwise be the case in a free market. There’s also that artificial increase in demand you mention.
Econophysics,
I think you have read too many books on quantum physics and not enough on economics.
Econophysics = Ellsworth Toohey without the subtlety and cleverness.
That’s as straightforward as you can explain it, I guess.
On the other hand, I know a whole lot of people, that would get into self contradictory rubbish, that causality, the law of non-contradiction etc. are actually empirically proven:D Thats just to show how physics can seduce the mind, when you start having fun with it without enough philosophical background (or even simple - non philosophical - reflection)
And things are objects, and objects are geometric shapes, so yes we invented mathematics to count distinct geometric objects that exist in the universe, also known as “things”. Here’s the definition of thing for you.
thing (plural: things; diminutives: thingy / thingie, thingo [Aus])
Now answer these questions, a thing has existence, now things in order to exist must have structure by definition, and if it has structure, by the necessity of it existing, it has distinct geometric pattern by necessity.
Or would you care to deny that existents have structure in a partial or whole manner?
That’s not what I said, I said our current form of money is flawed as a store of value. That’s different from what you are claiming. A butter knife can be used to butter bread but it can also be used to hurt someone. i.e. it’s a doubled edged sword. The flaw is in allowing fallible indivduals to set their own prices, I don’t disagree with people setting prices, I claim that no price can be completely rational. there is no guarantee that someone won’t abuse the price mechanism and use it as a weapon against others who have less economic power and hence bargaining power then they do. Google “financial warfare” and see how the monetary system can be abused if you don’t believe me.
If I owned the world, and I charged you all the money you have so that you break even and never profit (just enough to exist), then technically I already own you even though it was a “Free” transaction. The more actual land and resources one has, the more power one has, the more power, the more freedom. Those who have less monetary / economic power (in terms of land, etc) by definition have less freedom because they literally, have less power and resources. I exposed this flaw with one person owning the earth and charging everyone else. Don’t claim things I did not say. I said we have to put limits on how much an individual can acquire in terms of property and the money supply. Otherwise we’re just fascists in sheeps clothing, i.e. we obscure define the concept of liberty to mean something else that is not fascism when we talk about it, but in practice we’d be fascists in a different set of clothes. Fascism doesn’t require a government as we know it today. Since all institutions are in their own right a governing body. Since businesses and corporations would become governments, if the government was they would be competitive defacto governments in their own right by definition having their own legal systems and having their own private armies/police forces.
My posts are being moderated and as long as they are being blocked so if I don’t get to respond to your replies it’s because someone has moderated that’s why. So if this is my last post you’ll know why I haven’t replied.
Let’s look at some snippets so we can all see some of the serious problems:
There’s such a thing as an infallible individual? What does this troll suggest, then?
And here the troll creates a strawman.
One wonders how the troll could even accomplish that.
Conflation of economic and political power.
This has been debunked so many times that it’s a wonder it’s still brought up. It’s like the “2nd law of thermodynamics” argument against evolution: refuted to death.
_
And how does the troll suggest doing that without violating anyone’s rights?
You’re not being singled out. I checked and you don’t appear to be on moderation. It’s just that the spam filters delay posts sometimes. It can happen to anyone.
Do you not realize the evil corporations will dominate us all without the government that enables and subsidizes them protects us from them? Obviously you lack the unique insight into the nature of things econocrank has, and therefore cannot possibly see that we’re all just a bunch of fascists and that he, in spite of over 2000 years of philosophy on the matter, has established the true nature of “freedom”.
No it isn’t because logic IS the act of measurement AND comparison at the same time. Logic is an existence measuring function. i.e. when you see these words, you do ONE function that has all the operations embedded in the one function… Yes these words exist, and yes it is true these words exist, and yes these words are match a coherent pattern. That is how complex logic is, Mises didn’t realize that. Mises didn’t bother with the advancements in logic that have been going on for over a century when he wrote is works. When you think a thought you are seeing and modifying your own thoughts (observing, detecting, and chaining your own thinking and modifying them).
Logic cannot be apriori to observation because logic is the action of measurement and comparison. The action of observing (detecting and determining the existence of) and comparing, Observation is the ability to detect and make comparisons, you can observe your own ideas if I tell you to visualize the number one: You are observing your own thought! The only way you could observe your own thought, is if logic IS an object-function. It is both an object and a function at the same time, it exists in functional ring.
How do you create ideas? The only way you could create new concepts is if logic itself is activity. You can’t do comparisons detect whether something exists and do comparisons, if logic is not a function. Is this different from that, etc.
Does logic exist? Yes or no? If yes then, then answer the question, if logic exists, then by definition it must belong to the set of existents, and existents are objects, but objects can also be both objects and functions, or simply object-functions.
Demonstrate which word or which statement contains an error please, otherwise you’re claim to knowledge of it being “gibberish” is invalid. Just answer the question: Is the act of observation the act of measurement?