Do you really need to nitpick every single term I use? For the matter, I mean “socially acknowledged possession” and “socially acknowledged liberty”.
Because people exist and would rather be better off than they are now.
So better off is bad?
…
Better off is not bad. Better off is not good. It is just a biological fact that people prefer pleasure, liberty, and wealth over suffering, slavery, and poverty.
So pleasure, liberty, and wealth are neither good nor bad? What the heck is neither good nor bad? That’s meaningless. This involves no intellectual activity whatsoever. And yet you say “people prefer”. How can somebody prefer something when they have no other choice? Your statements have been lacking free-will and thus you involve no natural property, which therefore you undercut the very freedom you profess. I mean at one point you said I didn’t even exist. Look I enjoy your intellectual pursuance, but we need not keep on this same line of thinking. As the old phrase goes, I don’t like to keep beating a dead horse. This was enjoyable… til next time hopefully we will discuss again some other day or night on the numerous topics that come up here on the mises forums. [Y][:D]
(Now of course I made some comments, so, you may want to give a last reply to what I said.)
All the best!
When did I say you didn’t exist? You said I said you didn’t exist, and you provided no explanation whatsoever.
Morals do not need to exist for things to be desireable to biological creatures. I have the choice to go to a concert or a basketball game. They both cost the same and are located right next to each other. What I prefer has nothing to do with morals; it has to do with the neurology of my brain, and the environment I grew up or live in. Now, going to concerts or basketball games is not something that is universally preferred by humans. However, I can make strong arguments that ALL people, due to biological reasons, would rather experience pleasure over suffering and liberty over slavery.
I am going to make a bold statement now: People do not consciously perform ANY action UNLESS they think there is the possiblility of personal benefit sooner or later. If anyone here can find one counterexample to that, I will concede immediately.
Before I give the arguments for pleasure and liberty, I want to note that I am using the word “suffering” NOT to mean pain, but discomfort. This is important because some people are masochists, and receive pleasure from their own physical pain.
First, if everyone had to choose between the ability to stop their personal suffering or pleasure at will, and there are no external influences for either (for instance, people will think and act no differently towards them whichever they choose), everyone will choose the ability to stop suffering, as their minds are wired to prefer it.
Second, if everyone had to choose between free will and hard determinism, once again with no external influences, everyone would choose free will, regardless of whether it exists now or not, for the same neurological reason for preferring pleasure. Free will may very well not exist at all, or may exist in some quantum-mechanical probabilistic way, but regardless, we prefer to think it exists.
Now, the degree to which people prefer pleasure to liberty and vice-versa is different, once again based on nature and nurture. When I take a job, that means I prefer the pleasure that I think I will get from the income to the liberty that I think I will give up. If I reject a job, then I do not think the tradeoff is avantageous. If I take the money, I may think it more advantageous to run. However, this affects how others in society will view me, and they will not make agreements with me anymore, as they think that I am untrustworthy. Regardless, it was the thought that I would benefit that caused me to break the contract. And more often than not, people who break contracts end up worse in the long run.
Imagine it as a sort of societal “feedback rating”. People that keep agreements will have more people wanting to deal with them, and as long as they are aware of the “feedback” of the people that they deal with, they will benefit. People that don’t may benefit incredibly in the short run, but often regret their decisions when they can find no one else to trust. I am glad that the Prisioner’s Dilemma was brought up, as this is exactly what it correlates to.
In summary:
Pleasure - Suffering = Happiness
Liberty - Coercion = Freedom
- People prefer to maximize both their freedom and happiness.
- The degree to which individuals prefer one to the other varies due to biological and environmental differences.
- Agreements benefit both parties in one way or another.
- People prefer to minimize risks when making decisions.
- People who decide to keep agreements with others who keep agreements tend to benefit more than people who decide to break agreements.
I hope this explanation suffices.