if you could just elaborate…
OK, I would let the aggregate of human interaction work out how those three problems you described are resolved.
To do what?
I distinguish between possession of objects, and ownership of property.
As an aside, as a general FYI I just saw one of the funniest knife show moments, “Tom’s chicken choking special!!!” I suggest all to watch
Why?
You tell me. What would you like to use the market for and why is the market the best means to use it?
Look we can play this game of tennis all day, but only you will allow it to progress.
Hey man, I cleaned it up. Maybe you can extend the same courtesy you so nerdily expect from others.
Because it is the only solution I can come up with that makes any sense to me.
Nothing. You are the one insisting I have to use it.
Esuric you may need to read the tail end of this thread to understand a bit more
Was I offensive in some way?
Why? There has to be a reason. You didn’t just stumble apon it arbitrarily? Why do you choose the market as opposed to coercive means of distribution of scarce resources?
No I didn’t you did. Do you want me to quote you again? You said that you think the market should decide. Why should we allow the market to decide? Why don’t I decide what actions we should all take? Explain to me why you would prefer the market to that?
Again, I’m not too sure what you’re getting at. Are you saying that markets could emerge if, for example, theft of ones productions was inevitable? It is true that you could imagine such a condition–the same way that you could imagine playing tennis underwater. But, with all due respect, this is an entirely absurd proposition, which really resembles more of a hallucination than anything else. Such obfuscation is usually employed by those who can’t actually defend their anti-market positions.
Civilizations which don’t respect and enforce property rights are economically depressed in the truest sense of the word. Output doesn’t collapse; it never begins. This has been the story of the Balkans for quite some time. A civilization without any property rights whatsoever is no civilization at all. Not only would it lack a functional price mechanism, but even barter would be impossible. Any kind of production, even the simplest and most direct productions, would be utterly futile. It would be hard to imagine such chaos. The incentive argument refuted such positions long ago.
So I need you to back up this assertion. (If I misunderstood you, then I apologize).
Well, what does the fact I may be a nihilist explain?
That your against rights ofc. You claim your a nihilist in your bio, and it describes your position quiet plainly on wiki as well.
I don’t understand why you find that offensive. Thats like you name calling me a libertarian.
Lets get back to the topic at hand though.
Please stop evading.
I don’t know how you could determine what was theft in an ethical vacuum.
I’m not anti-market.
I don’t see how this absolutely has to be the case. Since you are attempting to justify your belief in the necessity of property rights, wouldn’t the burden of proof rest on your shoulders?
How does being a nihilist mean one doesn’t believe in ethics, one can certainly have taste and believe that others have taste while not believing its objective?
Well, if that’s all you meant, then fine. Sorry to sound like a pessimist, but I thought the implication was something like “he’s a nihilist, that would explain why he’s such a dipshit” or some such thing.
The seeming failure of past attempts at central planning. I don’t like to pay taxes, because then I have to work.
Because no one would listen, no offense.
The market allows me to choose for myself which system I prefer.
You would have to ask Jackson that Angurse. I have no idea how one can not believe in ethics. I never said anything about objective ethics either by the way.
I would call this subjective ethics. Nihilism usually refers to a belief that morality doesn’t exist, even within the context of a single actor (i.e., all actions they perform are neither good nor bad, even to them).
My apologies, you just said him being a nihilist explained alot, perhaps you intended for that to explain position a.
I’m not sure if that’s true, however, if so, that would put the nihilist the precarious position of having to prove that people saying “I saved the girl from drowning because its the right thing to do” were all just lying, just as the person eating popcorn says “I eat popcorn because it tastes good.” Much science would have to be disproven as well.
Well that is the position Jackson takes and that is what the Wiki article states. shrug
I’m going to sound very annoying but bear with me, this is a healthy excersize I promise.
Past failed attempts at what?
In the case that people would listen to me, why would you rather use the market as opposed to me making the decisions?
That is an outstanding, economic, answer but, who are you to decide that your income is yours to possess? Why shouldn’t I be the dictator of where your profit flows? I’m pretty handy with money.
Why should you be allowed to choose what system you prefer?