You did. "I’ve never understood why stating ‘life is unfair’ is an argument for keeping it that way." That’s what you said. That statement directly implies that life can be made fair.
My claim is that particular manfifestations of unfairness are not written into the fabric of the cosmos like you seem to think. Of course unfairness can be tackled and overcome. Nothing is 100% predestined.
And yet again you refuse to acknowledge the cost of whatever it is you’re actually advocating.
This is a complex issue and one which would lead us into tedious philisophical corners where we all end up counting angels on pin heads. I think it’s fair to say that moral and ethical notions are a mixture of societally constructed norms and evolutionary instinct. Beyond this, my knowledge of ethical philosophy is practically zero. I don’t have the inclination to delve further into it to be honest.
So, in other words, “you don’t know…but you assume ‘society’ will be the one to decide what’s fair, as of course that’s the only ‘fair’ way to decide ‘fairness’…tyranny of the majority I suppose.”
Correct. Like when we take away the freedom of people to murder without recourse.
That isn’t an aim at equality or fairness. That is a respect of individual liberty. Freedom does not mean you have a right to infringe on the life, liberty, or property of others. What you are talking about is doing exactly that…in the name of making things some arbitrary level of “fair”…which you’ve already admitted you have no idea how it will be determined, nor how achievable it is.
Who mentioned equality? The only equality I would be in favour of is equality of power.
Oh you mean like “one man, one vote”? Everyone gets an equal say in what is “fair”, and whatever the majority decides gets imposed on the minority? Your entire premise is a contradiction. You cannot claim to be in favor of equality of power when you promote giving some people the right to take things from others in the name of “fairness”.
If I am the one doing the work, I should be the one getting the returns. A landlord just usurps my wages to pay off his own debt. What entitled him to do that other than being in a privaleged position with the banks?
It sounds like you’re arguing against being able to rent living space. What exactly is the scenario you’re advocating?
That people get remunerated for their contribution. The market could do this if it was ever in equilibrium, but it won’t happen by keeping a hands off approach. There are too many positive feedbacks and complex inter-relations for equilibrium to ever be established spontaneiously.
So you are talking about forcefully imposing what you—or “society” or some other person or body…you don’t really know who or what—arbitrarily decides what is “fair” compensation for someone else’s “contribution”.
What do you think my premise is? And why does it shoot a whole in it?
I said it shoots a “hole” in it. And like I mentioned above, it sounds like your premise is that someone should not be able to rent out a living space he owns…but it’s a little hard to tell, since you won’t get any more specific than typical nebulous terms like “fairness” and “positive feedback” and “equal reward for equal effort”, typical of this kind of Marxist argument.
No one is paid on the “effort”. You’re paid on your productivity. And that is measured by supply and demand. All this nonsense talk about how “I believe it’s fair that someone should get back in proportion to what they put in” is nothing more than hot air. It doesn’t even mean anything.
It’s like when people say “You know what the real problem with this country is? People just can’t get along. If politicians would just get their act together, stop bickering, come to the table and roll up their sleeves and work together we could actually get things done. Why can’t they just take it down a notch and compromise and work on collective action and allow the government to get things done and create solutions for real people with real problems?”
…A whole lot of ink to say absolutely nothing.
Very true. I do not have all the answers, but I do know that the Austrian school has done very little to convince me that their proposals would do anything other than lead the economy into a mire of instability.
That’s probably because you haven’t taken any time to actually learn what those proposals are and the reasoning behind them. My guess is you’ve read a quote here, an article there, realized it didn’t jive with your egalitarian syndicalist worldview and decided it’s rubbish and figured you’d spread some of your debunked nonsense on a free-market forum.
I believe that crisis is endogenous, and that inequality stems from the same mechanisms that lead to crisis.
So, basically you believe that crisis is natural, and inequality stems from the same natural mechanisms, and therefore itself is natural. Yeah I don’t doubt that that’s what you believe.
You Austrians love a good straw man don’t you. If the odds of someone succeeding held back by an act of nature that cannot be altered, then this is sad but true - the best we can do is care for the disabled in a way that provides dignity.
Strawman? Again with this? Did you just hear that term in an actual debate somewhere and decide it sounded like a good accusation to throw in every now and then? How in the world is the example I gave a straw man? It’s a concrete example of a real world circumstance applied exactly to the framework you laid out. I used your exact words. Here, I’ll do it again:
“Of course, people can lose money but so what? It doesn’t change that fact that the odds are stacked against you from the begining if you happen to be born into the wrong background.”
So here you have basically said that the possiblity of failure, even for advantaged individuals, means nothing in the way of “fairness”, because it doesn’t alter reality such that people who are born at a disadvantage are no longer disadvantaged. And you imply that something should be done to “correct” this. And a perfect example of this is the amputee who wanted to be a professional fighter. The “odds were stacked against him from the beginning” just because he “happened to be born into the wrong circumstance”…just like you said. So again, I ask you, how do you plan to correct for these situations where the odds are stacked against people from the beginning just because they happened to be born into the wrong circumstance?
This is not a straw man. It’s asking you to follow your assertion to its logical conclusion and provide an actual resolution within your framwork. You just can’t do that so instead you decide to use whatever legit-sounding logic fallacy term you can think of and hope that kills the argument.
Bosses do this all the time, it’s how they decide who gets fired or promoted. It’s a qualitative as well as quantitative assesment that can only be made by those close to the individual and with enough information to make an informed decision.
No. Bosses do not measure “hard work”. There is no such thing as far as the market is concerned. There is only productivity.
No, I’m not saying an objective measurement can be made. But I am saying that there are certain upper limits to how much wealth an individual can create, and the very fact that Carlos Slim is worth $74 Billion says to me that redistribution has taken place in order for him to attain this wealth. After all, we all have a similar physical capacity, we all have a similar inteligence, and we all have 24 hours in a day. No amount of extra effort and brains could account for him being that mmuch richer than a factory worker in China.
And there we have it. You know the exact productive capacity of a human being and therefore you are able to judge who is making “too much money”. Because of course there’s no way Carlos Slim or Bill Gates or Warren Buffet or John Rockefeller or Cornelius Vanderbilt or Michael Dell could be smarter or more industrious or more educated or more market-savvy or more driven or more focused or more interested than a factory worker in China. No. You know exactly what a human being is worth and anyone who makes more money than whatever you decide the limit is, is cheating people somehow. Give me a break.
What makes you think that the world would be a perfect place if the economy was left to it’s own devices is beyond me.
So not only can the strawman king not formulate a response to what was actually said, he has to actually throw out the first actual strawman of the discussion. Please show me where anyone even implied anything about the world being a perfect place under any circumstance.
No. You don’t get it.
Oh well by all means, enlighten me…explain what is specifically inaccurate about that assessment.
The free market as self-sustaining is a myth. Your delusions of spontansous order leading to desireable outcomes are naive.
And yet here we are again with more claims and absolutely zero support. You should see my big surprised face.
Nope. The free market will never emerge on it’s own.
Right, because, as I said, people like you go around conjuring up reasons that force is “necessary” and justified…so therefore, yes, a free market won’t emerge on its own unless all people of your coercive collectivist persuasion either become cognisant of reality, or die out. Because you are the only reason the market is restricted and not free.
Ironic in what sense?
In the sense that you made an accusatory statement about someone else’s position that essentially characterizes your own argument.