Jon,
I think Knight just debunked you.[:P]
But by your own admission, survive they did.
Well no, without interource the species dies, the same cannot be said of trade. Trade is something we have developed as a means of simplifying the process of obtaining what we desire. It is natural, in the sense that Jon is trying to peddle, but by the same logic so is the Sears Tower.
How witty. But actually no, I don’t. The onus is on the individual who makes the initial claim. However, that said, i have proffered an alternative view, and that is that trade is a construction of human ingenuity as opposed to something natural, such as your example, the desire to procreate.
@ Knight of BAAWA - 40/love.
Certainly one must exert effort, but that is a rather disengenous use of the word ‘payment’ in the orginional context it was used back at the beginning of this thread. And if you recall the origional discussion was about the commodification of water, and yet it does just fall out of the sky. And have you ever heard of the story of Sir Isaac Newton’s apple?
Well yes, because that was the context in which the word was being used. As opposed, and I apologise for returning us a semantic argument, to the dubious use of the words ‘cost’ and ‘payment’ in the context you are using them.
But if something is artificial isn’t natural, unless of course we argue natural to mean an indirect product of the natural world. Which of course makes everything natural rendering this discussion moot. However we are still left with the issue that we distinguish between things that we have created and things that appear without our influence.
Of course the natural-artificial divide, valued by some people, has always led to these kind of absurd conclusions, 'What people make simply isn’t natural." Yes by interpretation this denotes humans are such perverted abominations upon this pristine earth. It’s a dead end. Time to re-evaluate your worldview I think, Lord Shore-Twilly.
Payment is simply that which is needed to give the recipient reason to give up what they have put in effort to acquire (and all actions involve costs, mainly time, so I don’t see what’s wrong with using the term.) And water may fall out of the sky, but that doesn’t mean it’s directly usable or even easily available everywhere, as time and effort must go into its gathering, storage, transfer &c. Even Newton would have to pick up the apple to eat it, expending energy, and consuming time. And as for the word natural, if the being in question has a nature such that it uses tools, why should those tools not be called “natural”, if they express that nature?
An impressive argument, a pity that it doesn’t in any way hold relevence to the actual positions I have levelled in this thread. For example, where did I suggest that because something is artifical it is inherently a “perverted abomination”? Why don’t you try addressing what I’ve actually said as opposed to inventing a ludicrous primitavist position, attributing it to me, and then ridiculing it?
Time to drop the strawman arguments I think, Wilderness.
At least I know, now, that you don’t conclude it that way. I’ve met other people that have. Chalk it up to bad probing by me.
A payment of any sort is the expression of cost in terms of some commodity (what the payment is made in [in the case of labor-cost this would be exerted effort]). In other words, a cost is what an acting man is willing to forgo in order to achieve a desired end.
And trade is merely a means of expressing cost on an interpersonal level. While the act of trade may be considered “artificial” in the sense that it is driven by humans, the cost incurred through the acquisition of a resource is entirely natural and in the case of trade, interpersonal exchange is simply the means by which this natural trait is realized.
There really should be no more reason to argue on semantics, what has been said has been made very clear. If you won’t accept the use of ‘natural’ for it being “unorthodox”, fine, however the point is not altered by such a refusal, and further discussions on language are utterly useless to the topic.
You can’t compare the complexity of the modern market to you and your friend trading fruit. You are also not taking into account the social experience of the worker.
Here I am, the worker…
I agreed to the terms of my employment, therefore I am not exploited by definition…
Take your communism and shove it…
I’m not a communist but thanks for keeping this a mature debate.. and I don’t know what definition you are citing, please link a source.
Yes you agree to the terms of your employment but there are no other fiscally non-exploitative, practical alternatives. Not everyone can be self-employed or be a business owner. The market isn’t an all loving God.
- use or utilization, esp. for profit
2)selfish utilization
So what’s wrong with use or utilization, especially for profit?
What’s wrong with selfish utilization?
Please, no circular reasoning from you this time.
Yes you can, and “social experience of the worker” is just code for “I’m making this up as I go along”.
Since when was it immature to use an opinionated description of another’s opinion?
Maybe if you didn’t except politically correct nonsense from everyone else in the argument, you’d be taken more seriously.
I don’t tell him to take his capitalism and shove it. You manage to slip in political correctness into your overreaction.. What should I take from that?
Maybe if I didn’t get banned for nothing and your mods didn’t call me a little kid and at the same time say the dictionary is wrong, I would take you more seriously.
I have a moral objection to selfishness and I see selflessness as better, desirable alternative for all of society. Now go ahead and argue that the selfishness of one benefits society as a whole and I’ll respond.
Oh okay, sorry.
No social experience as in, the hardship of the workers, the sacrifice of the workers. Just for the record, workers are concious beings not just “hands”.
You’re not taken seriously because you’re spouting the economics equivalent of young-earth creationism.
I assume you’re equating selfishness with narcissistic self-absorption which has no care for anyone else. The two are NOT synonyms.
Just for the record, your childish emotive please are laughable. Further, why is it only the “workers” who sacrifice? And what are they sacrificing? And some work is hard by the nature of the work. So what? What is your point, little one?
Because I have a moral objection to the institutions and practices which make up capitalism?
Let me respond to your prior response so this doesn’t get messy, please.
Because you don’t know what capitalism is, given the strawmen, and you believe in mystical nonsense such as “exploitation”.