These people are our future

[a500lbgorilla]

Also for all the ways anyone may be able to show that European or Chinese gov'ts work and work better than what we've got, I think it's healthy that the major gov'ts of the world (US, EU, China) are all moving in different directions. It may make sense to move towards socialism, but I think it's healthy that the world is exploring it's many avenues for governance and it would be some loss if any of them strayed before being proven wholly bunk.

[a500lbgorilla]

What are the right reasons?

Great genes and great wealth will be necessarily coupled.

[a500lbgorilla]

I read many of the post here. What I didn't see, but I suspect would be very relevant, is having the arguing parties define their beliefs in Property Rights. Do they exist, are they, should they, be an intrinsic right?

Also, as a side note to lyric, just because the FDA has some corruption in it doesn't mean it doesn't produce some benefits (I for example love calories being displayed on food packages along with ingredients). I doubt (I cannot back up my claim) the ignorant public would care enough about this if it wasn't forced on to the manufactures of mass produced foods. But, again talking about federal agencies one has to define their rights.

So, I feel like after 8 pages ( I read over 50% of it), you guys discussing complicated issues, and you may be better served starting a simple concepts and going from there (Property rights)?

Just a thought.

!luck

Go on...

[Numbr2intheWorld]

I'm of the conclusion that money and wealth can be variably proportional and always intertwined, which leads to the difficult point that I need to learn things that I'm just not going to be learning any time soon.

To reconcile the chaotic but direct relationship between money and wealth would require knowledge of a lot, which is why I like thinking that they're two individual values, related only by some baser assumption that money is wealth. But I only like it for the clarity it brings, I don't think it's anything I can build from.

I still don't really get what you are saying so let me see if what I think you are saying is right. Are you saying wealth has many different forms, happiness can be wealth, gold can be wealth, health can be wealth, but money is just one type of wealth? It's basically the sum what you have and can do that other people value.

Is this what you're saying?

This thread has helped me appreciate some things that I wouldn't have before and right now I'm thinking an awesome form of gov't would be - regulatory only in making sure that consumers are fully informed and that businesses which generate wealth do not secretly shirk certain debts like pollution. "If I were a carrot farmer, I should also have to pay for the minerals I use on my farm, likely through purchasing them from soil producers which sounds obvious. But if I use a secret irrigation system tapping my neighbor's waterway, I should be discovered and held accountable for what I've taken from him."

That if you have a problem like Net Neutrality, you don't go to the central power and say "hey, guys, please make this a new rule for the game." And instead see to it that consumers know what they're buying and that any entrepreneur be made aware that consumers are demanding a net neutral provider. As demand goes, so should industry.

How this intersects with reality is still to be seen, but as far as idealisms go, I think it's a pretty good build.

I 100% agree with this! )

[IowaSkinsFan]

I'd tell you why it's not bullshit, but again it's my wheel house and even if I were, somehow, systematically wrong, you likely wouldn't be able to find it. {edit I put the reasons in and then removed them. It's not important}

I'm of the conclusion that money and wealth can be variably proportional and always intertwined, which leads to the difficult point that I need to learn things that I'm just not going to be learning any time soon.

To reconcile the chaotic but direct relationship between money and wealth would require knowledge of a lot, which is why I like thinking that they're two individual values, related only by some baser assumption that money is wealth. But I only like it for the clarity it brings, I don't think it's anything I can build from.

This thread has helped me appreciate some things that I wouldn't have before and right now I'm thinking an awesome form of gov't would be - regulatory only in making sure that consumers are fully informed and that businesses which generate wealth do not secretly shirk certain debts like pollution. "If I were a carrot farmer, I should also have to pay for the minerals I use on my farm, likely through purchasing them from soil producers which sounds obvious. But if I use a secret irrigation system tapping my neighbor's waterway, I should be discovered and held accountable for what I've taken from him."

That if you have a problem like Net Neutrality, you don't go to the central power and say "hey, guys, please make this a new rule for the game." And instead see to it that consumers know what they're buying and that any entrepreneur be made aware that consumers are demanding a net neutral provider. As demand goes, so should industry.

How this intersects with reality is still to be seen, but as far as idealisms go, I think it's a pretty good build.

I wholeheartedly agree with everything you just said.

[IowaSkinsFan]

"I still don't really get what you are saying so let me see if what I think you are saying is right. Are you saying wealth has many different forms, happiness can be wealth, gold can be wealth, health can be wealth, but money is just one type of wealth? It's basically the sum what you have and can do that other people value.

Is this what you're saying?"

Yes, I believe this is correct. Money is a mass representation of everyones collective values. Nothing is ever worth anything absolute. Some people would trade work or goods for a very expensive watch, some people wouldn't trade any amount of work or goods. When you start to no longer see money as money but instead a representation of the act that earned it, you see the point more and more.

As I was walking to the casino it occured to me that some of the opposing people to me probably see a very rich person like Bill Gates and see that he has 16 billion dollars, and then see that if he were to distribute that money to one million people including himself that they would now all have $16,000 and would collectively be better off.

But they wouldn't. And the reason is because money exchanged voluntarily, without force and deception, means that those who provide the most for other people will get the most of it, and those who provide the least for others will get the least of it. When you create a system where this is untrue, which is a system with high taxes, which prevents those who provide the most value to other people from making the money equivalent to the value they provide, and forces them to give it to people who have not provided value, the most value is not provided to the most people.

[a500lbgorilla]

I still don't really get what you are saying so let me see if what I think you are saying is right. Are you saying wealth has many different forms, happiness can be wealth, gold can be wealth, health can be wealth, but money is just one type of wealth? It's basically the sum what you have and can do that other people value.

Is this what you're saying?

Wealth for me is the judged value on the organization of resources. It seems like I can see that everywhere; and if there are some things that money can't buy - it just makes a lot of sense that money and wealth are disconnected (save for some ingrained but ignorable belief that money is wealth). It also allows for me to ignore a lot of obvious difficulties that I have with the relationship between wealth (true value) and money (traded value) "If a meal in Ecuador is $3 dollars and that same meal in NYC is $45, what gives! The meals are of the same wealth."

But as I was randomly thinking about this through-out the day, I recalled all sorts of graphs that I've encountered where two usefully coupled values are easier to consider disconnected (Lift vrs angle of attack, Drag vrs angle of attack, Lift/Drag for body geometry), it would be much more comfortable to consider Lift as one thing, and Drag as another, but any physical body you construct will expose a relationship between the two (L/D).

http://classicairshows.com/Education...s/NACA0006.gif

Which is why I figure I have something more I need to learn before I understand exactly what's going on with the variable relationship of Money and Wealth. And I don't see how I'm going to learn all that any time in the future.

[a500lbgorilla]

"I still don't really get what you are saying so let me see if what I think you are saying is right. Are you saying wealth has many different forms, happiness can be wealth, gold can be wealth, health can be wealth, but money is just one type of wealth? It's basically the sum what you have and can do that other people value.

Is this what you're saying?"

Yes, I believe this is correct. Money is a mass representation of everyones collective values. Nothing is ever worth anything absolute. Some people would trade work or goods for a very expensive watch, some people wouldn't trade any amount of work or goods. When you start to no longer see money as money but instead a representation of the act that earned it, you see the point more and more.

As I was walking to the casino it occured to me that some of the opposing people to me probably see a very rich person like Bill Gates and see that he has 16 billion dollars, and then see that if he were to distribute that money to one million people including himself that they would now all have $16,000 and would collectively be better off.

But they wouldn't. And the reason is because money exchanged voluntarily, without force and deception, means that those who provide the most for other people will get the most of it, and those who provide the least for others will get the least of it. When you create a system where this is untrue, which is a system with high taxes, which prevents those who provide the most value to other people from making the money equivalent to the value they provide, and forces them to give it to people who have not provided value, the most value is not provided to the most people.

I think a more interesting line of thought as you're walking to the casino would be: are you creating any wealth as a poker player?

I'm not pressing a point, I'm just interested in your answer.

[IowaSkinsFan]

I think a more interesting line of thought as you're walking to the casino would be: are you creating any wealth as a poker player?

I'm not pressing a point, I'm just interested in your answer.

Yeah, I mean I am, but its not something phenomenal. I'm providing a poker player the opportunity to play/gamble in a tough high stakes poker game, I also increase the availability of the opportunity. Some people seem to be willing to pay a lot of money to do that. It's also kind of like the casino is paying me a large portion of someones gambling losses to create incentive for them to go to the casino.

[boost]

Earlier I was asked for examples of more complex large scale cons. Big tobacco is a perfect example. They knowingly sold their customer a product that had terrible terrible side effects. What makes this complex, is that this product also has value. Because this product has value, when it comes time for retribution, the courts can only fine them, whereas a con man would be forced to give it all back. How much are they fined? A drop in the bucket. Yet big tobacco would never had been so successful without employing these nefarious practices.

That is the disconnect. A business is trying to increase profit margins, not increase delivered value. Another good example would be BP. They are likely no different from the rest of the oil industry. They can lower safety and environmental standards and estimate on average how long it will take for an epic disaster to happen, estimate the potential increase in revenue from lowering the standards over this time period, then they can estimate the potential fine. This scenario may not have been what happened, but it illustrates how simple risk assessment can lead a business to abandon its interest in creating more value.

You may argue that people can chose to go with an oil company who does things on the up and up and pay fifty cents more at the pump. But this is pure naivety through and through. Humans have a very difficult time comprehending the bigger picture. It is just too easy to disconnect your actions from large scale effects. This is why despite knowing about the child soldiers that are an effect of the diamond trade or the sweat shops that put cotton on our backs, we keep buying.

Through regulations we can remove products and practices that we do not believe in from the market place. As a consumer I can then consume and not worry, because I know regulations are in place that are more or less in line with my morals. Seriously, doing research on big purchases is good.. staying fairly informed is good.. but staying up to date on everything we consume so that we can make the correct choices that line up with our values is beyond a full time job. And you want us to pay for this full time job? That is why we have regulatory bodies which have power beyond giving 3rd party reviews. They are specialist who ideally (clearly our current system is far from perfect) follow the values of the people and take things off the market which do not jive with those ideals.

It is not a system in which people are being forced to do this or that, it is the same system you are suggesting, only it is more efficient. Peoples values are represented in the market place through specialized regulatory officials. In your system, I'd have to pay for, then sift through 3rd party reviews of chewing gum. In the gas station and want to try a new flavor of gum? Better hold off until you've done your due diligence! Thats utterly ridiculous.

[Lyric]

You do realize that french fries are bad for you and that a lot of people eat them? So either what you posted in bold is incorrect, or you're supporting social darwinism. It's also another strawman, since I specifically said that in my opinion the role of the government is NOT to protect its citizen from themselves. But whatever, I'm done.

You said that free markets don't work because people don't make logical decisions. My bolded point was that illogical decisions make people happy and regulations on bad decisions is a retarded idea in all cases. We only need laws banning hurting other people.

[Lyric]

fine, we will stick with it. Do you see why you just made it far easier to prove that wealth is impossible with only one man?

One man can generate wealth by creating products that can be exchanged if another human arrives on the island. Trees still make noise when they fall even if no one is there to hear them, and a wheel of cheese still has exchange value without another person to exchange it with.

[boost]

One man can generate wealth by creating products that can be exchanged if another human arrives on the island. Trees still make noise when they fall even if no one is there to hear them, and a wheel of cheese still has exchange value without another person to exchange it with.

What? No. No he can't. If he produces more cheese than he needs, he is no wealthier, he just has more cheese. If we drop another man on the island, now he is wealthier because he can exchange his excess cheese for the mans labor. Seems pretty simple to me.

[WillburForce]

"I still don't really get what you are saying so let me see if what I think you are saying is right. Are you saying wealth has many different forms, happiness can be wealth, gold can be wealth, health can be wealth, but money is just one type of wealth? It's basically the sum what you have and can do that other people value.

Is this what you're saying?"

Yes, I believe this is correct. Money is a mass representation of everyones collective values. Nothing is ever worth anything absolute. Some people would trade work or goods for a very expensive watch, some people wouldn't trade any amount of work or goods. When you start to no longer see money as money but instead a representation of the act that earned it, you see the point more and more.

As I was walking to the casino it occured to me that some of the opposing people to me probably see a very rich person like Bill Gates and see that he has 16 billion dollars, and then see that if he were to distribute that money to one million people including himself that they would now all have $16,000 and would collectively be better off.

But they wouldn't. And the reason is because money exchanged voluntarily, without force and deception, means that those who provide the most for other people will get the most of it, and those who provide the least for others will get the least of it. When you create a system where this is untrue, which is a system with high taxes, which prevents those who provide the most value to other people from making the money equivalent to the value they provide, and forces them to give it to people who have not provided value, the most value is not provided to the most people.

the point of taxing and providing free and good schooling/health care etc etc is to give the future Bill Gates of the world a chance to reach their potential whatever background they may have been born into.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

What? No. No he can't. If he produces more cheese than he needs, he is no wealthier, he just has more cheese. If we drop another man on the island, now he is wealthier because he can exchange his excess cheese for the mans labor. Seems pretty simple to me.

If there are no other people there is no specialization because no one can trade. If we placed 30 different people each on one island and in 5 years determined who was the wealthiest, the wealthiest one would probably be the one who had decent strength but also the ability to create tools to help him survive, and who loves the outdoors and running around, and probably someone who philosophizes. Basically a person with all-around abilities. He would create food efficiently, and also be able to have fun in his spare time and not have many bored moments. The poor ones probably would create no tools, be weak physically, and have a woe-is-me mentality.

Some would indeed be wealthier than others.

Now, if you're thinking straight up about money, there doesn't need to be any of that because this person doesn't need to exchange with hundreds of other people.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Earlier I was asked for examples of more complex large scale cons. Big tobacco is a perfect example. They knowingly sold their customer a product that had terrible terrible side effects. What makes this complex, is that this product also has value. Because this product has value, when it comes time for retribution, the courts can only fine them, whereas a con man would be forced to give it all back. How much are they fined? A drop in the bucket. Yet big tobacco would never had been so successful without employing these nefarious practices.

Retribution was never up to the courts, people who smoke cigarettes do not care that big tobacco tried to hide the fact that smoking was bad for them.If they did big tobacco would be out of business. And you say they would never be so successful without these practices? They are just as successful. In london there is literally a label on cigarettes that says smoking kills, yet I think there are more successful here than anywhere else in the world. Big tobacco probably did not want to research if smoking was bad for you, but any consumer could have simply went "hmmmm, I really want to know what the health effects of this are before I start consuming a shitload of it." If you think the FDA needs to be doing a better job because people shouldnt have to worry if something they consume is going to be bad for them, people wouldnt assume the everything they consume is good if we werent taking care of them in the first place. It can easily be up to consumers, if they want to know if something is good or bad for them, to research it themselves. It will take less than a minute.


That is the disconnect. A business is trying to increase profit margins, not increase delivered value. Another good example would be BP. They are likely no different from the rest of the oil industry. They can lower safety and environmental standards and estimate on average how long it will take for an epic disaster to happen, estimate the potential increase in revenue from lowering the standards over this time period, then they can estimate the potential fine. This scenario may not have been what happened, but it illustrates how simple risk assessment can lead a business to abandon its interest in creating more value.

Increasing profit margins is increasing delivered value. BP is actually a great example of this. Its consumers dont care that much if it spills a bunch of oil into the gulf, you can see this because after the spill BP is still in business. People will still buy their gas from BP, and business are still buying oil from BP because they know people have seemed not to care. For BP before this incident to raise the price of gas to increase their ability to prevent risk in the gulf wouldnt have been a good profit strategy, because most of america would still buy their products despite the disaster. Very little people value the environment, max profit means not valuing it. I sure hope no one in this thread has bought gas from BP since the disaster.

At the same time, I do think spilling Oil in the ocean does do harm to others and should be a practice that is followed by jail time by the people responsible, which can be decided by the courts.

You may argue that people can chose to go with an oil company who does things on the up and up and pay fifty cents more at the pump. But this is pure naivety through and through. Humans have a very difficult time comprehending the bigger picture. It is just too easy to disconnect your actions from large scale effects. This is why despite knowing about the child soldiers that are an effect of the diamond trade or the sweat shops that put cotton on our backs, we keep buying.

Yes, and that is our fault, and we need to learn to make better decisions. I refuse to let off anyone from the gravity of the decision of how to spend their money.

Through regulations we can remove products and practices that we do not believe in from the market place. As a consumer I can then consume and not worry, because I know regulations are in place that are more or less in line with my morals. Seriously, doing research on big purchases is good.. staying fairly informed is good.. but staying up to date on everything we consume so that we can make the correct choices that line up with our values is beyond a full time job. And you want us to pay for this full time job? That is why we have regulatory bodies which have power beyond giving 3rd party reviews. They are specialist who ideally (clearly our current system is far from perfect) follow the values of the people and take things off the market which do not jive with those ideals.

Regulations simply approximate what we dont want in the marketplace. Free market says it exactly. If we dont want it no one will buy it and the business will fail.

It is not a system in which people are being forced to do this or that, it is the same system you are suggesting, only it is more efficient. Peoples values are represented in the market place through specialized regulatory officials. In your system, I'd have to pay for, then sift through 3rd party reviews of chewing gum. In the gas station and want to try a new flavor of gum? Better hold off until you've done your due diligence! Thats utterly ridiculous.

Yes, you would have to pay for and sift through a third party, just like you pay for the FDA to do the exact same thing, except the FDA doesnt require you to take one minute of your time, and the FDA costs much more than a private company would.

When you ban something from being produced, that is the same thing as forcing people from not using it. A great example is Marijuana. Marijuana is regulated in the sense that its illegal. So I am forced not to smoke it without the threat of jail time. People may want to smoke marijuana but they have to get it for an extremely high price from people who are not skilled at growing it. Is this system more efficient? Im not sure how any regulation is more efficient? Show me an example?

[IowaSkinsFan]

the point of taxing and providing free and good schooling/health care etc etc is to give the future Bill Gates of the world a chance to reach their potential whatever background they may have been born into.

Money is no longer money when you force someone to give it to another person without them providing value on that exchange. The only reason money has any value is because other people produce things of value. That money is a claim on men who produce. Your money is a statement of hope that somewhere in the world there are men who will not default on the moral principle which is the root of your money. When money is redistributed from this outcome, from people who did produce to people who didn't, money loses part of its value.

Look at it this way. If you simply printed a quadrillion dollars and gave it to everyone in the US, how much would that money be worth? This isn't the same, but look at it this way too. If you took all of the money and wealth in the world from the rich and put them on the street, and gave it to the poor, the poor would find themselves in a world where there money would buy much less than it could before.

[IowaSkinsFan]

What? No. No he can't. If he produces more cheese than he needs, he is no wealthier, he just has more cheese. If we drop another man on the island, now he is wealthier because he can exchange his excess cheese for the mans labor. Seems pretty simple to me.

This is what you fail to see. He isn't wealthier when you drop another person on the island, in fact he is no wealthier from this single event. He is wealthier if that person decides to produce, and if he decides to exchange his production with you, because you can have more cheese, entertainment, health, time etc.

Lets say on one island one person can produce 2 pounds of cheese per year and 1 gallon of wine. On another island where two people reside, one produces 4 pounds of cheese and the other 2 gallons of wine and they trade 1 gallon of wine for 2 pounds of cheese. Which people are living with more wealth? Your answer suggests that the person on one island has no wealth.

[WillburForce]

Money is no longer money when you force someone to give it to another person without them providing value on that exchange. The only reason money has any value is because other people produce things of value. That money is a claim on men who produce. Your money is a statement of hope that somewhere in the world there are men who will not default on the moral principle which is the root of your money. When money is redistributed from this outcome, from people who did produce to people who didn't, money loses part of its value.

Look at it this way. If you simply printed a quadrillion dollars and gave it to everyone in the US, how much would that money be worth? This isn't the same, but look at it this way too. If you took all of the money and wealth in the world from the rich and put them on the street, and gave it to the poor, the poor would find themselves in a world where there money would buy much less than it could before.

They are providing value. A happy, educated, healthy society is better for all. Rather than a divided society of have and have nots.

[Ash256]

Libertarians: Would you have any problem with the formation of workers unions?

[IowaSkinsFan]

They are providing value. A happy, educated, healthy society is better for all. Rather than a divided society of have and have nots.

Your missing the point. This is not voluntary exchange. When someone is given welfare from the government from tax money that person has not been been given that money in exchange for nothing. Whether or not they choose to use that money to better themselves or not is entirely up to them. Giving someone money does not ensure a healthy or undivided society.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Wilburforce, I'm wondering if you disagree that taxes devalue money. That was the crux of my argument.

[WillburForce]

I don't know exactly about devaluing money...but I'd prob say no.

And I don't think its really about giving money per se.
You're providing education, healthcare plus other benefits through taxes.

I'm not talking about taking money of person A and giving it to person B and letting person B do what they want with the money.

We're means testing person A and B to provide the basics of society to A and B.

[CoccoBill]

Since this is moving nowhere, let's try another angle.

ISF, your basic argument and philosophy is that the only thing the system should strive for is creating value for its individuals, and any values or morals upheld by its individuals will automatically ensue. The well-being or direction of progress of the society as a whole, or of any nonfunctional individuals (those that choose against their own values) are either non-consequential or acceptable losses.

The functioning of the system rests on 2 basic assumptions:

1) the system is non-zero-sum, that is, the gain of one is not automatically the loss of another
2) the value generated by the system for each of its individuals accurately represents the value they provide for it

Before I say anything else, please correct any mistakes, omissions or misrepresentations I made.

I only have one question: what is the goal of this system?

[CoccoBill]

It pisses me off that you say this because I am so incredibly altrustic. My argument was never to screw anyone over, I want everyone to live the best life possible. So if my ideas aren't the way to do it, call me ill-informed or stupid, not selfish.

My purpose was not to insult you, nor did I direct the selfishness comment at you, but the ideology you're supporting. One can act in a selfish manner while trying to and fully believing to be altruistic. You say that you want everyone to live the best life possible, but from my viewpoint you're just against everything that's trying to work towards that, or you have a strange definition of "best". To me, one single mother having to undeservingly and unnecessarily struggle to make ends meet is far worse than a thousand John Travolta's not affording their 3rd airplane.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Since this is moving nowhere, let's try another angle.

ISF, your basic argument and philosophy is that the only thing the system should strive for is creating value for its individuals, and any values or morals upheld by its individuals will automatically ensue. The well-being or direction of progress of the society as a whole, or of any nonfunctional individuals (those that choose against their own values) are either non-consequential or acceptable losses.

The functioning of the system rests on 2 basic assumptions:

1) the system is non-zero-sum, that is, the gain of one is not automatically the loss of another
2) the value generated by the system for each of its individuals accurately represents the value they provide for it

Before I say anything else, please correct any mistakes, omissions or misrepresentations I made.

I only have one question: what is the goal of this system?

All of this seems to be close to correct.

"The well-being or direction of progress of the society as a whole, or of any nonfunctional individuals (those that choose against their own values) are either non-consequential or acceptable losses."

Not quite sure what you mean by this part. I believe that the only way to evolve human beings is through learning, and learning can only be achieved when a person must use a decision making process. I'm not sure what you mean by someone "choosing against their own values." Can you explain this sentence more?

The goal of the system is to maximize the happiness of every individual and to maximize the evolution of every individual.

I will also say that I emphatically agree with the two basic assumptions that I am making.

[IowaSkinsFan]

My purpose was not to insult you, nor did I direct the selfishness comment at you, but the ideology you're supporting. One can act in a selfish manner while trying to and fully believing to be altruistic. You say that you want everyone to live the best life possible, but from my viewpoint you're just against everything that's trying to work towards that, or you have a strange definition of "best". To me, one single mother having to undeservingly and unnecessarily struggle to make ends meet is far worse than a thousand John Travolta's not affording their 3rd airplane.

I think I overblew the selfish part. I think my comment I made towards you calling me selfish was stupid and unnecessary.

I think its sick that John Travolta makes a shit load of money, especially because his movies tend to suck. But you believe its undeserved, I don't think it is. John Travolta made that money through the voluntary exchange of wealth. Maybe the people who bought the ticket to see battlefield earth should have spent that money helping a homeless person. To me, it's far more important how someone spends their money than what they do for a living. Their living is only possible because of what others value, and if a couple million people want to pay $10 to see a john travolta movie, than there is nothing wrong with him getting paid a million dollars.

[IowaSkinsFan]

I don't believe when I buy a new car, I am harming a homeless person I didn't give the money to. Do you believe this is the case?

[Numbr2intheWorld]

The functioning of the system rests on 2 basic assumptions:

1) the system is non-zero-sum, that is, the gain of one is not automatically the loss of another

Do you think this is true?

[CoccoBill]

"The well-being or direction of progress of the society as a whole, or of any nonfunctional individuals (those that choose against their own values) are either non-consequential or acceptable losses."

Not quite sure what you mean by this part. I believe that the only way to evolve human beings is through learning, and learning can only be achieved when a person must use a decision making process. I'm not sure what you mean by someone "choosing against their own values." Can you explain this sentence more?

E.g. self-destructive behavior or other choices leading to less value for the individual. I'm assuming you don't suggest that all choices made by people are always "beneficial" for them.

I'm not sure I understand your statement about learning. Do you mean learning just as a personal process, each individual's personal learning process. Do you think such a thing exists as society's knowledge and do you think it's more or less important than the personal knowledge?

The goal of the system is to maximize the happiness of every individual and to maximize the evolution of every individual.

What are your thoughts on society and it's importance?

I will also say that I emphatically agree with the two basic assumptions that I am making.

I think both of them are false, but I don't know how to prove either, nor obviously even make a convincing argument about them. Why do you agree with them?

[CoccoBill]

I think its sick that John Travolta makes a shit load of money, especially because his movies tend to suck. But you believe its undeserved, I don't think it is. John Travolta made that money through the voluntary exchange of wealth. Maybe the people who bought the ticket to see battlefield earth should have spent that money helping a homeless person. To me, it's far more important how someone spends their money than what they do for a living. Their living is only possible because of what others value, and if a couple million people want to pay $10 to see a john travolta movie, than there is nothing wrong with him getting paid a million dollars.

This comes right back to the 2. basic assumption, you're assuming that the value acquired equals the value generated. Do all people choosing to watch john travolta's movies do so knowingly and willingly, do all movies and movie stars start from an equal footing, and only gain anything (publicity, fame, money etc.) because they "deserve it". You're assuming that the system cannot and doesn't get manipulated, that no one can gain an unfair advantage over others and all choices made are rational.

You acknowledge that people make mistakes, hence learn. What ensures that value is distributed fairly when mistakes are made? Is it not possible that value is misplaced when mistakes happen, or rather isn't this the definition of a mistake?

[CoccoBill]

I don't believe when I buy a new car, I am harming a homeless person I didn't give the money to. Do you believe this is the case?

Well, no. I look at this from the society's point of view. If the net value created by your action to the society (let's assume, a greener car with better mileage, business/revenue/labor created by the transaction etc.) doesn't outweigh the net value that would be created by giving the money to the homeless person (let's assume reduced crime rate, lower health care cost, increased "happiness", generated productivity etc.), you have harmed the society. Almost no choices in life are black and white, and I don't by any means even suggest that all choices should be made from the society's perspective, but the "system" should encourage this, and penalize choices drastically negative to the society.

We as humans like thinking individualistically, but a choice that is net positive for an individual can be drastically negative for the society, while choices net positive for the society almost always are also positive for the individual.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

Done with this thread, see ya guys

[Lyric]

Since this is moving nowhere, let's try another angle.

ISF, your basic argument and philosophy is that the only thing the system should strive for is creating value for its individuals, and any values or morals upheld by its individuals will automatically ensue. The well-being or direction of progress of the society as a whole, or of any nonfunctional individuals (those that choose against their own values) are either non-consequential or acceptable losses.

The functioning of the system rests on 2 basic assumptions:

1) the system is non-zero-sum, that is, the gain of one is not automatically the loss of another
2) the value generated by the system for each of its individuals accurately represents the value they provide for it

Before I say anything else, please correct any mistakes, omissions or misrepresentations I made.

I only have one question: what is the goal of this system?

If two men are on an island and one makes 10 wheels of cheese and the other makes 10 gallons of wine. They trade 5 wheels for 5 gallons so that each has wine and cheese. Who lost? How is the exchange making anyone worse off?

If you go into a forest and build a house from the trees, mud, and rocks and then you have created wealth and no one has lost any wealth. If one man builds a home and another trades 1,000 gallons of wine for the home, who lost?

A man's wealth is directly related to what he brings into the world. If he builds a home from trees he has created a home that did not exist before, and if he trades that home for cheese and wine (that didn't exist until the men that made them brought them into the world), he now has cheese and wine that is directly proportional to the value (wealth) that he brought into the world when he made his house.

Point one is the number one reason that people cannot understand economics -- they continue to think that the only way to be rich is at the expense of another person. The reality is that valued things can be created from raw materials, which brings more and more valued things into the world through work and intelligent organization of materials that end as a more valued product.

A car is worth much more than the metal is was built from, and a home is worth much more than its raw materials as well. In this way new wealth is created and no one on earth is hurt when one man become wealthy -- it is the opposite. When a man makes cheese and trades it for wine, both of them are better off (richer) because they have both products and neither of them has harmed the other and both have been creating food and wine for selfish reasons. Organized cooperation to divide labor and specialization is not needed to create a healthy and wealthy society.

[Lyric]

Because a man with out the benefits of societies collected knowledge cannot be wealthy nor poor. He cannot preserve the extra fish he catches, he has no knowledge of building a shelter, and certainly does not know how to domesticate animals, much less make cheese. Possibly over a long stretch of time if he is lucky enough to not twist an ankle, which would mean death, he can learn some skills to make his life a bit easier.

But even if I concede that he can be "wealthier" on his own without the gift of societies knowledge, it is to such a small degree that it does not matter. To illustrate this, if we had a second island in which we put another man that was "lazy" and they both lived into their 60's, their lives would be hardly distinguishable, if at all.

Now when we drop in another person, the fisherman can now catch two fish without much more effort than it took him to catch the one. Both men do not need to fish, so the second can afford to become proficient at something else. On a lucky day the fisherman has caught one fish and on the second spear throw two fish line up and he spears both. Now the second man with his free time can use the extra fish to develop a method of preservation(this takes a bit of a leap, but if you take issue with it I'm sure I can tighten it up.) Now that extra fish can be stored, the fisherman can catch three fish in a day, and every third day both men can have free time to become proficient at other tasks.

As we add islanders, eventually we have enough people specialized in building shelters, collecting food, etc, that we will start to see people specialized in healing. Now when our islanders have an unfortunate accident and twist their ankle, through the benefits of society, there is someone to help them heal and avoid death. There is also plenty of smoked herring to sustain the unfortunate while they are unable to work. Society has created a value, and therefore the islanders are in debt to it. For society to continue to create value, they will need to continue to pay down their debts.

I still think that my analogy is broken, but that could probably be mostly fixed by replacing fish with fruit foraging-- even so I think we are creating a world that can never be analogous to our world as a whole. When we create these worlds to support our points they are for that purpose alone. I actually think that the island was my idea, and the point was to illustrate that a man alone is neither poor nor wealthy. And I think when he don't gift the man with libraries of knowledge this is as true as it is true that pi is equal to 3.14159265. The island was never intended to tackle the issue of healthcare, a progressive or regressive tax system, etc. That's not to say that it can't, but that if we want it to, we need to be very careful to make sure we don't cheat ourselves out of the truth with a broken analogy.

If one man can specialize in fishing and catch enough fish for the two men so that the other can specialize in something else, there is nothing to stop one man on the island from catching enough fish in one day to feed him for two days, and specializing in something else on the second day when he eats the second fish. In both cases we have one man catching enough fish for two men.

Society is certainly not required to build wealth. All that is required is work, intelligence, and raw materials. Many people trading with each other and sharing inventions will exponentially raise the quality of life, but is not required. More people will reduce the chance that injury will kill anyone but is not required. One man alone is more likely to die than two men living together.

A lazy man on one island and a working man on another would live very different lives even if they had no knowledge of anything. As long as the island has enough food the working man can easily create a better quality of life.

[Lyric]

But even if I concede that he can be "wealthier" on his own without the gift of societies knowledge, it is to such a small degree that it does not matter. To illustrate this, if we had a second island in which we put another man that was "lazy" and they both lived into their 60's, their lives would be hardly distinguishable, if at all.

Imagine a man who lives on a Hawaiian island. Food is abundant and he spends his free time experimenting. Active volcanos give him fire. He finds that fired foods taste better and are easier to eat.

Eventually he tries to flavor his milk with lemon juice and finds that it curdles into strange little bits that taste pretty good and get more and more flavor as the days go by. He makes more curdled bits and packs them together into bricks of cheese. He finds they last even longer if he coats them in mud or leaves and stores them under the ground or in a cave. Later he experiments with bee wax and that works even better to coat the cheese for storage. He finds that each brick develops a new flavor depending on its storage location on the island.

He finds that a pot of grain that has been left in the rain for a few days turns to beer. He builds multiple buildings over time and realizes that homes are like trees, they need deep foundations. He finds that fallen trees have roots as deep as the try is tall, and he builds a hut with a deep foundation.

He finds that bits of clay left in a fire harden to something usable for brick building materials. He begins constructing brick encased fireplaces inside his hut.

He finds that fat dripping from an animal onto the alkaline ashes of a fire create soap. He begins collecting the soapy fat drippings from his cooking fires and packing them into soap bricks (soap can actually be made this way).

He explores plant life and finds that many of the plants on the island smell and taste very unique, and adds them to his meals to make them taste better. He picks and stores all of the spices he can find, and they dry and last for many years.

He finds that ocean water left in a bowl for too long evaporates and leaves a very tasty white residue. He begins allowing large amounts of ocean water to evaporate and he stores the salt in his hut.

He finds that leftover meat that he has salted and cooked over a smokey fire stays edible for a long time. Longer if it is left in the sun accidentally.

He finds honey and loves it enough to harvest it and store it in fired clay pots (honey is edible forever). Tribes in the amazon currently use honey as money.

He explores his island and finds natural hot springs heated by the volcano. He picks a good one and builds a larger hut near the hot tub. Already we can see how his life can almost accidentally become better and better through work and experimentation and luck.

The lazy man on the other island lives on the beach and eats and sleeps and has no hut, no hot tub, no salt, no spices, no medicines, no preservation techniques, no honey... nothing.

[CoccoBill]

If two men are on an island and one makes 10 wheels of cheese and the other makes 10 gallons of wine. They trade 5 wheels for 5 gallons so that each has wine and cheese. Who lost? How is the exchange making anyone worse off?

If you go into a forest and build a house from the trees, mud, and rocks and then you have created wealth and no one has lost any wealth. If one man builds a home and another trades 1,000 gallons of wine for the home, who lost?

A man's wealth is directly related to what he brings into the world. If he builds a home from trees he has created a home that did not exist before, and if he trades that home for cheese and wine (that didn't exist until the men that made them brought them into the world), he now has cheese and wine that is directly proportional to the value (wealth) that he brought into the world when he made his house.

Point one is the number one reason that people cannot understand economics -- they continue to think that the only way to be rich is at the expense of another person. The reality is that valued things can be created from raw materials, which brings more and more valued things into the world through work and intelligent organization of materials that end as a more valued product.

A car is worth much more than the metal is was built from, and a home is worth much more than its raw materials as well. In this way new wealth is created and no one on earth is hurt when one man become wealthy -- it is the opposite. When a man makes cheese and trades it for wine, both of them are better off (richer) because they have both products and neither of them has harmed the other and both have been creating food and wine for selfish reasons. Organized cooperation to divide labor and specialization is not needed to create a healthy and wealthy society.

Is there an endless supply of cheese, wine, trees, mud and rocks? If you create something out of them, there's less of them for other people to create wealth with, right? Cheese, wine, trees, mud and rocks are not worthless, they are resources and goods, neither of which are infinite.

And when the man die's and his son inherits the house, what value did the son generate the earn the house? Or do you think the son is just some continuum of the man, essentially the same person?

Creating products from raw resources raises their value, but its not a net positive, resources are used to create them, resources that are away from the others.

[CoccoBill]

Imagine a man who lives on a Hawaiian island. Food is abundant and he spends his free time experimenting. Active volcanos give him fire. He finds that fired foods taste better and are easier to eat.

Eventually he tries to flavor his milk with lemon juice and finds that it curdles into strange little bits that taste pretty good and get more and more flavor as the days go by. He makes more curdled bits and packs them together into bricks of cheese. He finds they last even longer if he coats them in mud or leaves and stores them under the ground or in a cave. Later he experiments with bee wax and that works even better to coat the cheese for storage. He finds that each brick develops a new flavor depending on its storage location on the island.

He finds that a pot of grain that has been left in the rain for a few days turns to beer. He builds multiple buildings over time and realizes that homes are like trees, they need deep foundations. He finds that fallen trees have roots as deep as the try is tall, and he builds a hut with a deep foundation.

He finds that bits of clay left in a fire harden to something usable for brick building materials. He begins constructing brick encased fireplaces inside his hut.

He finds that fat dripping from an animal onto the alkaline ashes of a fire create soap. He begins collecting the soapy fat drippings from his cooking fires and packing them into soap bricks (soap can actually be made this way).

He explores plant life and finds that many of the plants on the island smell and taste very unique, and adds them to his meals to make them taste better. He picks and stores all of the spices he can find, and they dry and last for many years.

He finds that ocean water left in a bowl for too long evaporates and leaves a very tasty white residue. He begins allowing large amounts of ocean water to evaporate and he stores the salt in his hut.

He finds that leftover meat that he has salted and cooked over a smokey fire stays edible for a long time. Longer if it is left in the sun accidentally.

He finds honey and loves it enough to harvest it and store it in fired clay pots (honey is edible forever). Tribes in the amazon currently use honey as money.

He explores his island and finds natural hot springs heated by the volcano. He picks a good one and builds a larger hut near the hot tub. Already we can see how his life can almost accidentally become better and better through work and experimentation and luck.

The lazy man on the other island lives on the beach and eats and sleeps and has no hut, no hot tub, no salt, no spices, no medicines, no preservation techniques, no honey... nothing.

Why do you think a workaholic McGyver is happier than the lazy guy just chillin' and enjoying the scenery?

[BennyLaRue]

Why do you think a workaholic McGyver is happier than the lazy guy just chillin' and enjoying the scenery?

Lazy guy died. He ain't happy.

[CoccoBill]

Lazy guy died. He ain't happy.

How do u know? He might have led a much happier life.

[Lyric]

Why do you think a workaholic McGyver is happier than the lazy guy just chillin' and enjoying the scenery?

Not necessarily, but he is certainly wealthier.

[Lyric]

Is there an endless supply of cheese, wine, trees, mud and rocks? If you create something out of them, there's less of them for other people to create wealth with, right? Cheese, wine, trees, mud and rocks are not worthless, they are resources and goods, neither of which are infinite.

And when the man die's and his son inherits the house, what value did the son generate the earn the house? Or do you think the son is just some continuum of the man, essentially the same person?

Creating products from raw resources raises their value, but its not a net positive, resources are used to create them, resources that are away from the others.

There is an endless amount of trees, wine, and cheese. All of them come from the sun and the world will literally never run out of them. Cows eat grass which is made of sun and air and less than 1% earth. After the cheese is eaten the minerals return to the earth. Wine grapes are made of sun and air as well. Trees are the same. Farming them doesn't hurt anyone and only takes from the sun which is effectively infinite.

Are you ready to admit that society is not needed to generate wealth and that one working man on an island can become wealthier over time even without societies historical knowledge?

[CoccoBill]

Not necessarily, but he is certainly wealthier.

I thought "wealth" included more than just money and material goods, including anything the individual values and wants in life, otherwise your capitalism breaks down right away, or at least the one ISF is proposing. Or are you perhaps saying that material wealth is the only value that matters and worth striving for, money=happiness?

There is an endless amount of trees, wine, and cheese. All of them come from the sun and the world will literally never run out of them. Cows eat grass which is made of sun and air and less than 1% earth. After the cheese is eaten the minerals return to the earth. Wine grapes are made of sun and air as well. Trees are the same. Farming them doesn't hurt anyone and only takes from the sun which is effectively infinite.

That's just completely wrong. Arable land isn't unlimited and neither is water. There's a very finite amount of air and minerals, and even though not directly related to the issue in any practical way, the sun will also run out eventually. If you cut down a tree, a new one doesn't just magically pop up, it takes time, energy and resources to create a new one. If you use a piece of land to farm a crop, you're using all of these resources, which aren't then available to anyone else to use. It isn't "harming" the others in the sense that I think you're trying to insinuate, but it is away from the options available to others. Using some of them will have a larger and some smaller impact on the availability, but none of these resources are infinite.

Are you ready to admit that society is not needed to generate wealth and that one working man on an island can become wealthier over time even without societies historical knowledge?

Of course I am, where have I said anything like that? Please stop using strawmen. We are not discussing whether free markets can exist or function at some basic level, we're discussing whether the system is optimal or even working towards the goals beneficial for all of its participants. Without societies historical knowledge we wouldn't be discussing this in the first place, unless your McGyver came up with electronics, telecommunications, computers and a whole bunch of other shit necessary to achieve this all by himself. I really fail to see what your point is.

[Lyric]

Wealth is only exchange capable stuff. Happiness etc is not wealth unless it can be traded.

The sun will engulf the earth before it burns out. We talked about that earlier in the thread. Many in this thread claimed that wealth generation was impossible without society. Perhaps you missed those claims?

If two men are on an island and they split the land in half, each is responsible for his own half and they agree that each will "own" and develop half the island. If one man cuts all his trees and does not replant them he would be lowering his land value. If the other man sustainable harvests his trees slowly and replants them there is no permanent loss to his half of the island. He can farm and harvest trees until the sun absorbs the earth. His side of the island will become wealthier until he dies.

Farming takes rain and sun and his labor. His labor I directly related to his wealth because he is the only one working on his land on his side. Even if he lives for a million years he would never run out of anything, ever.

[!Luck]

Would we all agree that every man is born with a unique set of abilities? And some are stronger, some are smarter, some are both stronger and smarter?

If the proceeding is true then humans as far as abilities go are unequal. However, as human beings that live in a society we (we defined as modern western society) decided that we all should have equal rights*.


Rights, for sake of simplicity, is defined as life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (the definition of rights could/should be its own thread).

So now we have millions of people with varying skills that are put into an economic system that value certain abilities over others. Over time those with the "right" type of abilities can stack the deck against all other people in society (lobbyist, favorable tax code, access to education, ect). This is inherently what big portion of the thread is about.

What is odd to me is that so many here are trying to force an equal opportunity onto a system that by design, cannot be equal, since we have different abilities. And isn't equal in this regard just average? ISF is arguing against this equalizing of the playing field cause it retards society's growth, which it appears to me is very important to him. (Correct if I am wrong)

I, for example, hate how back when I was in high school the teacher taught to the middle (or even slightly below middle) this bored the "smarter/better prepared" kids and was still too fast for the "dumb/unprepared" kids. I think we would all love to live in a society, where each person can get specialized attention to learn at their "best" pace, but as matter of practicality that just not feasible.

Thus, as soon as we make practical not theoretical considerations, some people, despite our deep deep desire to treat everyone as equals, become less equal. They are still 100% humans and still deserve the same type of liberty and freedom, but they don't get it. The kid born to the drug addicted mother may never learn to read and without access to good education the likelihood of him having real liberty, is sadly unlikely. So what am I rambling about?

With all this talk of theoretical islands and other utopia ideals, we miss the point that, we want everyone to be equal, but we are not in practice (but in theory we are). We shouldn't create second class citizen, but we do. Is it as bad as in the Medieval ages? Hell no. Did we, as society, make progress yes. We can debate if the progress of individual rights has slowed down or reversed trends in recent history (20 years). Even the drug addicted mother's child mortality rate is probably lower than the average person in 1000 AD.

My point is that we are better of addressing a single issue in a single thread. This is hard since we live in such interconnected world, but arguing, what is effectively semantics of the word wealth, while trying to establish if the FDA is a net positive, is too cumbersome.

Lastly, we are all trying to test out own beliefs by publishing them in this forum, but we are also trying to figure out what is best. Because if we don't even know what is best in theory how can we influence society for the greater good. I think that is why are so interested in these types of threads , we all think that our ideas WOULD REALLY make a better world.

Are we all equal?
Does the good of the many outweigh the good of the few?
Do we want to live in society that achieves the highest growth or one that is more equal and are those ideas opposites?

This is all I have for now.





!luck

[CoccoBill]

Wealth is only exchange capable stuff. Happiness etc is not wealth unless it can be traded.

So you're essentially endorsing a system that's completely free-for-all, with no checks and balances, no regulation and no safety nets. I can't think of a more efficient system to fuck over 95% of the planets population.

The sun will engulf the earth before it burns out. We talked about that earlier in the thread.

Yes, so are the sun and the resources on earth infinite, yes or no? The funny thing is that while they probably are from your perspective, they aren't from mankind's perspective, but you're making it pretty obvious that the latter is of no interest to your system.

Many in this thread claimed that wealth generation was impossible without society. Perhaps you missed those claims?

I don't feel I'm in any way responsible for other people's claims.

If two men are on an island and they split the land in half, each is responsible for his own half and they agree that each will "own" and develop half the island. If one man cuts all his trees and does not replant them he would be lowering his land value. If the other man sustainable harvests his trees slowly and replants them there is no permanent loss to his half of the island. He can farm and harvest trees until the sun absorbs the earth. His side of the island will become wealthier until he dies.

Farming takes rain and sun and his labor. His labor I directly related to his wealth because he is the only one working on his land on his side. Even if he lives for a million years he would never run out of anything, ever.

What if there are 10 billion people on this small island, with no room for everybody to farm a crop. The fastest, fittest and the most ruthless claim their spots first, and are the only ones able to farm. Is this away from the resources of the other people or not? And as you yourself state, _IF_ the other man harvests sustainably. What if he doesn't? What's forcing him to? What if he not only screws up his own land, and after that moves to the land of the other guy because he's bigger and stronger and ruins that too? I guess based on your ideology he's free to do that because he can, long live freedom?

Is this the optimal solution for the well-being and prosperity of mankind, does anything besides this one guy's material wealth matter? It's pretty clear that you identify with the hardworking guy and can see no reason other than laziness and stupidity why the other 9.99999999 billion people wouldn't do the same. I was earlier wondering about your statement that 90% of people are generous, but I get it now.

[CoccoBill]

!Luck, I agree with everything you say.

[IowaSkinsFan]

So you're essentially endorsing a system that's completely free-for-all, with no checks and balances, no regulation and no safety nets. I can't think of a more efficient system to fuck over 95% of the planets population.

I feel like we're going in circles, but I still have not seen an explanation for why this system would fuck over 95% of the planets population.

[CoccoBill]

I feel like we're going in circles, but I still have not seen an explanation for why this system would fuck over 95% of the planets population.

Because there is nothing in your system to ensure this doesn't happen. I feel that I have shown that neither of your basic assumptions are necessarily true, and without them your system cannot work the way you're suggesting. I think the burden of proof that it does work is on you.

You have not proven that the system isn't zero sum.
You haven't provided proof on why the system automatically distributes wealth fairly in every situation.
You have not explained how inherited wealth is earned and adds value to the system.
You have not explained how the system ensures no one is able to manipulate it to gain an unfair advantage.
You mentioned you still endorse some role for the government and some social safety nets, can you provide the criteria that makes them justified?

If we look at empirical evidence from the US, which arguably is the closest thing to a free market on the planet, we can see that financial inequality is the largest in the 1st world and 40 million people live under the poverty line.

In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth and the top 1% owned 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth.

According to this 2006 study by the Federal Reserve System, from 1989 to 2004, the distribution in the United States had been changing with indications there was a greater concentration of wealth held by the top 10% and top 1% of the population.

All studies I've seen of privatizing functions such as health care suggest that the net benefits are non-existent or even negative. Please explain how removing all regulation wouldn't make the wealth concentration for the top, and the number living under the poverty line even greater. Or are you just using circular logic saying this must be fair because it is so?

[Lyric]

What is odd to me is that so many here are trying to force an equal opportunity onto a system that by design, cannot be equal, since we have different abilities. And isn't equal in this regard just average? ISF is arguing against this equalizing of the playing field cause it retards society's growth, which it appears to me is very important to him. (Correct if I am wrong)

!luck

Equal opportunity (playing field) is what we want NOT equal results.

[Lyric]

So you're essentially endorsing a system that's completely free-for-all, with no checks and balances, no regulation and no safety nets. I can't think of a more efficient system to fuck over 95% of the planets population.

There is regulation against hurting anyone else in any way.



Yes, so are the sun and the resources on earth infinite, yes or no? The funny thing is that while they probably are from your perspective, they aren't from mankind's perspective, but you're making it pretty obvious that the latter is of no interest to your system.

Sun is effectively infinite, resources are not.

I don't feel I'm in any way responsible for other people's claims.

You should read the entire thread before repeating things we've talked about before.

What if there are 10 billion people on this small island, with no room for everybody to farm a crop. The fastest, fittest and the most ruthless claim their spots first, and are the only ones able to farm. Is this away from the resources of the other people or not? And as you yourself state, _IF_ the other man harvests sustainably. What if he doesn't? What's forcing him to? What if he not only screws up his own land, and after that moves to the land of the other guy because he's bigger and stronger and ruins that too? I guess based on your ideology he's free to do that because he can, long live freedom?

They can't hurt anyone because the only laws are against hurting stealing and taking etc.

Is this the optimal solution for the well-being and prosperity of mankind, does anything besides this one guy's material wealth matter? It's pretty clear that you identify with the hardworking guy and can see no reason other than laziness and stupidity why the other 9.99999999 billion people wouldn't do the same. I was earlier wondering about your statement that 90% of people are generous, but I get it now.

Our first discussion regards wealth only. We can talk about happiness next, but let's agree on the best way to organize wealth generation and ownership first.

[CoccoBill]

I have no clue what you're talking about so for brevity I'll include the whole convo:

Are you ready to admit that society is not needed to generate wealth and that one working man on an island can become wealthier over time even without societies historical knowledge?

Of course I am, where have I said anything like that? Please stop using strawmen. We are not discussing whether free markets can exist or function at some basic level, we're discussing whether the system is optimal or even working towards the goals beneficial for all of its participants. Without societies historical knowledge we wouldn't be discussing this in the first place, unless your McGyver came up with electronics, telecommunications, computers and a whole bunch of other shit necessary to achieve this all by himself. I really fail to see what your point is.

Many in this thread claimed that wealth generation was impossible without society. Perhaps you missed those claims?

I don't feel I'm in any way responsible for other people's claims.

You should read the entire thread before repeating things we've talked about before.

Now, what is it exactly that you're talking about and what should I be reading?

Our first discussion regards wealth only. We can talk about happiness next, but let's agree on the best way to organize wealth generation and ownership first.

This discussion has included happiness and all other morals and values upheld by people since the beginning. It sounds like we agree that the system you are describing does not and cannot in any way maximize collective "wealth" in the broader sense of the term, nor does it even aim at that. That has been my point from the beginning, so thank you for agreeing.

[!Luck]

Equal opportunity (playing field) is what we want NOT equal results.

My point is that what you want is impossible in the current system.

[Lyric]

Bill, you claimed that he needs "society's hostorical knowledge" to become wealthy and or create new technologies. Later you admited that one man alone can generate wealth. This is not logical.

You claim that wealth is zero sum, but one man can create wealth alone without taking from anyone else or hurting anyone else. If one man collects salt from the ocean he has created wealth for himself. If he eats it and pees in the sea the wealth has been destroyed and returned to its source; same as any other form of wealth.

[IowaSkinsFan]

This discussion has included happiness and all other morals and values upheld by people since the beginning. It sounds like we agree that the system you are describing does not and cannot in any way maximize collective "wealth" in the broader sense of the term, nor does it even aim at that. That has been my point from the beginning, so thank you for agreeing.

Do you have any logic that backs this up or is it just something you believe?

I doubt that Lyric agrees that the system he is describing does not maximize wealth in even the broadest sense of the term, but I suppose I can't speak for him. I believe that a free market would maximize wealth in even the most broad, reasonable sense of the term. Even in your definition, whatever that may be.

[IowaSkinsFan]

And by "this" I mean the idea that a free market system does not maximize collective wealth.

[Lyric]

My point is that what you want is impossible in the current system.

I agree that some are born smarter or richer etc. Look as this like an island with random men on it. Some are smarter and faster and harder working. Will the island have more or less salt harvested from the sea if the lucky, skilled and smart guys are forced to give some to the lazy and unlucky and stupid islanders?

If we leave them all alone more salt is collected for the entire island when everyone owns what they harvest. We can't avoid having some men being born as better salt collectors, but stepping in their way for any reason lowers the total amount of salt on the island.

Lowering the total amount of salt on the island raises its price because it is less available and a higher price means the worst collectors have to give up more fish to get salt from anyone. We can see this is true if we imagine salt is so hard to get that only the smartest guys can get any from the sea. When the smart guys have only a little salt they won't trade any of it for fish, but if they collect a ton of it over time they are willing to trade it for fish and if they collect enough salt they will be willing to virtually give it away for tiny amounts of fish, makin it cheaper and easier for the dumbest guys on the island to have salt.

[Lyric]

I agree that some are born smarter or richer etc. Look as this like an island with random men on it. Some are smarter and faster and harder working. Will the island have more or less salt harvested from the sea if the lucky, skilled and smart guys are forced to give some to the lazy and unlucky and stupid islanders?

If we leave them all alone more salt is collected for the entire island when everyone owns what they harvest. We can't avoid having some men being born as better salt collectors, but stepping in their way for any reason lowers the total amount of salt on the island.

Lowering the total amount of salt on the island raises its price because it is less available and a higher price means the worst collectors have to give up more fish to get salt from anyone. We can see this is true if we imagine salt is so hard to get that only the smartest guys can get any from the sea. When the smart guys have only a little salt they won't trade any of it for fish, but if they collect a ton of it over time they are willing to trade it for fish and if they collect enough salt they will be willing to virtually give it away for tiny amounts of fish, makin it cheaper and easier for the dumbest guys on the island to have salt.

From this example we can see that a free system maximizes the amount of salt (wealth) that the dumbest, laziest and crippled members of society own.

[!Luck]

Lyric,

There in the lies the problem I believe the world is a better place when we MAX(EV Society) rather than MAX (EV of the society least fortunate).

!luck

[CoccoBill]

Bill, you claimed that he needs "society's hostorical knowledge" to become wealthy and or create new technologies. Later you admited that one man alone can generate wealth. This is not logical.

Could you please point where exactly I have said that.

You claim that wealth is zero sum, but one man can create wealth alone without taking from anyone else or hurting anyone else. If one man collects salt from the ocean he has created wealth for himself. If he eats it and pees in the sea the wealth has been destroyed and returned to its source; same as any other form of wealth.

If he uses the resources, those resources are away from him to use in the future, are they not? If you eat a gram of salt, you won't pee out a gram of salt.

[CoccoBill]

Do you have any logic that backs this up or is it just something you believe?

I doubt that Lyric agrees that the system he is describing does not maximize wealth in even the broadest sense of the term, but I suppose I can't speak for him. I believe that a free market would maximize wealth in even the most broad, reasonable sense of the term. Even in your definition, whatever that may be.

Lyric just said that he so far has not included happiness or other values, just wealth generation and ownership. I don't see how a population where some can't afford even basic necessities or healthcare performs better than a population where all do. Just maximizing the global "monetary" wealth does not guarantee global "happiness" wealth due to wealth condensation, preferential attachment, greater political power of the rich and so on. It's almost as if I hadn't said these already.

[Lyric]

Lyric,

There in the lies the problem I believe the world is a better place when we MAX(EV Society) rather than MAX (EV of the society least fortunate).

!luck

In the simple salt example we can see that allowing everyone to keep what they harvest creates MAX (EV Society) AND MAX(EV of the society's least fortunate).

The entire island has more salt, and the dumbest and least skilled people all have more salt than they would in a controlled system. Please read it again and ask for clarification if you don't see why.

[Lyric]

Lyric just said that he so far has not included happiness or other values, just wealth generation and ownership. I don't see how a population where some can't afford even basic necessities or healthcare performs better than a population where all do. Just maximizing the global "monetary" wealth does not guarantee global "happiness" wealth due to wealth condensation, preferential attachment, greater political power of the rich and so on. It's almost as if I hadn't said these already.

Bill,

I personally believe that wealth increases quality of life and happiness, but it isn't relevant. I don't think there is anything government can do to guarantee happiness for the people or even raise the general happiness of the population. What do you think that the government can possibly do that wealth cannot do?

The salt example shows how a completely free system where the people who are born smarter are allowed to keep everything is better for the island as a whole and for disabled members of society at the same time. Health care is exactly analogous to salt. It is something that takes time and intelligence to create, just like salt.

[CoccoBill]

I personally believe that wealth increases quality of life and happiness, but it isn't relevant. I don't think there is anything government can do to guarantee happiness for the people or even raise the general happiness of the population. What do you think that the government can possibly do that wealth cannot do?

If you think that money equals happiness, there's no point continuing this discussion, our base values are fundamentally different. The role of the government should be to aim at well-being, prosperity and happiness of all of its individuals, that doesn't necessarily mean it can do actions that directly increase happiness, but it can prohibit or discourage actions that generate unhappiness. You seem to think that if person A has 1000 "units", person B 50 and person C 0, they are happier overall than if they all had 300 each. That is, that the incredible wealth the top couple per cent amass somehow counterweights the suffering of the others. And before you say it again, no, I don't think each being completely equal is optimal nor desirable, but neither are the 100- and 1000-fold typical differences with even just the working class and senior management, not to mention the truly rich and truly poor.

The salt example shows how a completely free system where the people who are born smarter are allowed to keep everything is better for the island as a whole and for disabled members of society at the same time. Health care is exactly analogous to salt. It is something that takes time and intelligence to create, just like salt.

What happens to the people who are not able to make or afford fishing equipment?

What stops the king of the salt empire, who is the only one smart enough to gather salt, to extort huge prices for the salt because it's mandatory for food preservation, hire the guy who cannot fish at minimum wage to gather his salt for him and rest on his laurels the rest of his days watching his wealth grow without providing anything more to the others? I suppose the price of salt still represents its real value to the others, since everyone has the choice of not eating.

What stops the creation of an oligarchy, meritocracy or plutocracy?

What happens after the king of the salt empire dies and his son inherits all of it?

What do you think are the basic human rights?

[IowaSkinsFan]

If you think that money equals happiness, there's no point continuing this discussion, our base values are fundamentally different. The role of the government should be to aim at well-being, prosperity and happiness of all of its individuals, that doesn't necessarily mean it can do actions that directly increase happiness, but it can prohibit or discourage actions that generate unhappiness. You seem to think that if person A has 1000 "units", person B 50 and person C 0, they are happier overall than if they all had 300 each. That is, that the incredible wealth the top couple per cent amass somehow counterweights the suffering of the others. And before you say it again, no, I don't think each being completely equal is optimal nor desirable, but neither are the 100- and 1000-fold typical differences with even just the working class and senior management, not to mention the truly rich and truly poor.

You are making the assumption that a free market will end up as a huge disparity in wealth from rich to poor, with poor people inevitably having nearly nothing. I don't see any evidence supporting this claim. I see evidence that the end game of a mixed economy with government intervention is that this is the case. But for some reason people want to blame this on the free market, just because the free market doesn't give these poor people resources. In a free market, 50 units is going to be worth considerably more than in a mixed economy. Why? Because a free market maximizes productivity, growth, and efficiency. The end game of this is that everything becomes much cheaper in the present and much more greatly so in future, causing $50 to be able to help someone eat and live much better than it did years ago.And don't even respond with Ad Hominem attacks like "Well what about the trees!?", If something or some actions harms another human being, I believe there should be laws protecting them from harm.


What happens to the people who are not able to make or afford fishing equipment?

They don't get it, nor would they in your economy. And in both they will be given fish, in yours this will be guaranteed, in ours this will come through charitable donations and family, but may not be guaranteed.

I think you completely underestimate however how easy it is for poor people to get something to eat. Some pan handlers have been documented to make six figures a year, not that this is the case with all. If you want to argue about housing, I'd argue we are much better off in a free market because it will help the most create the most affordable housing.

What stops the king of the salt empire, who is the only one smart enough to gather salt, to extort huge prices for the salt because it's mandatory for food preservation, hire the guy who cannot fish at minimum wage to gather his salt for him and rest on his laurels the rest of his days watching his wealth grow without providing anything more to the others? I suppose the price of salt still represents its real value to the others, since everyone has the choice of not eating.

Here's a flaw in your argument, your assuming that an evil person can force people to take a job under him. This isn't the case. The entire world could decide to not accept any money from Sam Walton and Sam Walton would no longer be rich. And people have a choice of whether or not to eat salt. If you're arguing that no one would be smart enough but one guy to gather food, you're using an impossible hypothetical, because humans wouldn't exist without that skill. So lets look at it another way: Lets say one person has discovered how to cook, and everyone else isn't able to. If the person chooses not to teach them, no one is any better or worse off. But if he decides to trade with them, for whatever price they wish to voluntarily exchange, whether it be bundles of wheat or whatever, everyone is better off. They could even observe their comrade cook and learn it without his help.

What stops the creation of an oligarchy, meritocracy or plutocracy?

It's my understanding that government power creates these things.

What happens after the king of the salt empire dies and his son inherits all of it?

You tell me? No problems here in my eyes.

What do you think are the basic human rights?

Lyric can probably answer the last question better than me, I'm going to miss something.

[WillburForce]

Why do you think business laws that restrict the free market are in place?

Perhaps in a Eutopian society your free market might exist - but I would guess that if the Eutopia existed it wouldn't have much need of any markets.

[!Luck]

Lyric,

First you comment that you want equal opportunity not equal results.

Then you proceed to provide an example of the island, which honestly, I don't see how it really is equal opportunity. Just so you know I think the statement of equal opportunity in an open market is just an illogical statement. Flawed by definition. This is what I was getting at my orginal post that in an open market people would create situations where some have more opportunity than others.

You know why many(everyone) gets on you for your island examples? Because they do not capture enough complexity of the world economy. It sort of like me saying that the sun rotates around the earth, I know this because I can observe that it comes up from the same place everyday, I don't feel movement therefore, sun rotates around earth.

Some concepts that HAVE to be included in your island example are Extenalities, cost/benefit not associated with price. Like, what if those salt gathers have huge boats and they end up killing billions of fish in the process of their salt collection?


I think you are trying to create a society without government. is this true?

As side question.... Do you believe that an individual person's life is priceless? I don't. I won't write anything until you answer that question, since it is a bit fundamental.

!luck

[CoccoBill]

You are making the assumption that a free market will end up as a huge disparity in wealth from rich to poor, with poor people inevitably having nearly nothing. I don't see any evidence supporting this claim. I see evidence that the end game of a mixed economy with government intervention is that this is the case. But for some reason people want to blame this on the free market, just because the free market doesn't give these poor people resources.

There are several mechanisms which can cause the rich to get richer and the poor poorer:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikiped...wiki/Oligarchy
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ki/Meritocracy
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikiped...iki/Plutocracy

All of these are positive feedback towards wealth condensation. Could you give some examples of government regulation that cause wealth condensation?

In a free market, 50 units is going to be worth considerably more than in a mixed economy. Why? Because a free market maximizes productivity, growth, and efficiency. The end game of this is that everything becomes much cheaper in the present and much more greatly so in future, causing $50 to be able to help someone eat and live much better than it did years ago.

With diminishing resources and energy sources I don't see many things getting cheaper in the future. I also don't see how regulation to protect the individuals would in any way hamper the collective prosperity, although I'm sure it would affect the individual prosperity of those whose business practices are centered around those regulated areas.

And don't even respond with Ad Hominem attacks like "Well what about the trees!?",

How is that an ad hominem? Do we not need trees or should we not care about the environment? The free market has not and is not in any sufficient rate moving towards sustainable energy sources and lowering emissions, in fact it could be argued they're doing their best to silence the scientists and continue reaping profits while they can.

If something or some actions harms another human being, I believe there should be laws protecting them from harm.

I completely agree, I'm just not limiting this to harm by fellow citizens, but to harm indirectly harming us (the environment) and businesses that do that.

They don't get it, nor would they in your economy. And in both they will be given fish, in yours this will be guaranteed, in ours this will come through charitable donations and family, but may not be guaranteed.

Exactly.

"There have been examinations of who gives more to charity. One study conducted in the United States found that as a percentage of income, charitable giving increased as income decreased. The poorest fifth of Americans, for example, gave away 4.3% of their income, while the wealthiest fifth gave away 2.1%. In absolute terms, this was an average of $453 on an average income of $10,531, compared to $3,326 on an income of $158,388."

Nation & World | America's poor are its most generous donors | Seattle Times Newspaper

I think you completely underestimate however how easy it is for poor people to get something to eat. Some pan handlers have been documented to make six figures a year, not that this is the case with all. If you want to argue about housing, I'd argue we are much better off in a free market because it will help the most create the most affordable housing.

Are you saying the subprime mortgage crisis was caused by regulation?

Here's a flaw in your argument, your assuming that an evil person can force people to take a job under him. This isn't the case. The entire world could decide to not accept any money from Sam Walton and Sam Walton would no longer be rich. And people have a choice of whether or not to eat salt. If you're arguing that no one would be smart enough but one guy to gather food, you're using an impossible hypothetical, because humans wouldn't exist without that skill.

You're assuming that people who work for an "evil person" always have a choice. Working to support yourself and your family are not optional, and the job opportunities are not limitless, especially if you were born on the wrong end of the wealth spectrum. Some of these people are able to strike gold with a scholarship or something similar, but that's the exception, not the rule.

So lets look at it another way: Lets say one person has discovered how to cook, and everyone else isn't able to. If the person chooses not to teach them, no one is any better or worse off. But if he decides to trade with them, for whatever price they wish to voluntarily exchange, whether it be bundles of wheat or whatever, everyone is better off. They could even observe their comrade cook and learn it without his help.

How is the society as a whole better off when he sells his knowledge to the highest bidder compared to him teaching everyone for free? If he were altruistic in some form of a "socialist" group, he would have less incentive to try to reap as much out of his invention as he could, as his survival wouldn't depend on it.

What happens after the king of the salt empire dies and his son inherits all of it?

You tell me? No problems here in my eyes.

He automatically creates wealth condensation and has an unequal starting point, doesn't he?

[Lyric]

If you think that money equals happiness, there's no point continuing this discussion, our base values are fundamentally different. The role of the government should be to aim at well-being, prosperity and happiness of all of its individuals, that doesn't necessarily mean it can do actions that directly increase happiness, but it can prohibit or discourage actions that generate unhappiness. You seem to think that if person A has 1000 "units", person B 50 and person C 0, they are happier overall than if they all had 300 each. That is, that the incredible wealth the top couple per cent amass somehow counterweights the suffering of the others. And before you say it again, no, I don't think each being completely equal is optimal nor desirable, but neither are the 100- and 1000-fold typical differences with even just the working class and senior management, not to mention the truly rich and truly poor.

You didn't answer my question; what can government do to create happiness, well-being, and prosperity that wealth in the hands of the people cannot do? I think the more "units" that exist on the island the better, and I've shown with salt how "units" come into being, and shown that any type of redistribution lowers the quality of life for everyone.

I think everyone having 10 units sucks compared to one person having 1,000 and everyone else having 20. In the second case one guy has a ton of salt but everyone else has twice as much as they did before.

What happens to the people who are not able to make or afford fishing equipment?

There is no fishing equipment. Salt is harvested at first by pulling water out and allowing it to dry. Eventually some smart people make bigger bowls and create pumping systems etc, but at first there is no equipment.

What stops the king of the salt empire, who is the only one smart enough to gather salt, to extort huge prices for the salt because it's mandatory for food preservation, hire the guy who cannot fish at minimum wage to gather his salt for him and rest on his laurels the rest of his days watching his wealth grow without providing anything more to the others? I suppose the price of salt still represents its real value to the others, since everyone has the choice of not eating.

There is no such thing as "real" value. Price is created by exchange. If there is only one man on the island capable of pulling salt from the ocean, what do you think is better -- to have an island where he pulls it from the sea and sells it for 100 fish per gram, or an island where he doesn't pull it from the ocean at all?

What stops the creation of an oligarchy, meritocracy or plutocracy?

The government is so limited that these terms are irrelevant. The wealthy cannot control anything -- 99% of power is concentrated in the individuals that make up society, and the wealthy are prohibited from using any type of force to get anything. If they want a new boat they have to pull a ton of salt from the sea and trade it for the labor of boat makers.

If one person pulls a few tons of salt from the sea and wants to sit on his ass for the rest of his life that relates to my earlier question: is it better to have him never pull the salt from the ocean in the first place?


What happens after the king of the salt empire dies and his son inherits all of it?

I'll think about this.

What do you think are the basic human rights?

Basic human rights are agree upon by everyone on the island. God doesn't give us magical innate "rights" that are absolute and everlasting. If two men are on the island they can agree on anything they want, but I personally think we should all agree to avoid hurting each other and agree on a system that benefits us all the most, and I think that system is represented clearly in the salt example.

Anything that takes time and effort to make and has value should be left in the hands of its creator until he sees fit to trade it.

[CoccoBill]

If you think that money equals happiness, there's no point continuing this discussion, our base values are fundamentally different. The role of the government should be to aim at well-being, prosperity and happiness of all of its individuals, that doesn't necessarily mean it can do actions that directly increase happiness, but it can prohibit or discourage actions that generate unhappiness. You seem to think that if person A has 1000 "units", person B 50 and person C 0, they are happier overall than if they all had 300 each. That is, that the incredible wealth the top couple per cent amass somehow counterweights the suffering of the others. And before you say it again, no, I don't think each being completely equal is optimal nor desirable, but neither are the 100- and 1000-fold typical differences with even just the working class and senior management, not to mention the truly rich and truly poor.

You didn't answer my question; what can government do to create happiness, well-being, and prosperity that wealth in the hands of the people cannot do? I think the more "units" that exist on the island the better, and I've shown with salt how "units" come into being, and shown that any type of redistribution lowers the quality of life for everyone.

My answer is above in bold. If the top 5% richest people, who own roughly 90% of the wealth, donated 50% of their wealth to charity, there would be no hunger, preventable diseases or suffering. But they don't do it do they, so I feel it's pointless to posit what the system "can" theoretically do. It's a "free" market, so it doesn't do anything its individuals won't, and if they don't give a toss about their brethren born into poor families, nothing will happen. There is nothing stopping charity now, why would there be any more of it? There are known mechanism that work towards wealth condensation at the top, and studies that show the richest are the stingiest donors, maybe that's why they are the richest in the first place.

I think everyone having 10 units sucks compared to one person having 1,000 and everyone else having 20. In the second case one guy has a ton of salt but everyone else has twice as much as they did before.

I don't think it requires much imagination to figure out that more is more. Could you give some mathematics or theory to back up your claim of 3500% greater profits under a free market economy? I was already being rather generous allowing for a gross 15% raise, which I think is still far too great a number.

There is no fishing equipment. Salt is harvested at first by pulling water out and allowing it to dry. Eventually some smart people make bigger bowls and create pumping systems etc, but at first there is no equipment.

You introduced the fishing as means for the other islanders not smart enough for salt gathering to trade for it.

There is no such thing as "real" value. Price is created by exchange. If there is only one man on the island capable of pulling salt from the ocean, what do you think is better -- to have an island where he pulls it from the sea and sells it for 100 fish per gram, or an island where he doesn't pull it from the ocean at all?

Better perhaps, but is it optimal? I can easily think of far better outcomes for the island, we're not arguing whether a free market economy is better than no economy at all, right?

The government is so limited that these terms are irrelevant. The wealthy cannot control anything -- 99% of power is concentrated in the individuals that make up society, and the wealthy are prohibited from using any type of force to get anything. If they want a new boat they have to pull a ton of salt from the sea and trade it for the labor of boat makers.

One individual wielding the economic power of 1000 units against the 20 of the others, calling that guy king is not an overstatement. We've had governments since we came up with agriculture, and they've always been led by a small ruling elite. The way the wealthy or anyone else is prohibited from taking anything by force is commonly called laws and their enforcers, without those physical strength becomes the factor that determines prices.

Basic human rights are agree upon by everyone on the island. God doesn't give us magical innate "rights" that are absolute and everlasting. If two men are on the island they can agree on anything they want, but I personally think we should all agree to avoid hurting each other and agree on a system that benefits us all the most, and I think that system is represented clearly in the salt example.

Anything that takes time and effort to make and has value should be left in the hands of its creator until he sees fit to trade it.

Personally I would add a whole number of other things on your list, including a right for healthcare and basic education, many of the rest I support can loosely be categorized under harming others. I do not consider maximizing the collective output of the system to be important itself, if means for a baseline standard of living are not guaranteed.

Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on the US constitution and the Bill of Rights, are those unnecessary?

[Lyric]

Why do you think business laws that restrict the free market are in place?

Perhaps in a Eutopian society your free market might exist - but I would guess that if the Eutopia existed it wouldn't have much need of any markets.

You don't seem to understand what a market is. If two men are on an island and one makes cheese and trades it for the wine the other guy made, that is a free market. If a third guy comes over and intervenes in any way regarding the transaction, that is a regulated market.

[Lyric]

Lyric,

First you comment that you want equal opportunity not equal results.

Then you proceed to provide an example of the island, which honestly, I don't see how it really is equal opportunity. Just so you know I think the statement of equal opportunity in an open market is just an illogical statement. Flawed by definition. This is what I was getting at my orginal post that in an open market people would create situations where some have more opportunity than others.

Some on the island are born smarter and that gives them a better opportunity to harvest salt. I agree with this and I see your point. My answer to this is that the best option in this situation is to avoid taking salt from the smart guys because it lowers both the total salt available on the island and the total salt in the hands of the poor and stupid.

Calling it "equal opportunity" is just a way to differentiate from "equal results." I see that it isn't really an accurate description of avoiding restrictions and regulations, but what it means to indicate is that everyone has an equal opportunity to use whatever mind and body they were born with.

You know why many(everyone) gets on you for your island examples? Because they do not capture enough complexity of the world economy. It sort of like me saying that the sun rotates around the earth, I know this because I can observe that it comes up from the same place everyday, I don't feel movement therefore, sun rotates around earth.

Some concepts that HAVE to be included in your island example are Extenalities, cost/benefit not associated with price. Like, what if those salt gathers have huge boats and they end up killing billions of fish in the process of their salt collection?

If they end up killing fish they would be harming other people by destroying the environment. That is illegal in my Utopia. The island can relate to any modern complexity.


I think you are trying to create a society without government. is this true?

No, government is needed when free people make agreements with each other. They "hire" a government to enforce the agreements. In my Utopia government would be hired to keep people from hurting each other, and to protect the island from invasion. I think it creates the most wealth for the island over time and distributes the wealth in the most efficient manner possible, because if anything happens on the island it is without force -- if men trade they do it because they both believe it is a great idea. The only bans would be on theft and murder etc.

As side question.... Do you believe that an individual person's life is priceless? I don't. I won't write anything until you answer that question, since it is a bit fundamental.
!luck

No one really believes human life is infinitely valuable. If they claim to believe this they haven't really thought about it. We have 50,000 people die in cars each year in the US. If we valued life infinitely we would ban cars because they kill people; instead we allow them to kill a small amount of us each year because we value the ability to travel more than human life. If it were infinitely valued we would literally put infinite attention and wealth into keeping humans alive. We could ban leaving your bubble house, we could ban travel, we could do myriad things to make us live longer, but living well is important to us. So important that we smoke and drink and travel and play sports knowing that we are shortening or endangering our lives.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

If you think that money equals happiness, there's no point continuing this discussion, our base values are fundamentally different. The role of the government should be to aim at well-being, prosperity and happiness of all of its individuals, that doesn't necessarily mean it can do actions that directly increase happiness, but it can prohibit or discourage actions that generate unhappiness. You seem to think that if person A has 1000 "units", person B 50 and person C 0, they are happier overall than if they all had 300 each. That is, that the incredible wealth the top couple per cent amass somehow counterweights the suffering of the others. And before you say it again, no, I don't think each being completely equal is optimal nor desirable, but neither are the 100- and 1000-fold typical differences with even just the working class and senior management, not to mention the truly rich and truly poor.

You are making the assumption that a free market will end up as a huge disparity in wealth from rich to poor, with poor people inevitably having nearly nothing. I don't see any evidence supporting this claim. I see evidence that the end game of a mixed economy with government intervention is that this is the case. But for some reason people want to blame this on the free market, just because the free market doesn't give these poor people resources. In a free market, 50 units is going to be worth considerably more than in a mixed economy. Why? Because a free market maximizes productivity, growth, and efficiency. The end game of this is that everything becomes much cheaper in the present and much more greatly so in future, causing $50 to be able to help someone eat and live much better than it did years ago.

Exactly, we don't live in a free market today. So arguing that today we have a huge disparity between rich and poor and that its the free markets fault, makes no sense without logical evidence or citations from experts, neither of which you have yet to provide.

Here's a reason why government intervention could be responsible for this disparity. If someone makes more than 100k, they are taxed about half their income if not more indirectly. This means that there's not really that much incentive to earn $300,000 or $500,000 because his extra work doesnt create much more wealth for himself. Could this be one reason?

If you think that money equals happiness, there's no point continuing this discussion, our base values are fundamentally different.

You are arguing that money = happiness. If you weren't, would you really want to take it from rich people? Would you give a flying fuck if someone had more money than you?

I fail at quitting this thread

[Lyric]

There are several mechanisms which can cause the rich to get richer and the poor poorer:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikiped...wiki/Oligarchy
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ki/Meritocracy
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikiped...iki/Plutocracy

All of these are positive feedback towards wealth condensation. Could you give some examples of government regulation that cause wealth condensation?

Sure, but they are complex. Examples include regulations on medical school licensing (AMA), drug regulations (FDA and DEA) and allowing currency to be created by only one bank (the Fed).

Let's focus on drugs. Government regulations currently ban human ingestion of poppy flower sap, which contains morphine. Poppies are used to manufacture myriad pain killing drugs, including oxycodone. Oxycodone is regulated by the government, with the intention to stop addiction and abuse. This is a noble goal, but creates consolidation of wealth in a few ways.

The first is that the regulation raises the price of effective opiate pain killers. People who legitimately need the drugs are required to pay higher prices to drug companies (consolidating wealth for the owners of drug companies) instead of growing poppy flowers in their back yard, or buying them at a supermarket for 99 cents per pound. Drug companies also enjoy power and wealth consolidation when the FDA requires ten years and ten billion dollars to approve a new drug that I might invent. I don't have the $10 billion, so my only option is to sell the rights for my new drug to a giant drug company so that they can spend the money to have the FDA approve it. Without this regulation the profit generated would go mostly to me and not to Merck.

The second way it consolidates wealth is in the hands of medical doctors, who have a government protected monopoly on selling poppy flower derivative drugs like oxycodone. Without the regulation we would buy oxy in the same way as Tylenol or aspirin, and it would be extremely cheap in the same way.

The third power consolidation is in the hands of poppy growers who create and sell heroine or morphine illegally. Currently Afghanistan and Colombia are centers of government protected wealth. If cocaine and morphine were legal they would be literally as cheap as aspirin; drug cartels would not exist.

These are just three examples of power consolidation regarding drugs. Laws that appear to help society actually end up consolidating power and wealth and also making everything more expensive and dangerous for the poor, who may buy illegal morphine instead of spending $200 to see a doctor who may or may not give him a prescription that he can't afford.

Drug makers get old and introduce their sons to their friends in government, and the cycle is continued via family ties. New wealth becomes friends with law makers and begins lobbying (using money) to create changes in regulations that favor his business. The most capable and intelligent men will become friends with law makers or become lawmakers themselves, controlling the flow of money and keeping it funneling straight to the top -- drug makers, medical doctors, and drug cartels all benefit at the common man's expense. This is only one example, every regulation has a similar story.

With diminishing resources and energy sources I don't see many things getting cheaper in the future. I also don't see how regulation to protect the individuals would in any way hamper the collective prosperity, although I'm sure it would affect the individual prosperity of those whose business practices are centered around those regulated areas.

See above for how regulation harms the common man.

How is that an ad hominem? Do we not need trees or should we not care about the environment? The free market has not and is not in any sufficient rate moving towards sustainable energy sources and lowering emissions, in fact it could be argued they're doing their best to silence the scientists and continue reaping profits while they can.

Pollution is illegal in my Utopia because it harms other people.

I completely agree, I'm just not limiting this to harm by fellow citizens, but to harm indirectly harming us (the environment) and businesses that do that.



Exactly.

"There have been examinations of who gives more to charity. One study conducted in the United States found that as a percentage of income, charitable giving increased as income decreased. The poorest fifth of Americans, for example, gave away 4.3% of their income, while the wealthiest fifth gave away 2.1%. In absolute terms, this was an average of $453 on an average income of $10,531, compared to $3,326 on an income of $158,388."

Nation & World | America's poor are its most generous donors | Seattle Times Newspaper

The poor may be more generous than the wealthy. That's okay, the rich and poor are both still giving away money for no reason except to help other people, which is great for a free system but absolutely not necessary. In the salt example we can see why charity is not needed to provide salt for the poor.

Are you saying the subprime mortgage crisis was caused by regulation?

Absolutely. I explained why several pages ago. Let's start on the island and arrive at the crisis after we agree on simple terms like "what is wealth?"

You're assuming that people who work for an "evil person" always have a choice. Working to support yourself and your family are not optional, and the job opportunities are not limitless, especially if you were born on the wrong end of the wealth spectrum. Some of these people are able to strike gold with a scholarship or something similar, but that's the exception, not the rule.

Translate this to the island. Some are born smarter which makes them lucky. It is optimal to let smart people harvest salt as fast as they can and allow them to do what they want with the extra salt, including trading ten pounds of it for one fish, as is currently the case today. Salt is virtually free even though it was used to pay soldiers 1,000 years ago.

How is the society as a whole better off when he sells his knowledge to the highest bidder compared to him teaching everyone for free? If he were altruistic in some form of a "socialist" group, he would have less incentive to try to reap as much out of his invention as he could, as his survival wouldn't depend on it.

Currently regulations make sure that he can't teach everyone for free. Patent and copyright laws protect inventors from others using their ideas. Without the regulations an inventor would make a ton of money after inventing a new drug, but others would not be prevented from buying it and analyzing it to determine how to make it and competing with him. This is another way that regulations consolidate power and wealth at the common man's expense.

He automatically creates wealth condensation and has an unequal starting point, doesn't he?

We can't avoid having unequal starting points. If a man has a huge salt factory on the island, who is probably best qualified to take over when the owner dies? It is more likely that his son will be able to keep the machine going. The son doesn't deserve the ownership of the machine any more than any other islander.

[IowaSkinsFan]

I just want to add just as Max said, we are currently in a mixed economy, not a free market. As far as I know this has been this way for the past 200 years, and the amount of government regulation over that time has steadily increased. I believe the US started as a free market, but other than that I am not sure there has been any other country in the modern world that has tried this. I'd love to see statistics on how the US did in its first years of existence but I'm betting this isn't the case.
"You're assuming that people who work for an "evil person" always have a choice. Working to support yourself and your family are not optional, and the job opportunities are not limitless, especially if you were born on the wrong end of the wealth spectrum."

You can work and support yourself and your family without working for someone else, or you can work for someone you support. I don't think this really needs to be explained. That's a choice they have. I don't believe you should work, sell or buy anything from someone you believe to be evil unless you are threatened with violence or imprisonment.