|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted April 30, 2009 04:15 AM |
|
|
Quote:
One is, "I WANT MY TIME BACK" (i.e he wasted time, and rebuilding it may cost more time, even if financially you might be better off than before).
That is not too difficult to solve. You get money back at the rate you would have gotten had you worked normally during that time.
Quote:
Then it becomes a question of PUNISHMENT again: i.e how much can I charge for them speaking or disturbing the air? I assume I can't charge them $1 billion... so again it's the question where do you draw the line?
You could try to charge them as much as you want. Doesn't mean that the courts would award you that money. The most successful courts would be the ones that find the best balance.
Quote:
especially outside of society
Who cares about "outside society"? Questions of freedom did not apply to Robinson Crusoe. Freedom is only meaningful within society.
Quote:
But here comes some dude who blows up his property (let's say not killing him), and then says "Guess what? If it's only about means/force, I just had the MEANS to destroy your property! Don't sweat, you did the same, used your means to get it while others couldn't -- why do you complain when I used my means on it?"
There are two obvious counterarguments. The first is that means were not the only reason the first person could claim the land - but because there was no one to tell him otherwise. The second is that, even ignoring the first argument, it would be a net loss for society (from a utilitarian perspective) to lose the institution of private property.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 30, 2009 04:30 AM |
|
|
Quote:
That is not too difficult to solve. You get money back at the rate you would have gotten had you worked normally during that time.
WTF? At HOME? I was talking about destroying your property. I'm not talking about when you work.
Plus, even if you WERE working, what makes you think it would be only about money? Maybe you were working on a new project or something, and now it must halt. (just an example)
Quote:
You could try to charge them as much as you want. Doesn't mean that the courts would award you that money. The most successful courts would be the ones that find the best balance.
See? We're going into discussing the punishment.
So, where do we the courts draw the line?
Quote:
Who cares about "outside society"? Questions of freedom did not apply to Robinson Crusoe. Freedom is only meaningful within society.
Because police are part of society, obviously. And without that, no one would be FORCED to "respect" his CLAIMED property. So technically, "inside" society is a biased viewpoint. But then again, "inside" society and dictatorships also favor the dictator, not a very good viewpoint. (Here it's different, it favors the dudes who claim).
Quote:
There are two obvious counterarguments. The first is that means were not the only reason the first person could claim the land - but because there was no one to tell him otherwise.
What if there was? I mean, I can tell anyone right now that the Moon is my property and they should pay me a hefty sum to trespass into it and "explore", right?
Quote:
The second is that, even ignoring the first argument, it would be a net loss for society (from a utilitarian perspective) to lose the institution of private property.
Who gives a **** if that guy profits more than me? 
In all seriousness, this logic could be used to, erm, promote slavery if it would be "a huge benefit" for society...
(mvass, try to use arguments, not just "but that's not efficient" which is not even the POINT, notice the 'if' and not to mention, that it varies on situation)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 30, 2009 06:04 AM |
|
|
Quote:
So, where do we the courts draw the line?
They can make educated guesses, of course. For example, if something worth $5 is stolen, and the chance of catching such a thief is 50%, then the punishment is $10. Anyway, the particular method they use to reach the verdict is not quite as important as the big picture: the judgment of the courts with what society considers to have the most efficient results will be adopted with minor differences from court to court. As for the question of property, perhaps if it has some kind of sentimental value, you could get a bit extra - but as I said, the exact process is not important. It's kind of like asking, "How do bakers decide exactly what size of loaf to make?"
Quote:
I mean, I can tell anyone right now that the Moon is my property and they should pay me a hefty sum to trespass into it and "explore", right?
As I have told you previously, there is no social mechanism for owning the Moon. There is a social mechanism for owning stuff on Earth.
Quote:
In all seriousness, this logic could be used to, erm, promote slavery if it would be "a huge benefit" for society...
I will promote anything if it is a huge benefit for society. Slavery, by definition, isn't. Efficiency is the whole idea - the solution that maximizes utility is the best one.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 30, 2009 07:48 AM |
|
|
This is nothing personal, Mvass, it's not your fault, since you seem to read too much of the same kind of literature, but reading the way you attempt to reduce every social issue, every open question between humans within a society, to an equation that involves the almighty dollar, is virtually nauseating.
Oftentimes money is virtually meaningless. What do you think, why in many cases divorces are such a mud-slinging contest? And then, in court, how many are uncompromising? Sure, you'll often hear, such people say, I'm squeezing him (or her) out of his (her) last dollar, but that's happening only out of sheer spite and because there are usually only two things that CAN be fought a war upon in a divorce, that's money (if any) and children (if any).
The simple fact that to lose some money for someone who has a lot, makes MONEY as the universal means of penalty and compensation simply not all that useful because a fine, however hefty, is simply not much of a penalty for someone who can produce it in a blink.
Think of it this way: what would a sentence like "10 minutes jail, no probation" mean to a human? If that would be the penalty for something, well, who cares?
Same thing with a fine. If you can look onto 100 millions, what's 10000? Right.
People don't want to be bought out of their right - people want to get what is their due and rightfully theirs. Has something to do with pride. Except, of course, when someone is really in need of money.
Which is why money just plain sucks - it may work as a compensation, but not as a penalty, these are two different things.
If you pull everything down to an economical level, nothing of importance is left. no moral, no idea, no soul, no love, in short, nothing of what is really underneath of it.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 30, 2009 02:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
you attempt to reduce every social issue, every open question between humans within a society, to an equation that involves the almighty dollar, is virtually nauseating.
Wrong. It's called an indifference curve. On one axis, you have money. On the other axis, you have - whatever you want. And you see that people make trade-offs. There is no such thing as a "non-economic level".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 30, 2009 02:51 PM |
|
|
What do you mean, "wrong"? If you have money on one axis, you measure everything in it and to it, because you reduce it to the big common denominator, which is what I said.
And that is nauseating. It's cynical, it's one-dimensional, it's ignoring what actually makes us humans, most of the time, and it's reducing everything down to something whichs worth can be measured in money.
Which is reducing the world to a shop, and most of the time a dollar-shop.
It's a disgusting accountant-attitude that ignores heart and soul.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 30, 2009 03:01 PM |
|
|
Money is nothing but a unit of exchange. You could use any two measures - slices of cheese and photographs with sentimental value, BMWs and dolphin-safe tuna, etc. It's not about money. It's about the utility one derives from one thing (money, cheese, or BWMs) vs. another (love, photos, or tuna). And utility is utility. It's about opportunity cost - the value of anything can be measured by what one is willing to give up to get it.
And to call me a "disgusting accountant" is a great compliment. Now, if you were to call me an emotional romantic - now that would be an insult.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 30, 2009 03:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Money is nothing but a unit of exchange
for everything material that can be quantisized. An example for something that cannot be "exchanged" is genius inspiration - no amount of money can buy you that because it's not reproducable at will. It may be sold, if on offer, but it cannot be bought at will, if I can make myself clear.
That's why there are things called "invaluable", and that's why money is no universal unit of exchange. Ultimately, that's why some people are deeply insulted when they are offered money for something.
Quote:
And to call me a "disgusting accountant" is a great compliment. Now, if you were to call me an emotional romantic - now that would be an insult.
I didn't call you a disgusting accountant. What I said was, that you - among others - are displaying a disgusting accountant-attitude which is something else completely. In time you'll see, that there are some things you simply cannot buy or measure in money and that - strangely enough - those are the ones that really count.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 30, 2009 03:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Money is nothing but a unit of exchange. You could use any two measures - slices of cheese and photographs with sentimental value, BMWs and dolphin-safe tuna, etc. It's not about money. It's about the utility one derives from one thing (money, cheese, or BWMs) vs. another (love, photos, or tuna). And utility is utility. It's about opportunity cost - the value of anything can be measured by what one is willing to give up to get it.
Yes.
Here's an illustration to maybe help people out who don't understand this concept.
Suppose you go pay $100 to go see a concert; the average ticket price was $50 dollars, but you paid the extra money to sit in the 2nd row. When you're at the outside of he concert hall, someone offers to pay $500 for your ticket because he wants to see the concert very badly and wants a very good seat. You decline, prefering to see the concert to the $500 payout, but you are pleased to be holding such a valuable ticket. The next day, you are telling your friend about the concert and where you sat, and he asks you how much you paid for your seat. What do you answer?
The correct answer is $500.
The hundred dollars you actually paid is an explicit cost. You could have then sold your ticket for $500 dollars; $100 of that would have gone to reimburse yourself for the explicit cost, and $400 would have been your profit. Since you forgo this profit, it becomes an implicit cost to see the concert. Thus the total opportunity cost to see the concert is $500 -> $100 explicit cost and $400 implicit cost. In other words, the value to you of the ticket was at least $500 dollars, far above the money you actually paid to see it.
The reason economists speak in terms of opportunity costs is due to scarcity and choice - there are not sufficient resources to buy everything, and so we must make choices. Typically the choice to purchase one thing requires giving up the opportunity to purchase something else, so just about everything has opportunity cost. And when dealing with risk analysis, it's very important to know how much something actually costs you, not just how much money was doled out.
(The above example was actually a thought experiment posed in a Risk Management class I took. I thought it was a nice example of opportunity cost so I had actually written it down at the time. Thanks mvassilev for giving me the opportunity to use it. )
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 30, 2009 04:03 PM |
|
|
JJ:
Quote:
An example for something that cannot be "exchanged" is genius inspiration - no amount of money can buy you that because it's not reproducable at will. It may be sold, if on offer, but it cannot be bought at will, if I can make myself clear.
It can be exchanged. That is the critical point. It doesn't have to be material. Money can - for example - be exchanged for peace of mind.
Corribus:
Exactly. 
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 30, 2009 04:14 PM |
|
|
Fine.
Now, if you assume that the guy who offered the 500 $ didn't get a ticket, since NO ONE was prepared to give it to him, you'll immediately see that there is another side of the coin, opportunity cost or not.
Not to mention the fact that some things are actually not for sale at all, anywhere, and a couple of details pertaining the example...
But the question is, can someone explain the connection of this economic mumbojumbo with the initial question of where to draw the line between individual freedom and common good?
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 30, 2009 04:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But the question is, can someone explain the connection of this economic mumbojumbo with the initial question of where to draw the line between individual freedom and common good?
No, I just saw a chance to cut and paste something I've been saving for a while for just that very purpose.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 30, 2009 04:41 PM |
|
|
|
Not that long a while, I suppose; if it's something economical, you just need to check into Mvass's posts once in a while, and chances are the opportunity will arise faster than you think.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 30, 2009 05:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
They can make educated guesses, of course. For example, if something worth $5 is stolen...
Ok I cut the quote here because it's enough. You still don't get it, do you. Mvass there is a REASON I used those two EXAMPLES.
How do you measure how important is, let's say, my personal data (which got destroyed) to ME? I tell you in short: PRICELESS. Get that? PRICELESS.
If you go on and then you say how important it is to ME, then it is the dictatorship you despise: telling people what's good for them and what's not. See what I'm saying?
You can't tell me how important my data is to ME, cause if you do, it's the dictatorship you despise. In this example it is priceless -- so what's the punishment?
Quote:
As I have told you previously, there is no social mechanism for owning the Moon. There is a social mechanism for owning stuff on Earth.
There was no social mechanism for owning the New World either -- but you live in it right now, I assume european ancestry right? (not native indian).
Why are you avoiding a question you know it might be inevitable?
I'm not going to sit like a duck and do nothing until the "social mechanism" goes and probably adds the Moon into its category -- with some arrogant multi-billionaire in it of course.
Quote:
I will promote anything if it is a huge benefit for society. Slavery, by definition, isn't. Efficiency is the whole idea - the solution that maximizes utility is the best one.
Slavery, by definition, CAN BE. Like, mining. Since what you said "huge benefit" actually means "economical benefit".
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 30, 2009 07:32 PM |
|
|
Not that I hav a problem with agreeing to diagree, but I have a problem following your logic, Father.
On one hand you say something like, if I'd see my older sun beating up his little brother, there was nothing wrong with spanking him.
Wouldn't it be logical then to say: if I see some really mean OLDER guy beating up a woman, a child, a normal person, it would be correct beating him up real good? More, if a guy ABUSES a child, wouldn't it then be correct to ABUSE the guy?
And what is with an older father spanking his children?
The interesting thing is that for a CHILD you advertise beating sense into him, eye-for-an-eye-ish.
For the grown-up perpetrator you advertise giving them a chance.
Strange, actually.
The thing to keep in mind, though is: if your older sun beats up your younger sun, you can bet your life that YOU are the one who did something wrong: either your older or your younger son (the older brother may have QUITE a good reason for beating his brother up), but probably both are lacking something in your education, it seems, which is your fault, first and foremost.
Additionally, I don't even think that people who have been spanked as children, are really able to give an unbiassed opinion here. After all, a very high percentage of children abusers (if not all) have been abused as a child themselves - sins of the fathers (mostly), and they have the tendency to live on in their children. Spanking is a form of abuse as well, and as there are different levels or grades of spanking, so there are different grades of abuse.
People who spank their children are ultimately hurting the trust a child has in it parents. Parents who beat their shildren suck as parents.
There should be obligatory education lessons for prospective parents, anyway. It's a scandal, that you need a license for the most idiotic crap, but none to parent a child which is pretty much the most important thing a person can do. Parenting means shaping the future of society, and that everyone is left to bungling along is something I'll never understand.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 30, 2009 10:53 PM |
|
|
JJ:
Quote:
But the question is, can someone explain the connection of this economic mumbojumbo with the initial question of where to draw the line between individual freedom and common good?
TheDeath and I brought it up when we were talking about private courts. The courts that make the best decisions would profit the most.
TheDeath:
I understand what you're saying. (And that's one of the reasons I'm against eminent domain.) But the thing is, the courts would experiment to find the optimal balance.
Quote:
Why are you avoiding a question you know it might be inevitable?
All right, I'll answer that question - although it's little better than an educated guess, as societal mechanism continue to evolve - whoever manages to colonize the moon effectively will own the colonized parts.
Quote:
Slavery, by definition, CAN BE. Like, mining. Since what you said "huge benefit" actually means "economical benefit".
If slavery is such a huge benefit, that must be why the British Empire suffered so much when they abolished slavery. Oh, wait, they didn't suffer at all.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 30, 2009 11:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The courts that make the best decisions would profit the most.
Yes, brilliant. Courts that profit from their decisions. Great idea. I already see the advertisements. "Trial? Why risk an error? Check our jurisdiction at www.courtnewyorkcentral. We accept PayPal."
Just out of curiosity: "best" decisions? What do you mean, BEST?
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted April 30, 2009 11:18 PM |
|
|
This is pretty much a paradox. Every single bit of freedom you have technically infringes on someone else's freedom. In its most basic form, the spot you are standing on cannot be occupied by someone else. Perhaps more controversial: Your partner choice limits another's options. That's a nasty one
I'm not too sure where I'd draw the line. What I think is fundamental is the idea that someone should ALWAYS have full control over decisions and actions that affect him or her personally, UNLESS he or she infringes on that fundamental right of someone else.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 01, 2009 12:39 AM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 00:40, 01 May 2009.
|
Quote:
But the thing is, the courts would experiment to find the optimal balance.
Gee thanks Sherlock! You answered this thread.
"Where do we draw the line?" -- 'at the optimal balance'
Now seriously, I mean... you know... can you be a little... more you know... precise? I hope that's not too much to ask.
Quote:
whoever manages to colonize the moon effectively will own the colonized parts.
...and whoever manages to destroy his property will effectively be called a terrorist.
Why? Why should I respect his property because he used "force" or means to colonize it, and I am expected not to use my means (i.e my bombs to blow it up) in return? Why only he?
This is like saying that I should respect what Imperialists colonize LOL instead of spit in disgust!
Quote:
If slavery is such a huge benefit, that must be why the British Empire suffered so much when they abolished slavery. Oh, wait, they didn't suffer at all.
I said sometimes. Imagine that some people do nothing but grow food to sustain themselves -- and they do not want to do anything else. Now you, as someone with power in this example... would the 'economy' benefit by enslaving them? You bet. (this is one example -- do not target it directly )
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Wolfsburg
Promising
Known Hero
... the Vampire Doc
|
|
posted May 01, 2009 01:00 AM |
|
|
Quote:
If you need to make your child feel PAIN to get its attention you are making something wrong.
I don’t actually agree with you on that, JJ. But I still don’t see any harm in your opinions.
About immunizations, Mytical, I feel relatively comfortable to comment on it, for that’s the area where I act, and have acted quite intensively on a daily basis.
This subject has much more to do with AUTONOMY than personal freedom. Understand the difference. A child playing on a mine-field has the full rights to exercise its freedom. But it has no complete understanding of the world, therefore he/she lacks the ability to estimate what poses a threat to its physical and psychological integrity. Therefore it is not fully exercising its autonomy. When you have an individual without that full-capability, than you need a tutor, a person in full-exercising of its autonomy, to temporarily, or sometimes permanently, act as this lacking part of the person’s judgment.
Philosophical and existential aspects apart, parents are nothing but that.
Full freedom is a right only granted to those who can legally respond for their actions.
Immunization works in a plain, simple mathematical way. Lets take for example, yellow fever vaccine. It can cause severe complications, including death. Health personal knows that. We inform our patients of that. But still we do it on a regular basis. Why? Because crude probability shows, that the patient in question has more chances to die in an awful way, infected by yellow fever, than from complications of the vaccine. Measles vaccine is no different, based on estimatives. Measles virus can promote nasty infections, especially on grown ups, such as necrotizing panencephalitis, disseminate pneumonia, among others. On the other hand it has some side-effects, many of which are arguable. The reason why we still do it it’s because statistics say it makes sense. Plain and simple.
Since a person who has not yet reached full-autonomy cannot answer for their actions, they cannot make such decisions. They should therefore be granted the BEST possibility available, by their tutors.
Grown ups refusing to vaccinate children are in this case:
1 – Failing to supply their children with the best possibilities of survival, thus violating their right to have an autonomic tutor responding for their safety.
2 – Exposing people, especially other grown ups, to the virus. Violating other people’s rights for safety. (The majority of severe cases of measles complications I’ve read lately stemmed from a non-vaccinated child).
Conclusion: IMHO, parents who refuse to give their children the proper vaccination in that case, are violating both the child’s- and society’s right for safety.
Therefore, no freedom crossing in this case. For freedom is a product of autonomy. Unless they would also allow a child to play in a mine field, not to violate their freedom.
W.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
