• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The biggest straw man

PhantomWolf said:
Just another point, you also seem to be missing the previous point made some time back that in more socialistic society's people don't see Taxation as a terrible taking of resources against their will, but rather as a way of investing in their county's future and the society that they live in. It's people on the right that have the belief that taxation is "taking their money." People on the left consider taxes as "paying their fair share towards creating a better society."
Click to expand...

That's pretty much how I feel.

I look at places around the world, and the countries I would want to live in all have higher taxes and better conditions.

The places with lower taxes tend to be underdeveloped holes. Fun to visit, but not my style.
 
TraneWreck said:
Haha, it is, it just isn't a serious one. It's a restriction on my freedom that I can't walk in and take everything. Society has rightly deemed my right to the freedom to just take **** as not particularly valuable and, in fact, quite damaging.

When most people walk into job negotiations, their freedom to negotiate and contract is highly limited. The farther down the socioeconomic scale one goes, the less freedom to negotiate a person has. This, again, is not always a problem, but there are certain protections that are necessary for a functioning society.

History and empirical reality has shown over and over that those protections will not manifest through individual contracts, in large part because the freedom you imagine is a fiction. Labor Unions and governments need to create those rules because they actually have some measure of power.
Click to expand...

If we accept the framework that being prevented from stealing is a restriction on freedom, it doesn't follow that being told "I will not voluntarily give you X in exchange for Y" is a restriction on freedom. The force used to prevent you from taking X is the restriction, not simply the lack of voluntarily providing it.
 
BobTheCoward said:
It is equally free under unequal bargaining power.
Click to expand...

This is self contradictory. Unequal bargaining power is nothing more than a lack of freedom to pursue other options so any deal made under such conditions already have a lack of freedom baked in. You can't just ignore this and say "yeah, but this small part is free". The totality of such agreements are not free.

It may or may not be worth intervention but any agreement under unequal bargaining power is not free.
 
lomiller said:
This is self contradictory. Unequal bargaining power is nothing more than a lack of freedom to pursue other options so any deal made under such conditions already have a lack of freedom baked in. You can't just ignore this and say "yeah, but this small part is free". The totality of such agreements are not free.

It may or may not be worth intervention but any agreement under unequal bargaining power is not free.
Click to expand...

It isn't a lack of freedom. Before bargaining your options are X. Through bargaining your options are X + Y. Failure to bargain returns you to X. At no point are your options constrained.
 
TraneWreck said:
When most people walk into job negotiations, their freedom to negotiate and contract is highly limited. The farther down the socioeconomic scale one goes, the less freedom to negotiate a person has.
Click to expand...
Eg company towns in the 1800’s or the ancestors of European serfs at the dawn of the feudal system. People entered these agreements willingly but only because they had no other options. BTC’s notion of freedom is literally how serfdom began in the first place.
 
lomiller said:
Eg company towns in the 1800’s or the ancestors of European serfs at the dawn of the feudal system. People entered these agreements willingly but only because they had no other options. BTC’s notion of freedom is literally how serfdom began in the first place.
Click to expand...

But I am also not arguing that freedom is good. So even if my notion of freedom included serfdom (I don't agree it does, but let's ignore that for now), if we have the same perception of the goodness of serfdom then we are not promoting different outcomes.
 
BobTheCoward said:
It isn't a lack of freedom. Before bargaining your options are X. Through bargaining your options are X + Y. Failure to bargain returns you to X. At no point are your options constrained.
Click to expand...

There is another form. Before bargaining your options are X -Y. Through bargaining your options are X. Failure to bargain returns you to X-Y. It’s pretty absurd to suggest you have any real choice but to accept the offer of X.
 
lomiller said:
There is another form. Before bargaining your options are X -Y. Through bargaining your options are X. Failure to bargain returns you to X-Y. It’s pretty absurd to suggest you have any real choice but to accept the offer of X.
Click to expand...

Since you are not dividing by X, once again, this works out as not having your options restricted.
 
BobTheCoward said:
But I am also not arguing that freedom is good. So even if my notion of freedom included serfdom (I don't agree it does, but let's ignore that for now), if we have the same perception of the goodness of serfdom then we are not promoting different outcomes.
Click to expand...

You are arguing for the validity of serfdom, the very thing freedom was meant to topple. Your position is completely at odds with freedom.
 
lomiller said:
You are arguing for the validity of serfdom, the very thing freedom was meant to topple. Your position is completely at odds with freedom.
Click to expand...

I am not arguing for the validity of serfdom. If I define freedom as compatible with serfdom, then it isn't at odds with freedom. More importantly, I am not promoting serfdom as long as I am not promoting freedom.
 
BobTheCoward said:
If we accept the framework that being prevented from stealing is a restriction on freedom, it doesn't follow that being told "I will not voluntarily give you X in exchange for Y" is a restriction on freedom. The force used to prevent you from taking X is the restriction, not simply the lack of voluntarily providing it.
Click to expand...

This is just gibberish.

There are different reasons why freedom may be restricted: the police may stop you, a lack of economic well-being may stop you, a disability may stop you, a jackass neighbor...

You are making irrelevant distinctions.

And yes, a lack of bargaining power is a restriction on freedom. Sometimes, as I said, it is justifiable; other times not. This is, once again, why trying to have this conversation on conceptual terms is an absolute waste of time.
 
BobTheCoward said:
More importantly, I am not promoting serfdom as long as I am not promoting freedom.
Click to expand...
Your concept of “freedom” promotes servitude and serfdom. The historical examples back this up.

BobTheCoward said:
If I define freedom as compatible with serfdom, then it isn't at odds with freedom.
Click to expand...

Why would how you define if matter? You can dream up whatever fantasy world you want if you redefine all the concepts to fit your narrative, it doesn’t make it useful logical or sensible.
 
TraneWreck said:
This is just gibberish.

There are different reasons why freedom may be restricted: the police may stop you, a lack of economic well-being may stop you, a disability may stop you, a jackass neighbor...

You are making irrelevant distinctions.

And yes, a lack of bargaining power is a restriction on freedom. Sometimes, as I said, it is justifiable; other times not. This is, once again, why trying to have this conversation on conceptual terms is an absolute waste of time.
Click to expand...

A disability may stop you? We are now calling physics and gravity a restriction on freedom?
 
lomiller said:
Your concept of “freedom” promotes servitude and serfdom. The historical examples back this up.



Why would how you define if matter? You can dream up whatever fantasy world you want if you redefine all the concepts to fit your narrative, it doesn’t make it useful logical or sensible.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying we should promote my concept of freedom as a desirable outcome. Therefore I am not promoting serfdom.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I am not arguing for the validity of serfdom.
Click to expand...

You are, you just don't seem to realize it. This is the result of failing to consider the practical implications of a worldview.

If I define freedom as compatible with serfdom, then it isn't at odds with freedom.
Click to expand...

Haha, ok. There is no meaningful definition of freedom that is consistent with serfdom. That you can simply adopt some bizarre meaning devoid of historical content is hardly convincing.

I know, I know, you have no interest in convincing anyone of anything.

More importantly, I am not promoting serfdom as long as I am not promoting freedom.
Click to expand...

Just playing around in the sandbox. Firetruck, vroom, vroom.
 
BobTheCoward said:
A disability may stop you? We are now calling physics and gravity a restriction on freedom?
Click to expand...

Sad effort at a reductio.

Compare life with a disability prior to the ADA and after the ADA. You really want to argue there was no change in freedom for disabled folks? Inaction on accessibility dramatically affects the opportunity and freedom of people less physically capable.
 
TraneWreck said:
Haha, ok. There is no meaningful definition of freedom that is consistent with serfdom. That you can simply adopt some bizarre meaning devoid of historical content is hardly convincing.
Click to expand...

Asking that the definition be meaningful is moving the goalposts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom