3 ms·

I am absolutely arguing in good faith. If people want the free choice to choose a different set of properties, for their own money, then the fact that they wan

by stale2002 7y ago

I am absolutely arguing in good faith. If people want the free choice to choose a different set of properties, for their own money, then the fact that they want it is a good enough reason, in an of itself, for such a money to exist. No other reason or justification is necessary. “Because people want it”, is good enough. Freedom of choice is something, in an of itself, that people value. And because people want something, is a good enough reason, alone, such that it is justified. People can want things that you think are “stupid” or “ridiculous” things if they want, and your opinion that they are stupid or ridiculous, does not overrule their own value system and wants. There are basically no situation where your opinion on this, would matter. It would be like saying “Why do you like ice cream! That’s stupid!”. Such a statement is just meaningless. The fact that you think it is stupid that someone else likes ice cream is irrelevant and doesn’t matter. The fact that I just like ice cream, is a good enough reason, in an of itself, for me liking ice cream. Me liking something, or not liking something, is circularly, self evidently true, and I need no other justification or reason for it. I like it, because I like it, and that’s it. The fact that I like ice cream, is axiomatically true, because I am the one who decides what I like, not other people, and so it make no sense, and is just a meaningless statement to say that it is “stupid” that I like ice cream.

arcticbull 7y ago
> No other reason or justification is necessary. “Because people want it”, is good enough. Some people want to dump chemicals in the river, and yet, when its bad for society we decide not to let them do that, and I'm totally okay with that. Which is why if you want to make a broad social decision like changing how money works (even allowing for a new option) that conversation needs to be had on merits. We weigh pros and cons. Then we decide. That's how society works broadly, at least in a democracy. Remember, your freedoms end where my rights begin. In so long as something doesn't impact anyone else, they're free to have at it. Once it starts to impact those around them, it's no longer solely their decision -- and degree matters. If you want to eat a ton of ice cream, do it. If you want to change the way a broad swath of society functions, we need to have a chit-chat. Much of our day to day is in between.
- stale2002 7y ago
  > Which is why if you want to make a broad social decision like changing how money works No, I don't want to force you to use any money that you don't like. It is pretty silly for you to argue that people are infrindging on other people's rights, just because they prefer to use a different method of voluntarily exchange with other people. It is interesting that you are jumping to this argument, because you previously tried to pretend like you didn't want to force other people to make certain decisions for themselves, and now you are totally backtracking on that. It seems like you didn't really mean anything by those statements previously then? If you cared so much about what type of paper that other people are using voluntarily, so much that you are willing to compare it to dumping chemicals in water, then why didn't you just say that from the beginning instead of pretending like you didn't care about what voluntary decisions other people were making with their own means of exchange? Freedom is a valuable property in and of itself, and that is the only justification I need, to say that this is a good thing.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    Since this has been long and winding let me try and simplify: - I asked you to attempt to justify the positive social value and implications of a deflationary currency, and you replied a number of times "freedom" and told me that there was no such thing as a stupid decision because someone made it. You re-iterated "freedom" as though it was an answer to my question many times, and then said that "freedom" was intrinsically awesome, which is again, not an answer to my question. - I don't care if some people want to barter. I was trying to have a conversation about whether a deflationary currency is good for society as a whole, and what the impact would be if it took over more of society. I made numerous arguments why this would be a bad thing, to which you again replied "#freedom". - Freedom of choice is intrinsically valuable, what people choose to do with it may or may not be, and worth a conversation on a case by case basis. Especially if impacts a lot of people, and we as a society reserve the right to curtail said choices if they don't make sense. Nobody's arguing you shouldn't be able to choose things, and similarly, you can't possibly believe anything you choose is good because you chose it, and that choices shouldn't be curtailed if they lead to negative outcomes. You know, like crimes. - I also made the argument that the current model provides maximum freedom of choice by decoupling a long-term store of value from a unit of exchange and account. That way you can choose what you want to back your personal economy with. It also represents a voting mechanism for capital allocation. Switching to a "backed" model for currency removes the freedom by stapling back together two things that don't need to be stapled together and drags in a number of negative social consequences. Unbundling represents maximum freedom, something I figured you'd be a fan of.

arcticbull 7y ago

> No other reason or justification is necessary. “Because people want it”, is good enough. Some people want to dump chemicals in the river, and yet, when its bad for society we decide not to let them do that, and I'm totally okay with that. Which is why if you want to make a broad social decision like changing how money works (even allowing for a new option) that conversation needs to be had on merits. We weigh pros and cons. Then we decide. That's how society works broadly, at least in a democracy. Remember, your freedoms end where my rights begin. In so long as something doesn't impact anyone else, they're free to have at it. Once it starts to impact those around them, it's no longer solely their decision -- and degree matters. If you want to eat a ton of ice cream, do it. If you want to change the way a broad swath of society functions, we need to have a chit-chat. Much of our day to day is in between.

stale2002 7y ago
> Which is why if you want to make a broad social decision like changing how money works No, I don't want to force you to use any money that you don't like. It is pretty silly for you to argue that people are infrindging on other people's rights, just because they prefer to use a different method of voluntarily exchange with other people. It is interesting that you are jumping to this argument, because you previously tried to pretend like you didn't want to force other people to make certain decisions for themselves, and now you are totally backtracking on that. It seems like you didn't really mean anything by those statements previously then? If you cared so much about what type of paper that other people are using voluntarily, so much that you are willing to compare it to dumping chemicals in water, then why didn't you just say that from the beginning instead of pretending like you didn't care about what voluntary decisions other people were making with their own means of exchange? Freedom is a valuable property in and of itself, and that is the only justification I need, to say that this is a good thing.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  Since this has been long and winding let me try and simplify: - I asked you to attempt to justify the positive social value and implications of a deflationary currency, and you replied a number of times "freedom" and told me that there was no such thing as a stupid decision because someone made it. You re-iterated "freedom" as though it was an answer to my question many times, and then said that "freedom" was intrinsically awesome, which is again, not an answer to my question. - I don't care if some people want to barter. I was trying to have a conversation about whether a deflationary currency is good for society as a whole, and what the impact would be if it took over more of society. I made numerous arguments why this would be a bad thing, to which you again replied "#freedom". - Freedom of choice is intrinsically valuable, what people choose to do with it may or may not be, and worth a conversation on a case by case basis. Especially if impacts a lot of people, and we as a society reserve the right to curtail said choices if they don't make sense. Nobody's arguing you shouldn't be able to choose things, and similarly, you can't possibly believe anything you choose is good because you chose it, and that choices shouldn't be curtailed if they lead to negative outcomes. You know, like crimes. - I also made the argument that the current model provides maximum freedom of choice by decoupling a long-term store of value from a unit of exchange and account. That way you can choose what you want to back your personal economy with. It also represents a voting mechanism for capital allocation. Switching to a "backed" model for currency removes the freedom by stapling back together two things that don't need to be stapled together and drags in a number of negative social consequences. Unbundling represents maximum freedom, something I figured you'd be a fan of.