4 ms·

> If I want to bet that the man offering me a lottery ticket is accurately conveying the odds, and you don't want to let me make that decision because you just

> If I want to bet that the man offering me a lottery ticket is accurately conveying the odds, and you don't want to let me make that decision because you just overheard him discussing the fraud he was about to commit against me, physically stopping us from making that exchange by use of force is a restriction of my freedom to make that bad decision. If someone wants to sell your friend a lottery ticket, and you know with certainty that the seller has no intention of paying out a winner, this is not free exchange. It's just a lie and simple fraud. Furthermore, as a friend, you should probably at least try to intervene. The same is true of government (or any authority). Making a fraudulent trade is not "free exchange", legally, morally, or linguistically.

blotter_paper 7y ago
I would try to intervene with language, but not violence. I would appreciate and expect the same from my friends -- there are people in my life I've discussed very similar hypotheticals with. None of that has to do with whether or not physical interference would constitute a cessation of free exchange; forget legality and morality, just think about the definitions of the words we're using. In any situation where you are using violence to stop two people from exchanging physical objects, you're interfering with free exchange. If you actually disagree with this, I would like a term which refers to the concept I'm trying to discuss. I'd suggest that you're referring to something more specific like "well informed free trade" or "information symmetric free trade".
- speedplane 7y ago
  Who said anything about violence? No one should try to stop fraud with violence, except in extreme circumstances. The answer to fraud is to simply repay the person who was defrauded... someone who bought a fake lottery ticket should just get their money back, there is no need to resort to violence. You seem be assume that "free exchange" simply means no one is physically stopping you from making a trade. That isn't what free exchange means. Free exchange means that two consenting parties trade known goods without undue influence. If someone puts a gun to your head to buy something, that isn't free exchange. If someone sells you a fake lottery ticket passing it off as real, that isn't free exchange. If someone sells you something they don't actually own, that isn't free exchange.
  - marvin 7y ago
    You're commenting on a common libertarian rhetorical excess that's ancillary to the point being discussed: If something can be ultimately done by force, it is equivalent to violence. Meaning, when you get a parking ticket, that's state-sanctioned violence, because ultimately some non-consentual means could be applied to force you to turn over the money. Taxes are violence by the same argument, and, I presume, regulation of a lottery. (Someone might be sent to prison).
  - blotter_paper 7y ago
    How do you intended to enforce regulations without violence? Without violence, your regulations are merely suggestions which I am free to ignore. I'm fine with suggestions. Again, if you can't agree with my use of words then please provide a term you find suitable for the concept I'm trying to convey. I provided two terms I find suitable for the concept you're trying to convey, but you've provided me none despite an explicit request. To me, when somebody refuses to find common language it seems like they're using language as a barrier rather than a bridge. To disagree on a definition can be understandable, but refusing to provide any alternative looks like rhetoric rather than a legitimate attempt at mutual understanding. What do you call unrestricted exchange of items between individuals regardless of differences in knowledge or legal ownership? I want a term that will clearly convey this concept to you, and others who are using language in a similar manner. [Edit: how would you feel about "unrestricted object swapping" or "unrestricted barter"?] > If someone puts a gun to your head to buy something, that isn't free exchange. I don't think I've said anything that would suggest this example is a free exchange, but the other two which don't involve coercion through threats of force I will stand behind (as free exchange, not necessarily as nice things to do to people).
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

blotter_paper 7y ago

I would try to intervene with language, but not violence. I would appreciate and expect the same from my friends -- there are people in my life I've discussed very similar hypotheticals with. None of that has to do with whether or not physical interference would constitute a cessation of free exchange; forget legality and morality, just think about the definitions of the words we're using. In any situation where you are using violence to stop two people from exchanging physical objects, you're interfering with free exchange. If you actually disagree with this, I would like a term which refers to the concept I'm trying to discuss. I'd suggest that you're referring to something more specific like "well informed free trade" or "information symmetric free trade".

speedplane 7y ago
Who said anything about violence? No one should try to stop fraud with violence, except in extreme circumstances. The answer to fraud is to simply repay the person who was defrauded... someone who bought a fake lottery ticket should just get their money back, there is no need to resort to violence. You seem be assume that "free exchange" simply means no one is physically stopping you from making a trade. That isn't what free exchange means. Free exchange means that two consenting parties trade known goods without undue influence. If someone puts a gun to your head to buy something, that isn't free exchange. If someone sells you a fake lottery ticket passing it off as real, that isn't free exchange. If someone sells you something they don't actually own, that isn't free exchange.
- marvin 7y ago
  You're commenting on a common libertarian rhetorical excess that's ancillary to the point being discussed: If something can be ultimately done by force, it is equivalent to violence. Meaning, when you get a parking ticket, that's state-sanctioned violence, because ultimately some non-consentual means could be applied to force you to turn over the money. Taxes are violence by the same argument, and, I presume, regulation of a lottery. (Someone might be sent to prison).
- blotter_paper 7y ago
  How do you intended to enforce regulations without violence? Without violence, your regulations are merely suggestions which I am free to ignore. I'm fine with suggestions. Again, if you can't agree with my use of words then please provide a term you find suitable for the concept I'm trying to convey. I provided two terms I find suitable for the concept you're trying to convey, but you've provided me none despite an explicit request. To me, when somebody refuses to find common language it seems like they're using language as a barrier rather than a bridge. To disagree on a definition can be understandable, but refusing to provide any alternative looks like rhetoric rather than a legitimate attempt at mutual understanding. What do you call unrestricted exchange of items between individuals regardless of differences in knowledge or legal ownership? I want a term that will clearly convey this concept to you, and others who are using language in a similar manner. [Edit: how would you feel about "unrestricted object swapping" or "unrestricted barter"?] > If someone puts a gun to your head to buy something, that isn't free exchange. I don't think I've said anything that would suggest this example is a free exchange, but the other two which don't involve coercion through threats of force I will stand behind (as free exchange, not necessarily as nice things to do to people).

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]