4 ms·
Most categories break down if you stretch them far enough. That does not mean that they are not useful. Fare from it. Usually, there is some common understandin
by ckuehne 15y ago
Most categories break down if you stretch them far enough. That does not mean that they are not useful. Fare from it. Usually, there is some common understanding what words mean. For example, if I say “forest” most people will know what I mean, without arguing that there are no real forests only single trees [1]. Just as most people will agree, that markets in the western world are free (or more free) when compared to markets in Soviet Russia (the term “black market” should have tipped you off).
[1] In the same manner one could argue that fossil oils really are renewable resources if the time frame under consideration is chosen to be long enough.
- Tichy 15y agoYes, but I challenge you to come up with a proper definition, if you think the "free market" will save us. Those wishy washy discussions are what get us into trouble. And fossil fuels would be sustainable if their rate of production was greater than or equal to our rate of consumption.
- Zakharov 15y agoThere was a market, sure. A "free market" is a particular kind of market, one with greater freedoms than a typical market. The soviet market had considerably fewer freedoms.
- ckuehne 15y ago"I challenge you to come up with a proper definition, if you think the 'free market' will save us" I will do no such thing because I have not argued that "a free market will save us". I solely wanted to note that arguing over definitions and making caricatures of commonly understood terms ("But what does it really mean to be free?") is pointless and does not add much to the discussion at hand. I agree, however, with the comment made by gaius: historically it is more probable that a free market produces innovation than a centrally planned economy. Not, IMHO, because the abstract entity “free market” somehow magically comes up with a solution. But rather because it allows individuals to tinker and to test their results w.r.t. the actual wants and needs of other people as opposed to assuming that the best solution can be planned and designed top down.
- fexl 15y agoYes, he stretched the term "free market" way too far. My definition of a free market is: any group of individuals who produce things and trade with each other on the basis of mutual consent, never initiating coercion against another. Clearly "the death penalty" or "incarceration in a Siberian work camp" for the "crime" of trading eggs on the street is an initiation of coercion, so the term "free market" does not apply. Also things like "shooting your neighbor and taking his land" are clearly beyond the pale. There is property after all, which I define as (1) anything you receive as a gift, such as your body and mind at birth, (2) anything you produce using the property already at your disposal, and (3) anything you obtain in a mutually consensual trade of your property for someone else's. Your neighbor's land does not meet any of those three criteria. Certainly there is nothing magic about a free market: after all, it's just a group of human beings. But there's nothing magic about coercive force either -- and I would go further and maintain that it's fundamentally destructive.
- Tichy 15y agosigh - I always overestimate the willingness of other people to think abstract. Whatever...
- fexl 15y agoThinking abstractly is one thing; thinking sloppily is quite another. In fact, thinking abstractly requires the utmost precision in concepts and definitions. And trust me, I have many decades of fruitful experience at thinking abstractly, so you have underestimated me. That may not sound as fun as those sophomore-style late-night "dorm talk" bullshit sessions, but I actually consider precision to be more fun even in those sessions. I don't go "oh wow man you blew my mind" when someone says you're free to roam inside a prison cell. I go "oh wow man" when someone adeptly joins two concepts and hear them go click into place. I really gave it an effort, and all I got was a "whatever". Oh well, it was fun for me anyway.
- Tichy 15y agoI didn't say you can't think abstractly, just that apparently you didn't want to. I don't think you even bothered to consider what I wanted to say. As for your "effort", you didn't even talk to me directly, just tried to bond with the other discussion participant over your supposed superior logic. Whatever indeed.