mrow84

47 ms·

391.
by mrow84 13y ago
In the first case, is it voluntary if the shop owner fails to point out that the brand I do want is there, but is hidden? How about if I explicitly ask him for it? Or if I am clearly an uninformed water customer, and don't know that th
392.
by mrow84 13y ago
The "voluntary" in "voluntary exchange" has always struck me as a bit of a weasel word (I think that's the right terminology?). You wrote "voluntary exchanges are the basis of all economic activity ever",
393.
by mrow84 13y ago
I brought common arguments into the discussion because it is, as with so many things, almost as much a debate about perceptions as it is about substantive facts. The number of people who subscribe to wild conspiracy theories, buy fully into
394.
by mrow84 13y ago
Your 1) assumes that workers could sustain themselves if they chose not to work. Most useful land in the world is privately owned these days - in Britain a lot of it was taken by force from the people during enclosure - and so workers can&#
395.
by mrow84 13y ago
Sigh. Sorry to be rude, but I'm not sure if you properly read my post - it really wasn't a "diatribe[s] about a shadowy conspiracy of a 1% elite spanning centuries". I wasn't referring to you when I indicated that s
396.
by mrow84 13y ago
That's right; as I said "these problems are not (or at least very unlikely to be) the result of a direct conspiracy by some elite group." Further: "I don't think history supports that view, and I don't believe
397.
by mrow84 13y ago
I've been a fan of the emergent structure hypothesis for quite a long time, but I do feel that you are pushing it too far. There have been, historically and presently, power and wealth grabs by the already powerful, and manipulation of
398.
by mrow84 13y ago
> Crime prevention? Does our government police prevent crime, or just punish criminals? I can argue that without any state-established law criminals would be punished, in some way or another. Sure, criminals would be punished, but in a m
399.
by mrow84 13y ago
I think the problem is that forests cycle a lot of carbon, absorbing and then releasing a lot throughout the year. If the size of that reservoir goes down (implied by the article), then there is more 'free' carbon to go elsewhere