The Terrible Sweal Posted January 18, 2005 Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 Is is possible for a market to be unfair, but still free? Or IOW, is an unfair market by definition not free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted January 18, 2005 Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 The only "unfair" outcome is one obtained by violence and/or coercion, Sweal. Coercion has no place in a market, it is a non-market interaction. Therefore, any market that includes no coercion is fair, and any market that uses coercion is unfair. Absence of coercion is freedom, coercion is bondage. Therefore, the less the coercion, the freer the market, and the freer the market, the fairer it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Terrible Sweal Posted January 18, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 The only "unfair" outcome is one obtained by violence and/or coercion, Sweal. Coercion has no place in a market, it is a non-market interaction. Therefore, any market that includes no coercion is fair, and any market that uses coercion is unfair. Absence of coercion is freedom, coercion is bondage.Therefore, the less the coercion, the freer the market, and the freer the market, the fairer it is. What about a market that comes into existence after an unfair act, but with the participants strating positions nevertheless coming from that prior time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted January 18, 2005 Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 It's a coercive market and thus inherently unfair. An example would be the trade in stolen goods - all outcomes are necessarily unfair because there is one person (the original victim of robbery) in each transaction who has been coerced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eureka Posted January 19, 2005 Report Share Posted January 19, 2005 A market could not be both fair and "free," in my opinion, unless all participants were equal in intelligence, training, status and some other characteristics. Identical whatever the term would be and inhabitants of the most boring world, imaginable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted January 19, 2005 Report Share Posted January 19, 2005 Is is possible for a market to be unfair, but still free? Or IOW, is an unfair market by definition not free.How do you define unfair?The only "unfair" outcome is one obtained by violence and/or coercion, Sweal.Arbitrary definition.What about a market that comes into existence after an unfair act, but with the participants strating positions nevertheless coming from that prior time?Precisely.An example would be the trade in stolen goods - all outcomes are necessarily unfair because there is one person (the original victim of robbery) in each transaction who has been coerced.Silly, and arbitrary.Hugo, to choose an American example (because your Libertarian ideas always seems to have an American perspective), several generations ago some ancestor of someone alive today claimed land. He "stole" it, and we have been trading in "stolen" goods since. Dislike that idea? How about this one. You "stole" the English language. (You were born into a world with written English and you took this knowledge for free.) ----- I don't think you will ever find a suitable or applicable definition of "fair". The most you can have is a good definition of efficiency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted January 19, 2005 Report Share Posted January 19, 2005 Arbitrary definition. Obviously! Since "fair" is subjective, my definition of "fair" will by its very nature be arbitrary. Sweal asked for my opinion. I gave it. Perhaps you would be happier discussing mathematics than politics? Hugo, to choose an American example (because your Libertarian ideas always seems to have an American perspective), several generations ago some ancestor of someone alive today claimed land. He "stole" it, and we have been trading in "stolen" goods since. Yes, that was an act of coercion. However, the problem now is that one cannot identify either the victim or his descendants so it is not possible to make good the wrong. In that event you really have no choice but to continue anyway. Say you find a corpse in the woods with its throat slit. It cannot be indentified and the identity of the murderer is similarly uncertain. What do you do? Dislike that idea? How about this one. You "stole" the English language. Silly, August. You can't "steal" metaphysical things because they don't exist. I don't think you will ever find a suitable or applicable definition of "fair". Quite so. Marxists think that rewards in proportion to needs are fair. Capitalists think that rewards in proportion to effort and skill are fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theloniusfleabag Posted January 19, 2005 Report Share Posted January 19, 2005 Dear Hugo, I am afraid I am going to have to agree with you on this post. Quite so. Marxists think that rewards in proportion to needs are fair. Capitalists think that rewards in proportion to effort and skill are fair. "Fair", to many, implies the notion of 'equal'. Equal, sure, but equal what? To the 'capitalist', it means "everyman for himself", which is as basically 'equal' as one can get. To the Marxist, it means equal distribution or allotment. But what of the 'distributors'? They are usually the ones that ruin it for everyone, for, as you say, altruism is very rare indeed. Quote Would the Special Olympics Committee disqualify kids born with flippers from the swimming events? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theloniusfleabag Posted January 19, 2005 Report Share Posted January 19, 2005 Dear Hugo, Yes, that was an act of coercion. However, the problem now is that one cannot identify either the victim or his descendants so it is not possible to make good the wrong. In that event you really have no choice but to continue anyway.Um, what decendants can't you identify? We gathered them up and put them on reserves, so they'd be easy to find if we ever decide to give their land back, or pay them it's value. Quote Would the Special Olympics Committee disqualify kids born with flippers from the swimming events? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted January 19, 2005 Report Share Posted January 19, 2005 "Fair", to many, implies the notion of 'equal'. Equal, sure, but equal what? To the 'capitalist', it means "everyman for himself", which is as basically 'equal' as one can get. To the Marxist, it means equal distribution or allotment. Is the key tenet of communism not "from each according to ability, to each according to need"? In which case, that would forbid a truly equal distribution because the needs of some are greater than those of others. Um, what decendants can't you identify? We gathered them up and put them on reserves, so they'd be easy to find if we ever decide to give their land back, or pay them it's value. How do you know which are descendants of "nice" aboriginals and which are descendants of those who sold their people as slaves and joined in the white man's wars? How do you know which ancestors were the rare people who lived on land that they traded for fairly, and which are the ones whose ancestors robbed it from others in the endemic warfare of aboriginal society? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted January 19, 2005 Report Share Posted January 19, 2005 Marxists think that rewards in proportion to needs are fair. Capitalists think that rewards in proportion to effort and skill are fair.I won't quibble with the Marxist version of fair (although I don't know if Marx ever used used such an Anglo-Saxon word).As to the Capitalist definition, I don't know what that means either. There are 18 year old hockey players making gazillion bucks for a few hours of fooling around with a piece of rubber. I don't know how that would align with "effort and skill". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PocketRocket Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 A market could not be both fair and "free," in my opinion, unless all participants were equal in intelligence, training, status and some other characteristics. With all due respect, I must disagree. I am free to dabble in the stock market, despite the fact that I have little to no knowledge about the proper way to go about doing so. If I jump in and lose a bundle of money on stocks, it is by my own free choice. Freedom is not an issue in this case. My wisdom could, however, be called into question, but that's not unusual. Quote I need another coffee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PocketRocket Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 Say you find a corpse in the woods with its throat slit. It cannot be indentified and the identity of the murderer is similarly uncertain. What do you do? Check his pockets for cash Quote I need another coffee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.