To what are we entitled and why?

[Evo]

Agreement between crime lord and mugger maps to agreement between seller and buyer. Conflict between mugger and muggee maps to conflict between seller and seller. All clear, both of you?

No. crime lord and mugger do not equate to seller and buyer. In your analogy, crime lord is the corporate entity, mugger is the subsidiary. In this relationship the corporate entity (crime lord) henceforth known as "Bud" furnishes housing, tools, protection, etc... to the subsidiary (mugger) henceforth known as "Joe". Joe makes money for Bud by mugging innocent victims (muggees). Joe keeps part of the money and gives the other part to Bud. They both benefit from their "agreement". There is no connection to "seller and buyer". Bud is not selling anything to Joe.

Your analogy of mugger and muggee equals seller and seller? No. Mugger forcibly takes property from muggee without their prior knowledge or consent. Muggee has no choice in the outcome. Between two sellers an aggressive action by the "mugger" could result in a loss for the mugger and a gain by the muggee. Or neither could gain. Or both could lose. The "mugee" seller has knowledge of the "mugger" seller's action and then responds in a manner of his choosing. Your analogy doesn't work. The other seller is not necessarily a loser, he could ultimately gain from this. The "mugger" seller doesn't gain because he is losing profits.

Yes, in a price war there is risk involved for the one who wages war; the only relevant thing is that if successful, a price war waged by one merchant infringes on the right to property of the other merchant.

Nope, see above. This is where marketing strategies, product superiority, customer loyalty, etc... come into play.

I am saying that muggers can have agreements with crime lords, as in my analogy of mugger:muggee as warring sellerther seller, where crime lord:mugger as customer:seller (the second relation being one of an agreement for material exchange).

This is wrong as I pointed out above.

It infringes upon the loser of the war's right to property. He loses property.

No, see above.

That's been the main point of the entire price war argument: price wars infringe on the loser's right to property, just as muggers do, which gives rise to the question of why mugging is illegal and price wars are not, of the sole purpose of government is to enforce rights.

This is where you don't understand commerce and I suggest you re-read Russ' explanation.

The merchandise has been devalued; its value is less. Value is property. The physical form of the value doesn't matter for questions of property.

You don't seem to understand that selling for less now does not equate to a loss when you are talking about business. Selling for less now can ultimately result in profits. Businesses don't just look at what they made or lost "today". I suggest you take some business courses.

 

[Moonbear]

Okay, then, if your argument is valid then why should counterfeiting be illegal?

Counterfeiting takes property (by your definition) from no-one, life from no-one, and liberty from no-one. What it does do is devalue the property that others have; it causes distrust in the currency and inflation. So why, then, should governments make counterfeiting illegal? I think we both agree that counterfeiting should indeed be illegal.

Counterfeiting is not just devaluing property, it is stealing the property without paying the amount the buyer and seller agreed upon at the time of the transaction, because the counterfeiter is paying with pieces of paper that are not real money, yet still takes the property. Its illegality has nothing to do with distrust in currency and inflation.

 

[Bartholomew]

Several thousand words of honest effort? You've refused to discuss two of my arguments (Finland, war on terrorism) and you're playing absentee on the third while I've been actually typing many words of honest effort. Now I've got a fourth coming up and how you respond is your choice. It should be clear, however, who is active and who is flummoxed and silent.

 

[Bartholomew]

Okay, moonbear, say that the counterfeiter has a perfect machine--it makes money as good as government mint. Then how is he stealing? It's actually _money_, not fake money.

 

[Bartholomew]

That is, it's indistinguishable in every way from legal money, so when the counterfeiter buys a lawn tractor with counterfeit money, the tractor store effectively gets compensation exactly as if he had paid with legal money.

 

[Moonbear]

Several thousand words of honest effort? You've refused to discuss two of my arguments (Finland, war on terrorism) and you're playing absentee on the third while I've been actually typing many words of honest effort. Now I've got a fourth coming up and how you respond is your choice. It should be clear, however, who is active and who is flummoxed and silent.

Throwing out a litany of "what ifs" with faulty premises when the answers to your questions are all already in this thread (I've done little more than reiterate what Russ stated already) is hard to view as an honest effort. Further, there is no requirement that your questions be answered by a single poster. This isn't the "Russ" thread, this is the "Entitlement" thread. You're not entitled to a reply from Russ to every one of your questions. You're not entitled to any answers. However, many of us choose to answer your questions and if the question is answered, does it matter who answered it? The idea of a discussion on a forum is that anyone can participate and contribute to the discussion, it is not just a conversation between two people.

If you're not interested in anyone else's answers other than Russ', then I'm not going to be very inclined to continue either.

 

[Moonbear]

That is, it's indistinguishable in every way from legal money, so when the counterfeiter buys a lawn tractor with counterfeit money, the tractor store effectively gets compensation exactly as if he had paid with legal money.

C'mon Bart, it doesn't make it real money just because it looks like real money. You're grasping at straws now.

 

[cragwolf]

To what are we entitled and why?

We are entitled to whatever we decide we are entitled to. We and only we make the rules.

 

[Bartholomew]

No, Moonbear, I'm happy talking to you as well. You've demonstrated more reasoning ability, and have made several good points.

 

[Bartholomew]

It is not real money, it just looks like real money--but who is the victim of this perfect counterfeiter? Certainly not the store--the store got effective money for its lawn tractor, which the store can then use for its own purposes.

 

[Evo]

It is not real money, it just looks like real money--but who is the victim of this perfect counterfeiter? Certainly not the store--the store got effective money for its lawn tractor, which the store can then use for its own purposes.

No Bart, the store deposits the money into the bank and they discover it's counterfeit and the store loses it's money.

Bart, you are just plain wrong and you're not getting it. Your behavior has fallen into the category of "troll". Do you want to be responsible for this thread being closed?

 

[Moonbear]

No, Moonbear, I'm happy talking to you as well. You've demonstrated more reasoning ability, and have made several good points.

Bart, I think you're underestimating what Russ has already contributed to this thread. I truly have not found any difficulty in understanding the arguments he has presented, and I'm not a mind-reader to know any more of what he's thinking that what are in his words. Evo has also made several good arguments. This might be the time to step back and re-read the thread carefully and in its entirety. Most of the responses here have been following from arguments made throughout the thread, not just examples in isolation of one another. Your most recent posts suggest you may be starting to lose sight of the forest for the trees here. That can happen when you're doing many things at once, or posting in many threads at once (I had to go back and re-read a few times myself to keep the context straight).

 

[Bartholomew]

Evo, what part of "indistinguishable from legal money" are you missing?

By the way, saying I am "just plain wrong" is equivalent to saying that the democratic party is just plain wrong. My ultimate point here (did you know?) is that government's duty includes more than protecting the three basic rights, and in particular that the government's duty is to ensure the well-being of its citizens. Do you in plain faith believe that both of these ideas are incontrovertibly incorrect?

 

[russ_watters]

Several thousand words of honest effort? You've refused to discuss two of my arguments (Finland, war on terrorism)

Franz adequately answered on Finland and I didn't see any need to elaborate or parrot. As said, this isn't the Russ thread. I answered your war on terror question.

and you're playing absentee on the third while I've been actually typing many words of honest effort.

Quite the contrary - others have said pretty specifically that they are just re-explaining to you things I have already said. No new ground has been covered tonight.

 

[Bartholomew]

I think that the trouble has been that I started in this thread talking to Russ, and you weren't paying attention when I laid out my points in response to his, so now I'd been explaining when I should have been re-iterating. When I did simply restate my ideas (post # 97), you immediately understood my point, raised an item of valid contention, which has led to here (countefeiting).

 

[russ_watters]

Evo, what part of "indistinguishable from legal money" are you missing?

Oh jeez. I don't want to get sucked back into this, but money doesn't just appear spontaneously. It comes from somewhere. When you counterfeit even with no chance of getting caught, you are still stealing. You are stealing from the merchant (that's right, even if the merchant doesn't get caught when he passes the bill from the bank, you're still stealing from him) and you're stealing from the originator of American currency: the government.

Getting caught is not what determines right and wrong.

 

[Evo]

Evo, what part of "indistinguishable from legal money" are you missing?

The "reality" part where the counterfeit money is discovered. And what does this have to do with anything?

By the way, saying I am "just plain wrong" is equivalent to saying that the democratic party is just plain wrong.

Bart, going back through this thread, I honestly can't find anything you've said that is correct. I may have missed a post.

My ultimate point here (did you know?) is that government's duty includes more than protecting the three basic rights, and in particular that the government's duty is to ensure the well-being of its citizens. Do you in plain faith believe that both of these ideas are incontrovertibly incorrect?

Bart, that was discussed with you pages ago by Russ, but you insist upon bringing up these ridiculous scenarios, for what reason I cannot fathom. It is this nonsense that I am addressing. Are you willing to admit your scenarios are nonsense and go back to the topic of this thread?

 

[Moonbear]

I think that the trouble has been that I started in this thread talking to Russ, and you weren't paying attention when I laid out my points in response to his, so now I'd been explaining when I should have been re-iterating. When I did simply restate my ideas (post # 97), you immediately understood my point, raised an item of valid contention, which has led to here (countefeiting).

Actually, I had been following the thread from the beginning, and it just took that long for you to make your point clear. Russ' points, and everyone else's for that matter, have been clear to me from the start. The poor analogy of mugger/muggee/robber/theft to have anything to do with commerce took quite some time to disentangle. Now you're just being stubborn about it and I really don't know why.

 

[Bartholomew]

The worth of currency is determined by what you can buy with it. There is no absolute standard for the worth of currency. If the "victim" store can buy $500 worth of goods with $500 of counterfeit bills, then the counterfeit bills are worth $500; that's the definition of monetary worth.

 

[Bartholomew]

Evo, indistinguishable means it can't ever be noticed. Like the counterfeiter had an actual government mint in his basement or something.

Okay, here is my gameplan: the idea that the only purpose of government is to protect the 3 basic rights of life, liberty, and property is inconsistent with certain accepted and clearly necessary laws. Therefore government has more purpose than to protect basic rights; and eventually, once past this barrier, my argument is that government exists to ensure the well-being of its citizens, which may sometimes take precedence over their rights.

 

[Moonbear]

The worth of currency is determined by what you can buy with it. There is no absolute standard for the worth of currency. If the "victim" store can buy $500 worth of goods with $500 of counterfeit bills, then the counterfeit bills are worth $500; that's the definition of monetary worth.

See here for a beginning lesson on currency: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banknote#History_of_Paper_Money

 

[Moonbear]

Okay, here is my gameplan: the idea that the only purpose of government is to protect the 3 basic rights of life, liberty, and property is inconsistent with certain accepted and clearly necessary laws. Therefore government has more purpose than to protect basic rights; and eventually, once past this barrier, my argument is that government exists to ensure the well-being of its citizens, which may sometimes take precedence over their rights.

We've been discussing this ad nauseum already. I already gave a direct answer, and suggested taking a careful look at the wording of the Bill of Rights. Do you think we already forgot what we discussed a few pages back to just bring up the same argument again without adding anything new to it? None of your examples have refuted the argument made by others, which is not in agreement with your statement above. I'm getting tired of repeating the same things as this is clearly going nowhere.

 

[Bartholomew]

I find that insulting and uncalled for.

 

[Bartholomew]

I don't know what "argument made by others" you are referring to; I doubt any argument previously made in this thread bears any relevance to the real value of money, determined by what it can be exchanged for.

 

[Evo]

Evo, indistinguishable means it can't ever be noticed. Like the counterfeiter had an actual government mint in his basement or something.

But that means pretending and we're not going there.

Okay, here is my gameplan: the idea that the only purpose of government is to protect the 3 basic rights of life, liberty, and property is inconsistent with certain accepted and clearly necessary laws. Therefore government has more purpose than to protect basic rights; and eventually, once past this barrier, my argument is that government exists to ensure the well-being of its citizens, which may sometimes take precedence over their rights.

I have to get up in the morning because I have a job.

We need to get back to definitions of inalienable rights and privileges. Property would not fall under inalienable rights.

I am trusting you to stay on topic, I know you can do it.

Moonbear is correct, we've gone over this before.

I will decide the fate of this thread tomorrow. There may be nothing of value left to discuss.

 

[Bartholomew]

And I should note that my argument about counterfeiting is in direct response to your argument that property is not determined by its value; you've hit the ball my way, I've hit it back, and now what are you doing?

 

[Bartholomew]

Evo, if you don't know how to deal with hypothetical constructs in an argument, this is not my problem. Saying "what if this" and then asking "does this set of rules break" is an excellent way to test a set of rules. It's the same thing as in physics: if you make up a situation and your mathematics gives a non-physical result, then there is something wrong with your mathematics.

 

[Evo]

This is going nowhere

edit: Bart, we can discuss tomorrow. I think I see what your point is that you want to discuss. Everyone needs a time out. I will be re-opening this in the morning and hopefully we can have a more fruitful discussion.

I know I can't think straight tonight.

 

[Evo]

Ok, let's restart. I think Bart's analogies may have confused the point he was trying to make. Sorry Bart, let's start over.

 

[Astronuc]

The most important function of government

is to keep its citizens confused. ( from http://forums.roadfly.org/forums/politics-lounge/6319441-1.html at Road Forums ).

I thought a little comic relief was necessary.

 

[thomasxc]

Absolutely nothing.

If you don't earn it, you don't deserve it. Period.

Well, i suppose except for your life in the first place.

is it my duty to pay for a drug addicts' hospital bill? absoutley not. without work, there is no value.

 

[WarPhalange]

What if it's a baby that became an addict by being born to an addicted mother?

 

[thomasxc]

i would no doubt feel sorry for it-i am not a stoic. but its not my duty, my responsibility to take care of anyone but myself. but you pose a good point..

 

[thomasxc]

but i would say that some people are more deserving of help than others.

 

[russ_watters]

This thread is 3 years old...