News What Are We Entitled To and Why?

[misskitty]

I think it might be safe to say rights are something that everyone has. What people do with those rights is constricted by the law. Other than that people can live as they please.

 

[russ_watters]

And, you say that's not what rights are or how they work, but why don't you provide any argument in support of that? What is the essential difference--with respect to RIGHTS--between causing harm to someone by robbing them, and causing financial harm to the same person through, say, a price war?

Have you been following this Locke vs Hobbes vs Rousseau bit at all? That's where our theory on rights comes from. That link I just posted (long, yes) is a good start...

Where do you get your ideas on the subject from?

 

[misskitty]

Where do you get your ideas on the subject from?

Some of us get our ideas about our rights from our parents who instill this knowledge. Others have to go research as you suggest, for specific ideas on rights.

 

[Bartholomew]

Others of us think for ourselves.

I'm not planning to read a ton of material that you claim is your point of view (who's to say you even agree with all of it). Argue for yourself.

 

[loseyourname]

Others of us think for ourselves.

I'm not planning to read a ton of material that you claim is your point of view (who's to say you even agree with all of it). Argue for yourself.

He agrees with it. And he's presented his own arguments that come to the same conclusions several hundred times in the past year.

 

[Bartholomew]

Okay, if you've talked to him, would you argue for him? How would he respond to my points about terrorism and constant rights infringement (in my post #49 of this threaad)?

 

[russ_watters]

Others of us think for ourselves.

As a professor of mine once told me, until you get to your doctoral thesis, you're not allowed to have an original thought (that anyone can be compelled to listen to). You have to learn from the experts until you become one. Then you can speak for yourself and people will listen to you because you are an expert. You have to earn that.

I'm not planning to read a ton of material that you claim is your point of view (who's to say you even agree with all of it). Argue for yourself.

Please do not accuse me of lying. I am quite possibly the most direct person on this board: I say exactly what I mean and I give direct answers to direct questions. You got one. And what exactly would be the point of lying about my own beliefs?

In light of this and the above, no offense, but it simply doesn't seem like you know what you are talking about here. You're trying to make this stuff up/figure it out as you go along. For your own good, stop. That's not the way to learn. The way to learn is to read the theories written by the experts. You're wasting your time scratching for knowledge you could gain easily with a few hours reading.

Your tone has deteriorated over the last few posts. I think it may be partly a result of this quote from me:

That quite simply is not what rights are or how they work. Nor should/can it be.

I'm guessing you saw that as arrogance. It isn't. You misunderstand: the first sentence of the quote is, quite simply, historical fact. The framers of the US Constitution wrote a vast quantity of political theory, not the least of which is the Declaration of Independence. They laid out precisely what the theoretical basis for the Constitution was and they based that on the writings of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. I gave specific examples of a few concepts about rights taken directly from Locke. When I say "that's not the way rights work," that means what you are saying goes against the definition laid out in these theories. Again, all of this is historical fact, and its not arrogance to state it.

The second sentence is my personal opinion based on history. Most western nations base their governments on the same principles as the US and the west is the freeest, most peaceful, and most prosperous part of the world. I don't consider that a coincidence. Eastern philosophy takes a view closer to yours: group rights, not individual rights. That is directly responsible for things like Kamakaze, group suicides, and Tienamnen Square. So I consider my opinion pretty well justified.

I hope you see the irony in your tone, Bartholomew. You demanded of me something that not only did I already provide (and have now expanded on), but something which you refuse to provide yourself: a basis for your argument. And no, Bartholomew, "Others of us think for ourselves" is not a basis for an argument. I recommend you not try that in a history or poly sci essay.

 

[russ_watters]

Okay, if you've talked to him, would you argue for him?

loseyourname has read quite a number of posts of mine and understands me quite well. Frankly though, what he said can be gleaned entirely from my posts in this thread anyway. In any case, he's one of two people here who can pretty much speak for me if he wants. The other is BobG, who is a little scary, how far he's inside my head...

How would he respond to my points about terrorism and constant rights infringement (in my post #49 of this threaad)?

What is the essential difference--with respect to RIGHTS--between causing harm to someone by robbing them, and causing financial harm to the same person through, say, a price war?

I'm not sure if you really meant "price war" or "price gouging," or "price fixing," so I'll discuss all three (in any case, the answer is pretty much the same).

Commerce is an interaction between two parties of equal rights. Both decide the terms they are willing to agree to and they either agree and the transaction happens or they disagree and the transaction does not happen. As a result, it takes pretty extreme and unusual market conditions for that interaction to be anything but on a perfectly level playing field:

Price gouging is, afaik, a crime - if not always, certainly in specific instances (ie, laws are passed against it in wartime). Price gouging happens when there is an artificial (not caused by normal market forces) shortage created that is exploited by merchants. It is sometimes difficult to define the particular circumstance, but when proven, it is not right.

Price fixing is like price gouging (and is always a crime), except that it is done through collusion between merchants. Same implications as above.

A price war is when there are too many people in a marketplace selling the same product and merchants cut their prices to compete. If you're referring to how this hurts the merchants, the answer is at the top: commerce is an interaction between two parties of equal rights and both must agree to the terms for it to happen. If the buyer can get a better price somewhere else, he's not trampling on your rights by buying there. The merchants each make individual choices as to how - or even if - they will run their business. Owning a successful business is not a right and if the business fails, the owner has the choice to keep trying or not.

Stealing should be obvious - it is one person taking something from another. There is no mutual agreement like in commerce.

 

[russ_watters]

A little more on this (about me) because there is little that irks me more:

who's to say you even agree with all of it

If you haven't noticed, I'm a conservative in a board full of liberals. I'm ok with that - in fact, I like it that way. Is it because I like to argue? A little. But more than that, I like to be challenged and being outnumbered by a group of people as intelligent (or more) than me is a great challenge to my convictions. But even more than that, it is a core belief of mine that a theory, belief, idea, etc. is only valid if its been heavily and honestly challenged and stood up to the challenge(in my mind). Not only am I unafraid of being challenged, I demand it. I will accept nothing less than the best challenge people can give me because that's how I form my ideas (and I reciprocate the the best challenge I can give them). This is why your lack of basis for your beliefs is so sad to me. To me, that would feel like floating aimlessly on the ocean with no idea where I was going.

So not only do I mean what I say, I also will honestly consider any viewpoint argued rationally, honestly, and civilly(You don't have to believe that if you don't want to - all that is important is that I believe it.). And I have, on occasion, admitted being wrong in an argument and have also (rarely, but it has happened) actually changed opinions based largely on arguments here. It is in other people's strong arguments that I get the strength of my convictions.

 

[Bartholomew]

The business owner's agreements are between him and his customer. He makes no agreements with the other business owner, who is waging price war against him. The other business owner's individual choices are infringing on the first business owner's right to property, by taking business from him.

The only real argument for why price wars are OK is that there is a code of business behavior that exists _through precedent and law_ as being okay to do. It is not an agreement between the two warring business owners; it is just the way things are done. No business owner, when entering business, enters into an agreement with competing business owners saying "I will enter business in this area and we may wage price war against each other." There is no mutual agreement (as you claim) to wage price war; if a business owner decides not to agree to have price war waged against him, it will nevertheless be waged, and the government will not defend him. His right to property is being infringed without his consent.


Why not apply your same reasoning to mugging? When you walk down the street the street you have the same rights to be armed and trained in combat as the mugger does. Just like the first business owner in the preceding example decides how to run his business, you decide how to physically be prepared to defend yourself. It's a perfectly level playing field; the mugger's just better on it. Why should the government regulate that any more than it regulates price wars, if its only reason to regulate things is to protect rights?


Also, how about my point on the war on terrorism. That's a good point too. You got a reply?

 

[misskitty]

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I was under the impression this thread was about the rights of individuals and not an economic discussion on the valididty of price wars. This isn't a contest on who is right or wrong. Bartholomew, just supply a well founded argument to reinforce your thoughts, that way there is no room for interpretation on what it is exactly you mean.

 

[russ_watters]

The business owner's agreements are between him and his customer. He makes no agreements with the other business owner, who is waging price war against him. The other business owner's individual choices are infringing on the first business owner's right to property, by taking business from him.

No, Bartholomew, that is not correct. Each individual business owner makes a choice on whether or not to even be in the market in the first place. Making that choice means the business owner has consented to operating within the law and within the market.

There is no mutual agreement (as you claim) to wage price war...

Reread: that isn't what I said. In fact, in this case it is entirely the choice of the individual business owner.

Why not apply your same reasoning to mugging?

I did.

Just like the first business owner in the preceding example decides how to run his business, you decide how to physically be prepared to defend yourself. It's a perfectly level playing field; the mugger's just better on it.

Again, that simply isn't how it works. Now you're arguing against political theory and economics. The field isn't level because the rules you have just defined are not the real rules. The rules are as I have defined them. The rules say that you do not need to actively defend yourself. The rules say that the robber does not have the right to such a confrontation. If you don't like it, take it up with your Senator or run for office.

Also, how about my point on the war on terrorism. That's a good point too. You got a reply?

I replied to it already and no, it was not a good point. Again, you're pulling this stuff out of the air. Making it up as you go along. Just because it sounds good in your head does not make it true. I'm not going to entertain any more of this rediculousness. If you can't frame your arguments within the constraints of reality, it is useless to discuss any of this with you.

 

[russ_watters]

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I was under the impression this thread was about the rights of individuals and not an economic discussion on the valididty of price wars. This isn't a contest on who is right or wrong. Bartholomew, just supply a well founded argument to reinforce your thoughts, that way there is no room for interpretation on what it is exactly you mean.

I agree. Let's stop with this nonsense and get back to the point.

edit: perhaps we're not so far from it as you may think (yeah, I did do a little bit of an economics lesson there, but it has moral implications). Bartholomew's entire source for his arguments is the entitlement trap we've been discussing. I think his view is an insight into the problem. People don't make an effort to learn about these things and when they try to figure them out on their own, human nature gets in the way. Human nature is, first and foremost, selfishness. Its not that far of a leap from 'I should be a successful businessman' to 'I'm entitled to be a sucessful businessman'.

The thing that scares me most in politics is how easy it is to bribe people with handouts. I feel that that is the main reason the deomcratic party is even able to remain in existence today. The democrats get upwards of 90% of "the black vote," for example, because "the black vote" is about poverty (no, it isn't a racial issue). For someone who has a tight budget, regardless of why, it is easy to see why the prospect of a little charity would sway them. We're seeing the same thing with Social Security. As a result, the democratic party play's up the victim mentality and convinces their constituents that they are entitled to handouts.

The reality is that entitlements are supposed to be for those who truly need them. First and foremost, that means children (But children don't vote, so it really doesn't pay to give them money). Children are entitled to a high-quality education.

I am less sympathetic of adults because by the time someone gets to 25 or 30, their lives are much more in their own hands. If a person is poor because they have 3 kids and not a good enough job, for example, they shouldn't have had 3 kids. If someone works at McDonalds' because they didn't finish high school and can't get a better job, they are not entitled to a government handout.

Entitlements are meant to pay for things not within your control. If you could have reasonably avoided a problem, you are not entitled to having someone bail you out.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm going to quibble a bit of semantics here. "Unalienable" (or "inalienable"; both are used interchangeably with reference to the Declaration of Independence) does mean the right can't be taken away. Even when someone commits an act that infringes upon your right, you still have that right intact. If when someone robbed the local liquor store and shot the clerk that took away their right to life, then there would be no way to hold the robber accountable because the right would no longer exist that made it wrong. Instead, it is because you have and retain that right that action can be taken to hold someone else accountable if they interfere with your rights.

Fair enough - I need to reaquaint myself with the term "infringe".

 

[misskitty]

This is going to sound ignorant. However, I feel it is relevent. Everyone has a pretty good idea of their basic rights and how they work. What about the rights you may not even be aware of? For example, I was watching the news and they did a story on contracts and the things the fine print says...hence always a great idea to read the fine print on anything. Anyway, apparently when you sign documents, purchasing a car or a new appliance, the manufacturers have a way of wording the contracts so that if something goes wrong, they can not be held responcible.

What I want to know is how does that work. It didn't amke any sense to me when I first saw it. How can a manufacturer take away your right to sue like that? Especially if it was their fault, faulty equipment or something. It doesn't make sense.

 

[Moonbear]

What I want to know is how does that work. It didn't amke any sense to me when I first saw it. How can a manufacturer take away your right to sue like that? Especially if it was their fault, faulty equipment or something. It doesn't make sense.

Okay, so in this situation, you're talking about rights granted by law or government (as opposed to previous discussion, which has been about rights granted by "god" or "nature" or whatever you want to call it...the unalienable rights). In the case of a contract, or any other right granted by a law, these are not unalienable. You can choose to waive that right (the unalienable rights you can't waive; so even if in a contract you signed off that it's okay if they come and kill you if you don't pay your loans, they still aren't allowed to kill you; that term of the contract would be deemed illegal and invalidated).

The idea with a contract is that you have the choice to not sign it. If you sign it and agree to the terms, then you have forfeited protection against that. Items are often purchased "as-is" which means you agree upon purchase that if it doesn't work, you're not going to hold the seller responsible, where if that agreement wasn't there, you would be protected from being sold defective merchandise.

There are ways out of such contracts. There are some laws that make certain types of contracts, or certain types of clauses, illegal. In those cases, even if you agree to it, the contract can be invalidated if it contains one of those illegal clauses (most examples I've heard of for this pertain to contracts signed between an employer and an employee as condition of employment, where something in the contract violates labor laws). The other, more extreme situation, is if you were forced to sign the contract under duress. This can be hard to prove, but if someone was threatening your life or blackmailing you at the time you signed it, that would invalidate the contract.

As for waiving your right to sue, this isn't all that uncommon in contracts. Because the courts are overburdened to deal with all the contract disputes,and because court costs are expensive, many contracts stipulate that disputes will be settled by binding arbitration. You still have your case heard by someone who is a neutral third party and have the opportunity to have damages remedied or have the contract dissolved, but you do it with an arbiter instead of a judge.

Contract terms are always negotiable. I've been in situations where I received a contract and it contained unacceptable clauses, at which time I send it back and ask they be removed before I sign it. If there are unacceptable terms in the contract and the person with whom you are dealing will not negotiate those terms, you always have the choice to walk away and not sign.

 

[Moonbear]

Everyone has a pretty good idea of their basic rights and how they work. What about the rights you may not even be aware of? For example, I was watching the news and they did a story on contracts...

My answer was going to get too long to reply to both parts of your question in one post.

I already addressed the contractual part. In terms of not being aware of your rights, it is your responsibility to educate yourself on your rights. Now, the unalienable rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness), you can't waive, and even if you don't know you have them, they won't disappear on you. Though, these rights are important enough that we teach them in schools so everyone knows these rights.

As for all the other rights granted by law, that is why we have lawyers. If someone is not well-versed in the law and their rights, they really shouldn't be signing a contract without having a lawyer to assist them in understanding what they are agreeing to. When you're engaging in a transaction such as that, you know it's something important and that what you are signing is binding. So if you don't understand it, it is your responsibility to get assistance from someone who does (if a lawyer is wrong, you also have legal recourses...you can sue them for malpractice if they don't correct your damages if it was based on faulty advice from them). As for other situations, if you are unsure, again, you can always consult with a lawyer (often initial consultations are free so you can find out if there's a case to be made or not before hiring the lawyer to take on the case).

I think this is a good place to re-introduce the thread topic of entitlement. Except if you are charged with a crime, you are not entitled to having a lawyer provided for you, but you are entitled to the opportunity to seek the advice of a lawyer if you wish to do so. In other words, if you wish to consult a lawyer first, nobody can stop you from doing that, but it's not anyone else's responsibility to make you do that or to provide one for you.

 

[Zantra]

Those rights can be very easily taken away from you, and you are a fool to think otherwise. How many people in the world do not have those rights? They are wnything but unalienable, and are very easily taken away.

See, that's where you're wrong. To be free is something that was fought for and was achieved. I believe we ARE entitled to it, and I would fight and die rather than accept the alternative. You seem to want to give entitlement the connotation that it means we just expect to receive it without effort, without thought to the path that lead to these freedoms, and that just isn't the case. No one will take my rights from me as long as I'm alive. Our government exists to serve the people, and if it didn't, the people would fight for one that did. That's America, God bless us

 

[misskitty]

Ok, that makes sense. That was a lengthy reply, but it does answer my question. Basically, understand what it is you are signing and if you don't then consult your lawyer. If you don't have one, get one.

I agree with with you that the rights you are born with you are entitled to and no one can infringe upon them or shouldn't be taken away from you. It does make sense that the rights provided and protected by the law are priviledges that can be taken away from you.

 

[Moonbear]

I agree with with you that the rights you are born with you are entitled to and no one can infringe upon them or shouldn't be taken away from you. It does make sense that the rights provided and protected by the law are priviledges that can be taken away from you.

Technically, no, rights, even those provided by law, are rights not privileges. They can't be taken away (well, they can if the law changes, but I don't think that's what you meant), but you can waive them or give them up (the ones provided by law, not the ones everyone is born with). Do you see the distinction I'm trying to make? I'm not sure if I've been clear about that.

 

[russ_watters]

This is going to sound ignorant. However, I feel it is relevent...

Actually, its a good question and Moonbear's answer even makes some parts of the earlier discussion relevant: commerce is based on contracts. Every time you buy something, you enter a verbal contract, which then becomes a written contract when you get the receipt.

Contract terms are always negotiable. I've been in situations where I received a contract and it contained unacceptable clauses, at which time I send it back and ask they be removed before I sign it. If there are unacceptable terms in the contract and the person with whom you are dealing will not negotiate those terms, you always have the choice to walk away and not sign.

As I'm sure you can imagine, this is a big issue for me. We have a certain architect who wants our contract with him to be contingent upon him getting paid by his client. So if he doesn't get paid, we don't get paid and we can't go back to the client for the money. Not going to happen.

 

[Moonbear]

You seem to want to give entitlement the connotation that it means we just expect to receive it without effort, without thought to the path that lead to these freedoms, and that just isn't the case.

I think (or hope) the confusion has arisen because of improper use of the word "entitlement." This is why I provided some definitions earlier in the thread, to help clarify this point.

It is common to hear people griping (usually the older generations about the younger generations) about others having this "sense of entitlement." Usually, the statement is left incomplete and vague as to what one feels they are entitled, and has an accusatory or negative connotation that a group wants to be given hand-outs, or receive something for which they have not worked. I think this is blurring the meaning of what an entitlement is.

It is true, there are people who think they are entitled to things for which they are not. I've had students who thought or felt they were entitled to an A on an exam without putting effort into obtaining it, at which time I had to explain they need to earn the A, I don't just give them out. While it would make me very unpopular, and I'd probably get a lot of pressure from the administration, I am not required to give out any As to my students, as long as I've made it clear what it takes to get an A and no student met that requirement. There are also many who believe they are entitled to a college education, which again is not true; it is a privilege for those who have performed well enough in high school to qualify for the opportunity to receive a college education, and the students' responsibility to seize that opportunity and obtain that education. On the other hand, it is a right of every child to have the opportunity and means (i.e., no barriers such as tuition fees) to receive a secondary school education, but still their (and their parents', to some extent) responsibility to seize the opportunity and make the most of it and ensure they actually learn something.

In summary, being entitled to something and thinking you are entitled to something to which you are not are two different things.

 

[russ_watters]

Technically, no, rights, even those provided by law, are rights not privileges. They can't be taken away (well, they can if the law changes, but I don't think that's what you meant), but you can waive them or give them up (the ones provided by law, not the ones everyone is born with). Do you see the distinction I'm trying to make? I'm not sure if I've been clear about that.

Where this gets sticky is crime/criminals. If rights are contractual, how is it that the rights of criminals can be involuntarily revoked? The answer is that they aren't involuntarily revoked: by living in this country, you implicitly agree to live under its laws. That's a contract. If you break the terms of the contract (break the law), the punishment is provided for in the contract...

 

[Bartholomew]

Okay, Russ, this is what I now construe to be your view:
The purpose of government is to lay out a set of rules for competition. These rules may infringe on people's rights to property or liberty, and (occasionally) on their rights to life. In other words, people have rights to property, libery, and life, except where these rights conflict with the accepted rules.

Is that an accurate representation of your view?

 

[Bartholomew]

By the way, there is absolutely no point in discussing if the only ideas you have are those from other people... you might as well just toss a bunch of books in a room and go to lunch. Nobody ever accepts any idea except on the authority of their own reason.

 

[Moonbear]

By the way, there is absolutely no point in discussing if the only ideas you have are those from other people... you might as well just toss a bunch of books in a room and go to lunch. Nobody ever accepts any idea except on the authority of their own reason.

Are you even reading the thread? And, actually, if someone has already presented an argument with which one agrees, and done it more thoroughly than one could within the maximum character limits of a post here, why shouldn't they refer to the prior work? I would find it more troublesome if someone did not acknowledge that an idea has been previously presented and instead claimed those ideas to be original when they are not. I don't see you presenting any counter-arguments, just a lost of posts that are equivalent to, "I don't agree with you, so I'm sticking my fingers in my ears and not listening."

You are entitled to your opinion, but an opinion doesn't count for much in the way of convincing others to share it if it can't be backed up by evidence in support of it.

 

[misskitty]

By the way, there is absolutely no point in discussing if the only ideas you have are those from other people... you might as well just toss a bunch of books in a room and go to lunch. Nobody ever accepts any idea except on the authority of their own reason.

Thats an awefully pessimistic view on the subject. By quoting other people, we are only trying to convey that we are not the only people who have these opinions, but that they are shared between mulitple people.

 

[misskitty]

By the way, Moonbear. I do understand what you meant. It wa a good thorough responce. Thanks.

 

[misskitty]

See, that's where you're wrong. To be free is something that was fought for and was achieved. I believe we ARE entitled to it, and I would fight and die rather than accept the alternative. You seem to want to give entitlement the connotation that it means we just expect to receive it without effort, without thought to the path that lead to these freedoms, and that just isn't the case. No one will take my rights from me as long as I'm alive. Our government exists to serve the people, and if it didn't, the people would fight for one that did. That's America, God bless us

I completely agree with you, Zantra. It has never been the character of an American to not fight for what they believe in. People fight for what they believe is right and not let others trounce on what they believe. It doesn't matter what it was; the right to a fair trial, or the right to be treated equally no matter what you look, sound, dress or practice, or the right to practice their religion just as anyone else would.

People fought and died on this land so they could have these rights and pass them on to future generations of their families. As well as other people seeking for the same liberties. Why do you think people immigrate here?

Because they want a chance at a better life for them, their children, their grandchildren or whom ever. They want to pursue life, liberty and happiness. Where ever they came from, that need was probably not being met.

Without these basic rights, you wouldn't be able to argue this point openly to other people. Or the right to protest the war. Or whatever. You are exercising these rights right now without even giving it a second thought. As are the rest of us.

 

[Bartholomew]

Moonbear and misskitty, you have misunderstood my point. You certainly can refer to other people's ideas, but ultimately the judge of what you believe is you. You, alone, decide what ideas to accept or reject, and you do it based on what seems reasonable to you--or perhaps for less objective reasons.

If someone has posted an argument you agree with, then you may link to it... but on the other hand, you have to consider how appropriate that argument actually is to arguing your specific side in the specific discussion you are involved in. If you don't want to use your own words to frame the bulk of your argument, you still must generally use your own words to explain how that other person's essay applies to the current topic. Linking to an entire book without explanation is simply unacceptable.

 

[Bartholomew]

I just have to specifically reply to this sentence of Russ':

There is no mutual agreement (as you claim) to wage price war...

Reread: that isn't what I said. In fact, in this case it is entirely the choice of the individual business owner.

I was quoting you when I said "mutual agreement." You shouldn't change your opinions so quickly (while denying it) that you don't even remember what you said. Here's where you said "mutual agreement" (context included):

Stealing should be obvious - it is one person taking something from another. There is no mutual agreement like in commerce.

 

[Moonbear]

Bart, I don't see any contradiction in those statements you've quoted. There can't be because you're attempting to compare apples and oranges. One quote is talking about theft. The other quote is talking about the choice to go into and stay in business knowing that other businesses selling similar products or services will compete with you, along with how far one will go to keep up with the competition and when it is time to close up shop.

By the way, it doesn't make a good argument to quote your own misinterpretation of Russ' earlier statement and then hold that up to another of his statements and try to argue HE is the one who is being inconsistent.

 

[Bartholomew]

Russ said, "there is no mutual agreement like in commerce." Since the commerce he had just finished talking about before saying that was the commerce of price wars, he was referring back to what he had just said. Contrasting a new idea against a previously described idea--a good expository technique. His meaning was quite clear: "commerce" referred particularly to price war (as well as the more general sense), and "mutual agreement like in commerce" referred particularly to mutual agreement in price war (as well as the more general sense).

 

[Moonbear]

If you don't want to use your own words to frame the bulk of your argument, you still must generally use your own words to explain how that other person's essay applies to the current topic. Linking to an entire book without explanation is simply unacceptable.

There was an explanation, and then further explanation when you asked for more. The wording and ideas presented in the Declaration of Independence are largely borrowed from the people whose works Russ cited. The argument being presented is that there are "unalienable" rights described in the Declaration of Independence as "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." This is only a slight modification of Locke's words, describing life, liberty and property as unalienable rights. Thus, Locke has already made the complete argument in explaining what makes these rights unalienable. Russ, and others (myself included) are deferring to the original source of argument that these are unalienable rights as we agree with that argument. The question is "To what are we entitled." And our answer has been consistently throughout this thread, "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." (With the exception of a handful of recent posts in the thread that have digressed from the unalienable rights to those rights conferred by law, which relate to business relationships).

 

[loseyourname]

Russ said, "there is no mutual agreement like in commerce." Since the commerce he had just finished talking about before saying that was the commerce of price wars, he was referring back to what he had just said. Contrasting a new idea against a previously described idea--a good expository technique. His meaning was quite clear: "commerce" referred particularly to price war (as well as the more general sense), and "mutual agreement like in commerce" referred particularly to mutual agreement in price war (as well as the more general sense).

There is mutual agreement amongst business owners to play by the rules of the game, whether these be market rules or regulations enforced by statute law. Price wars are part of the game, and every business owner buys in with this knowledge in hand, agreeing in principle to whatever circumstances the market should hold for him.

 

[loseyourname]

How exactly would you change this anyway, Bart? Are you suggesting that it is wrong for businesses to compete with one another? With no competition, there are no winners, and you've eliminated whatever enticement there was to go into business in the first place. No one is going to put up with the long hours and lack of security without the possibility of great reward, when they could simply work for wages and make the same amount. Competition is good for the consumer in that it both lowers prices and encourages innovation. If we eliminated competition, we'd be eliminating everything that is good about capitalism. Where's the preacher (Aquamarine) when you need him?

 

[Bartholomew]

Moonbear, I'm talking about slightly different things with Russ than you are. I'm aware of the basic rights of life, liberty, and property, and just what the basic rights are is not the main thing I'm talking about.

Well, loseyourname, in your first post as you stated it, you described my basic understanding of Russ' position.

Okay, Russ, this is what I now construe to be your view:
The purpose of government is to lay out a set of rules for competition. These rules may infringe on people's rights to property or liberty, and (occasionally) on their rights to life. In other words, people have rights to property, libery, and life, except where these rights conflict with the accepted rules.

That's how the system works, and there is a separate element from the "three rights" that government is protecting here: namely, the accepted rules.

So my point is that government exists to do more than protect the "three rights," and that additionally it is not practical or fair for the government always to protect the "three rights." This is all part of my original point, pages back, that the government's duty is to ensure the well-being of its citizens; that this is the essential contract the citizens have with the government. The people agree to be governed, and the government agrees to promote their well-being. It doesn't always work so amicably, but that's the ideal.

 

[Moonbear]

Russ said, "there is no mutual agreement like in commerce." Since the commerce he had just finished talking about before saying that was the commerce of price wars, he was referring back to what he had just said. Contrasting a new idea against a previously described idea--a good expository technique. His meaning was quite clear: "commerce" referred particularly to price war (as well as the more general sense), and "mutual agreement like in commerce" referred particularly to mutual agreement in price war (as well as the more general sense).

You asked him to explain the difference between price wars and robbing someone. So, the stealing comment, in context, is as follows:

What is the essential difference--with respect to RIGHTS--between causing harm to someone by robbing them, and causing financial harm to the same person through, say, a price war?

A price war is when there are too many people in a marketplace selling the same product and merchants cut their prices to compete. If you're referring to how this hurts the merchants, the answer is at the top: commerce is an interaction between two parties of equal rights and both must agree to the terms for it to happen. If the buyer can get a better price somewhere else, he's not trampling on your rights by buying there. The merchants each make individual choices as to how - or even if - they will run their business. Owning a successful business is not a right and if the business fails, the owner has the choice to keep trying or not.

Stealing should be obvious - it is one person taking something from another. There is no mutual agreement like in commerce.

I've underlined the relevant definition of commerce, as Russ provided. As you can see, in context, it is referring to the mutual agreement between buyer and seller, not between two sellers. When referring to the agreement between two sellers (merchants) , as Russ put in boldface type the first time around, those are individual choices, thus are not being made by mutual agreement, nor do they require mutual agreement. Stealing refers to the buyer/seller relationship.

 

[Moonbear]

Moonbear, I'm talking about slightly different things with Russ than you are. I'm aware of the basic rights of life, liberty, and property, and just what the basic rights are is not the main thing I'm talking about.

We've all been having one discussion here, and have pulled together different facets of it. We've gone on to further address that aside from unalienable rights, there are indeed additional rights conferred by law (read my exchange with miss kitty regarding this), which Russ has further tied in with your previous discussion as it was straying from the topic of entitlement.

So my point is that government exists to do more than protect the "three rights," and that additionally it is not practical or fair for the government always to protect the "three rights."

Actually, it's not government's job to protect those rights at all, because everyone has those rights irrespective of whether a government exists or not. Instead, government must strive to not infringe upon those rights, and to form a contract with its citizens to address the consequences of when one citizen infringes upon those rights of another citizen (Russ' comment about criminality addresses this point). Indeed, if you read the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution carefully, you'll notice it does not say that the government needs to do anything to actively protect these rights, but rather explicitly states each right a person has that the government shall not infringe upon, make any law against, or deny to any person.

 

[Bartholomew]

I guess you're right, moonbear. I misinterpreted him. I don't know why he's mentioning an agreement between buyer and seller though, when the question is conflict between seller and seller. Anyway, a mugger can have an agreement with a crime lord to give him his share of the cut, so street crime is not necessarily without agreements. But anyway... I think arguing over that is rendered moot because I believe I understand what he's getting at (what I "construe to be his view" as I quoted in my last post).

 

[Moonbear]

I guess you're right, moonbear. I misinterpreted him.

All that's important is that when it happens, you are able to recognize and acknowledge it, as you have just done. It's all cool.

I don't know why he's mentioning an agreement between buyer and seller though, when the question is conflict between seller and seller.

Because your question was a bit complex to answer. And, when you introduced the idea of robbing, as Russ explained, it wasn't entirely clear if you really meant price wars, price gouging or price fixing, so he addressed ALL of them. Robbing refers directly to stealing money or merchandise, so a robber wouldn't be in the role of another merchant, but in the role of a buyer, except without actually paying the fair price. There may have been an initial misunderstanding of the question being asked, so Russ addressed a few different ways of interpreting the question all in one thread. Perhaps that's how you got confused along the way...he was answering several possible questions and you were reading in context of the only one you thought you asked.

Anyway, a mugger can have an agreement with a crime lord to give him his share of the cut, so street crime is not necessarily without agreements.

Nobody would argue against this. But, agreements among criminals and for the purpose of committing a crime are not legally binding. In other words, if the mugger doesn't give the crime lord his share of the cut, the crime lord can't take the mugger to court to claim his share (though that would make an amusing episode of "America's Dumbest Criminals" if one tried.)

But anyway... I think arguing over that is rendered moot because I believe I understand what he's getting at (what I "construe to be his view" as I quoted in my last post).

Honestly, I can't speak for Russ' view to know if you're interpreting it right or not, I'm only arguing based on the words presented so far in this thread. Perhaps it makes it easier for me to point out the words, because I'm not (as) biased by any unwritten thoughts when reading the exchange between you and Russ.

 

[Bartholomew]

That the crime lord's and mugger's agreement is not legally binding doesn't even matter; it's still an agreement. The hypothetical question is whether the government should let muggers mug people. If the reason the government doesn't let muggers mug people is that they don't have an agreement with someone else (like the seller has with his customers), then that's not a valid reason because muggers can have such agreements. If the reason the government doesn't let muggers mug people is that they don't have such a _legal_ agreement, then that comes back to the "rules of the game": i.e. something besides individual rights that the government is trying to protect.

But how the agreement between seller and buyer makes price war between seller and seller legal is not apparent. The price war between seller and seller is allowed by the government just because... those are the rules.

 

[Evo]

The hypothetical question is whether the government should let muggers mug people. If the reason the government doesn't let muggers mug people is that they don't have an agreement with someone else (like the seller has with his customers), then that's not a valid reason because muggers can have such agreements.

Muggers can have agreements with the people they mug? I suppose although I doubt it's common.

If the reason the government doesn't let muggers mug people is that they don't have such a _legal_ agreement, then that comes back to the "rules of the game": i.e. something besides individual rights that the government is trying to protect.

Russ addressed this, but I don't have time to look for it. Moonbear, you're better at this than me.

But how the agreement between seller and buyer makes price war between seller and seller legal is not apparent. The price war between seller and seller is allowed by the government just because... those are the rules.

Bart, "price war" is just a name made up to describe two or more businesses that get aggressive in attracting customers. Russ also addressed this.

It is up to a business to decide what profit margin they want on a product. Are you familiar with the term "loss leader"? This is where a business advertises a product at or below cost in order to bring potential customers in with the hope of upselling them once they are there. Some businesses offer free products in order to upsell. This is all marketing strategy.

 

[Bartholomew]

Yes, evo... when one merchant wages price war against another, the other merchant loses property. His right to property is infringed. The government makes this legal because... those are the rules, and right to property is not sacrosanct against the rules.

I've mentioned earlier that a possible agreement for the mugger would be with a crime lord, not with the muggee. The mugger and muggee are analogous to price war wager and price war wagee.

 

[Moonbear]

That the crime lord's and mugger's agreement is not legally binding doesn't even matter; it's still an agreement.

It does matter, because unless we've changed the topic of the thread, the lack of a legally binding agreement means lack of any entitlement of the crime lord to the profits of the mugger, whether they were agreed to or not.

The hypothetical question is whether the government should let muggers mug people. If the reason the government doesn't let muggers mug people is that they don't have an agreement with someone else (like the seller has with his customers), then that's not a valid reason because muggers can have such agreements.

I'm confused by what you're stating here. Are you trying to say muggers DO have agreements with the people they mug? Because it wouldn't be a mugging if they did have an agreement. It's not relevant that the mugger has an agreement with anyone else, because the primary right being infringed upon is that of the rightful owner of the property being stolen by the mugger.

If the reason the government doesn't let muggers mug people is that they don't have such a _legal_ agreement, then that comes back to the "rules of the game": i.e. something besides individual rights that the government is trying to protect.

What rules of the game? Mugging isn't a game.

But how the agreement between seller and buyer makes price war between seller and seller legal is not apparent. The price war between seller and seller is allowed by the government just because... those are the rules.

The agreement between seller and buyer is not what makes the price war between seller and seller legal. As I've attempted to point out already, Russ' comments addressing that were answering multiple facets of the way your question could have been interpreted. The price war is legal because it does not infringe upon anyone's individual rights.

Price wars aren't mugging or robbing, if that's the analogy you're trying to make (otherwise I'm not sure why you keep bringing both up in the same paragraph). When a merchant prices an item below that of their competitor, they aren't taking away their competitor's property or merchandise. If the competitor isn't willing to drop their prices as well, then they risk losing business, but there is no right that guarantees one must be successful in their business. If they can't sell their merchandise because people prefer to buy from the cheaper source, then they still have the merchandise. They haven't been deprived of their property.

 

[Evo]

Yes, evo... when one merchant wages price war against another, the other merchant loses property. His right to property is infringed. The government makes this legal because... those are the rules, and right to property is not sacrosanct against the rules.

You don't understand commerce. A company that drastically lowers prices (let's say they are trying to start a "price war") can actually run themselves out of business. This has happened quite frequently here in the US with telecom companies. They offered very low prices trying to attract customers, but were unable to hold those customers, they went bankrupt and their competitors profited. Just because a company tries to start a price war doesn't mean that their competition will follow either. Many don't. If the competition does decide to also cut their prices, it is all done within what they consider acceptable marketing practices - take a short term hit in order to reap long term gains. No smart business owner is going to engage in a price war unless he sees potential long term profiits.

I've mentioned earlier that a possible agreement for the mugger would be with a crime lord, not with the mugger.

(I know you meant mugee.)That's not what your last post said.

The hypothetical question is whether the government should let muggers mug people. If the reason the government doesn't let muggers mug people is that they don't have an agreement with someone else (like the seller has with his customers), then that's not a valid reason because muggers can have such agreements.

]I've mentioned earlier that a possible agreement for the mugger would be with a crime lord, not with the mugger. The mugger and muggee are analogous to price war wager and price war wagee.

You're not making sense. What does a contract between the crime lord and the mugger have to do with the relationship between the mugger and the muggee?

 

[Bartholomew]

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?

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.

Moonbear, I think we have a failure to communicate. I'm going to reply piece by piece, and see if you can work through my replies until you see where I'm coming from:

It does matter, because unless we've changed the topic of the thread, the lack of a legally binding agreement means lack of any entitlement of the crime lord to the profits of the mugger, whether they were agreed to or not.

Legality is created by the government. Law is a rule enforced by those in power. Contracts exist outside of law. If you say a contract is not legally binding, all that means is that the contract is not protected by the powers of certain governmental people. i.e. there is no essential difference between a legally binding contract and a contract which is not legal, except that the legally binding contract is backed up by rules made by governments. Contractual agreement exists both within and without the law.

I'm confused by what you're stating here. Are you trying to say muggers DO have agreements with the people they mug? Because it wouldn't be a mugging if they did have an agreement. It's not relevant that the mugger has an agreement with anyone else, because the primary right being infringed upon is that of the rightful owner of the property being stolen by the mugger.

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).

What rules of the game? Mugging isn't a game.

I was speaking metaphorically, actually about sellers and buyers rather than merchants. The only governmental "rule of the game" for mugging is "don't do it."

The agreement between seller and buyer is not what makes the price war between seller and seller legal.

I have made this point previously.

As I've attempted to point out already, Russ' comments addressing that were answering multiple facets of the way your question could have been interpreted. The price war is legal because it does not infringe upon anyone's individual rights.

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

Price wars aren't mugging or robbing, if that's the analogy you're trying to make (otherwise I'm not sure why you keep bringing both up in the same paragraph).

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.

When a merchant prices an item below that of their competitor, they aren't taking away their competitor's property or merchandise. If the competitor isn't willing to drop their prices as well, then they risk losing business, but there is no right that guarantees one must be successful in their business.

The right to property "guarantees" that.

If they can't sell their merchandise because people prefer to buy from the cheaper source, then they still have the merchandise. They haven't been deprived of their property.

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.

 

[russ_watters]

Reading, I appreciate everyone's input (ok, Moonbear, you can speak for me too). One (relatively minor) caveat:

There is mutual agreement amongst business owners to play by the rules of the game, whether these be market rules or regulations enforced by statute law. Price wars are part of the game, and every business owner buys in with this knowledge in hand, agreeing in principle to whatever circumstances the market should hold for him.

I disagree with the opening characterization, but agree with the rest - business owners don't have to agree with each other to obeying the rules of the market, they just have to agree with the maker of the rules of the market (the government). One business owner doesn't have to trust another to follow the rules, he just has to trust the government to go after anyone who doesn't.

 

[Moonbear]

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?

I don't see how you arrive at this relationship. Both the relationship between crime lord and mugger and mugger to muggee would be buyer seller relationships (or maybe wholesaler to retailer and retailer to customer...maybe). But I'm going to drop the mugger analogy from the argument because I think it's only adding confusion rather than helping, and I better understand your question now. So, I'm going to jump right to the crux of the matter...

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.

Value of property is not property. This is a faulty premise.

In a price war, it is the seller who engages in a price war who devalues their own merchandise. However, only if you sell it below cost have you lost value on the merchandise. The only time someone would risk this is, as Evo pointed out above, if you have something else to sell that will make a larger profit if you can just lure people into the store by advertising the cheaper item, or if you want to entice new customers into the store with the expectation they will become return customers to pay full price for other items. Of course this backfires if the customers walk in and only buy the cheaper item and don't return when prices go back up.

Anyway, as to the seller whose price is undercut by the competition, they can still sell their merchandise at the higher price. They still may sell it at that price, either if the other business runs themselves bankrupt, or to the few loyal customers who return despite the competition, or to those who don't bother to comparison shop, or once the other store has depleted their stock or raised prices again. It might take longer to sell the merchandise, but they have not lost possession of it. There is never a guarantee that any merchandise will retain its value. It is the business owner's responsibility to know how much competition they have and what sort of demand their is for their merchandise when they decide how much to purchase and what price to negotiate with their supplier. Merchandise can lose value for plenty of reasons, such as they ordered too much and don't have enough customers to buy it, or a newer model came out and they can't sell their stock of the older model, the item was a fad item and buyers lost interest in it. These are normal risks of running a business, and anyone going into business is responsible for being aware of these risks and making decisions that are most likely to be profitable for them.

 

[russ_watters]

Okay, Russ, this is what I now construe to be your view [numbered by Russ]:
1. The purpose of government is to lay out a set of rules for competition.
2. These rules may infringe on people's rights to property or liberty, and (occasionally) on their rights to life. In other words, people have rights to property, libery, and life, except where these rights conflict with the accepted rules.

Is that an accurate representation of your view?

#1 is correct, #2 is vastly wrong. I'm not inclined to elaborate (in any case, if you want the correct answer, you can get it from the thread). Others have made an effort, to explain it to you, but its relatively clear to me that you have not (you simply don't want to) made a reasonable effort to read and understand what I have written so far.

You don't know what you are talking about and this is a biproduct of your approach to learning: you don't make an effort to learn, you just pull the stuff out of your head. If you don't change that, it will hurt you very badly when you get to the point in life where learning becomes important and difficult. Ignorance is fine, like I said before - everyone is ignorant about something. Not making an effort to learn is not ok.

From this point forward, I'm pretty much just going to point out your errors without elaboration. I'm putting too much effort into this thread to be arguing with someone who won't put the same effort into it.

For anyone taken aback by my attitude - sorry, but I'm not a teacher. This is the reason why. I love teaching people who want to learn and I love learning from people who have something to teach and the desire to teach it. But I would not be able to deal with lost causes.