News What Are We Entitled To and Why?

[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.

 

[Moonbear]

Reading, I appreciate everyone's input (ok, Moonbear, you can speak for me too).

LOL! You might want to put a caveat on that limiting my speaking for you to this topic. We don't always agree (though I do think I usually understand the points you're making even when we don't).

 

[russ_watters]

LOL! You might want to put a caveat on that limiting my speaking for you to this topic. We don't always agree (though I do think I usually understand the points you're making even when we don't).

Well, since you understand my point well, you can reiterate/explain it well - and I trust you enough that I know you won't start putting words in my mouth you know I wouldn't say.

 

[Bartholomew]

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.

 

[Bartholomew]

Russ, stand up and fight.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, stand up and fight.

Please, Bart - show some maturity and make an honest effort. I've written several thousand words of honest effort. If you reciprocate, I'll start discussing it with you again.

edit: Jeez, this just keeps getting worse: if you don't even understand that you're the one hiding in the corner, you're never going to get out of it.

 

[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).