The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Cow Goes Moo: Was that "better off in that instant of time" thin
Poast new message in this thread
Date: March 1st, 2012 6:54 PM Author: chestnut mad-dog skullcap g the other day a misunderstanding? I don't want to straw man you--you seem like a very sincere guy (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20100777) |
 |
Date: March 31st, 2012 3:00 PM Author: Violet kitchen (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20353609) |
Date: March 1st, 2012 7:14 PM Author: swashbuckling filthy public bath He was sincere bro. Austrians make that claim all the time. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20100902) |
|
Date: March 1st, 2012 7:17 PM Author: chestnut mad-dog skullcap Wow (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20100917) |
|
Date: March 1st, 2012 7:21 PM Author: Narrow-minded Soul-stirring Senate Sneaky Criminal what's the reasoning below it? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20100949) |
|
Date: March 1st, 2012 7:52 PM Author: swashbuckling filthy public bath They can't bring themselves to concede that unregulated trade sometimes produces inefficient outcomes, so they will claim that every voluntary exchange is "by definition" maximally efficient. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20101198) |
|
Date: March 1st, 2012 8:06 PM Author: Narrow-minded Soul-stirring Senate Sneaky Criminal and their idea of what is efficient is rooted in the idea of personal freedom, right? like the state can never know what their interests are, only the free individual acts on their own interests? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20101306) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 9:56 AM Author: swashbuckling filthy public bath It goes a step beyond that. It's not just that individuals know best what their interests are, but that it's impossible for outside observers to say whether those interests have been served. We just have to assume that if the exchange was voluntary and unregulated it made both parties better off, because Austrians have already decided that free trade is a magic bullet that cures all our problems and makes baby jesus sing. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20104639) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 1:57 PM Author: Pearly razzle den What about obvious market failures like pollution? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20105951) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 2:06 PM Author: Fighting incel station Just do sue the polluters bro. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20106010) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 2:58 PM Author: magical sienna orchestra pit sex offender What if there are multiple polluters and you can't show that pollution from any single one of then caused your loss? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20106323) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 2:58 PM Author: Fighting incel station Just do Summers v. Tice (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20106329) |
|
Date: June 13th, 2013 12:35 PM Author: Soggy olive step-uncle's house tyft (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#23387232) |
|
Date: April 27th, 2014 11:52 PM Author: white liquid oxygen (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#25461644) |
|
Date: December 21st, 2018 11:13 AM Author: swashbuckling filthy public bath (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#37446740) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 2:36 PM Author: Self-absorbed pervert bawdyhouse there is no such thing as market failure bro. i derived this deductively from the fundamental axiom that there is no such things as market failure. sorry little breh (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20106197) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 2:49 PM Author: Fighting incel station Oh what a praexologist! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20106261) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 2:53 PM Author: cobalt parlor First: Define Market Failure (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20106288) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 2:54 PM Author: Pearly razzle den Privatized gains, socialized costs (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20106297) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 2:56 PM Author: cobalt parlor Ofcourse those exist. When you have a gov't that almost exclusively privatizes gains to special interest groups and socializes the costs. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20106308) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 5:18 PM Author: Pearly razzle den How about like government caps of the amount of king crab people can catch per year? Do you expect Eywa to sue over this? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20107324) |
|
Date: June 17th, 2018 9:36 PM Author: Well-lubricated Resort 180 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#36262833) |
|
Date: March 31st, 2012 4:27 PM Author: violent cream indian lodge tcr (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20354222) |
|
Date: June 13th, 2013 12:45 PM Author: Cracking School Police Squad shouldve thought about that before you bought the polluter's p[roduct bro. you need to know everything about everything if you want free markets to work in your favor. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#23387303) |
|
Date: March 1st, 2012 8:04 PM Author: Violet kitchen lol, just lol @ this retard (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20101286) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 9:31 AM Author: chestnut mad-dog skullcap (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20104571) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 9:52 AM Author: chestnut mad-dog skullcap I'm curious why you don't answer. Is it not a gaping hole in the foundation of your belief system? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20104625) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 9:55 AM Author: Dashing Maize Hominid I thought it wouldn't be true in the case of fraud, right? So people saying that you got krokodil instead of advil wouldn't be better off, right? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20104635) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 9:56 AM Author: swashbuckling filthy public bath They were better off AT THE TIME THE TRADE OCCURRED.. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20104645) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 9:57 AM Author: chestnut mad-dog skullcap How? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20104647) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 10:14 AM Author: Dashing Maize Hominid Even if they go to a rite-aid, and get an advil bottle but instead it has cyanide and it kills them? All the paultards I know are all about fraud being a consumer defense against stuff like that. Is this where the orthodox austrians deviate from garden variety paultards? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20104737) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 10:16 AM Author: swashbuckling filthy public bath Paultards claim that that just won't happen, because Rite-Aid would go out if business if it sold poison disguised a medicine. So, like, just don't worry about it okay? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20104747) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 10:19 AM Author: Fighting incel station Or they could sue rite-aid in special private courts, and rite-aid would have to comply with the private court's judgment or else they would be shamed and ostracized in the business community. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20104767) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 1:56 PM Author: Milky Sadistic Legal Warrant Lettuce then how is rite-aid better off? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20105937) |
|
Date: June 13th, 2013 12:47 PM Author: Cracking School Police Squad well, if youre dead you cant sue also, but yeah your family could slut shame rite-aid (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#23387314) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 9:59 AM Author: chestnut mad-dog skullcap A fairly brief critique of AE from a gmu faculty member http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20104657) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 10:21 AM Author: cobalt parlor I made the mistake of going into specifics w/r/t praxeology. That is beyond the scope of this bort's abilities. People have done zero anaylsis or research or even the have vaguest notion of AE and the discussions surrounding it. It is a fools errand to try and defend something against people who do not even know what that "something" is. But in case you are really interested w/r/t the counters to the article:
http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/15660/321521.aspx#321521
http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/414/417807.aspx#417807
http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/18726/353487.aspx#353487
http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/3841/52612.aspx#52612
|
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 2:31 PM Author: Sooty yarmulke that's weak as hell man
why don't you just say, I'm not changing my mind about anything no matter how persuasively you out argue me |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 2:43 PM Author: cobalt parlor Do I need to repost the responses I got in the AE perspective on trade thread?
Morons going: "HERP DERP if Tom trade $1 for Steve's $10 how is he better off?"
I have 100% no problem having a reasoned debate with a couple of people in a thread. But I am not going to engage in a flame war with a dozen morons are making posts which clearly indicate they have read zero of the relevant subject matter. |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 2:45 PM Author: chestnut mad-dog skullcap What was your response? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20106239) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 2:47 PM Author: cobalt parlor I didn't, there were legtimately 20 responses of that exact calibre, I am not going to get into two dozen subthread arguments with people who do not even grasp the basics. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20106249) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 2:50 PM Author: Milky Sadistic Legal Warrant Lettuce oh so "there is no 'objectively better off'" is a basic given. got it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20106265) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 2:51 PM Author: cobalt parlor Can you formulate a premise where there is such a notion? We can say that two people trading with each other are at that point in time objectively subjectively better off. But otherwise? rofl no. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20106274) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 2:53 PM Author: chestnut mad-dog skullcap so it seems strange to you to say that the person who traded $10 for $1 mistakenly is worse off objectively? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20106289) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 2:55 PM Author: cobalt parlor I don't know what "mistakenly" means in this context. None of us has perfect information or can see into the future. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20106302) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 2:56 PM Author: chestnut mad-dog skullcap but that person is better off? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20106310) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 2:58 PM Author: cobalt parlor The think they are. My own personal opinion does not play into the assesment. Look, if someone goes and buys a greasy BigMac, are they better or worse off? The answer of course is that they are better off in their own mind. Any other scale is irrelevant. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20106325) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 3:00 PM Author: Fighting incel station What if the big mac is tainted with e. coli? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20106344) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 3:01 PM Author: chestnut mad-dog skullcap What about Objectivism? Does it share the Austrian's denial of objective truth?
Btw "objective" facts don't depend on perfect information. They depend on being true regardless of what you think is the case, naddimean? |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 3:05 PM Author: cobalt parlor "They depend on being true regardless of what you think is the case, naddimean?"
And the only way they can be "true" regardless of what one thinks is if you have all the information availible. |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 3:07 PM Author: chestnut mad-dog skullcap Uh no. It may or may not be true that I have a long red beard, but it's truth doesn't depend on what info we have (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20106416) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 3:10 PM Author: cobalt parlor Exactly, so, if you want to make a claim regarding whether or not you objectively have a long red beard, we would need to know ALL relevant information in order to make that assesment. Hence, so long as humans do not posses the power of God, we cannot come to this objective determination with respect and the value of one item to another for trade because we cannot enter the mind of both parties. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20106443) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 3:12 PM Author: chestnut mad-dog skullcap But surely you can admit that there are certainly times when people are made worse off by trading, even if you don't believe you can say for certain which times those are
And likewise, if you can't say people are worse off, shouldn't you be similarly unwilling to say they are better off? |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 3:24 PM Author: cobalt parlor "But surely you can admit that there are certainly times when people are made worse off by trading"
Not at all. I think getting beaten with a spiked wooden paddle and getting choked are both horrible and should be avoided. But that does not mean that when I see someone voluntarily paying a women to perform such actions I can conclude that are "worse off".
"shouldn't you be similarly unwilling to say they are better off?"
I only claim to suggest that from that persons own perspective they are better off. Nothing else is relevant. |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 3:25 PM Author: chestnut mad-dog skullcap but you are aware of fraud etc. you don't think that at least once this has made someone worse off? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20106571) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 3:30 PM Author: cobalt parlor Fraud is theft. Theft is not voluntary. Therefore, it does not fall under my original assertion.
You would have realized this had you thought about it for 30 seconds. This is why I made the post I did above. |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 3:32 PM Author: magical sienna orchestra pit sex offender What if the party selling the defective item doesn't know it's defective? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20106621) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 3:34 PM Author: chestnut mad-dog skullcap (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20106648) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 3:33 PM Author: chestnut mad-dog skullcap Sorry, I thought about it for 29 seconds. Would have kept at it of I had known there would be a payoff.
Excluding fraud, you don't think people are sometimes mademworse off by their transactions? Don't you think it's extremely likely that this happens all the time? |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 3:05 PM Author: Milky Sadistic Legal Warrant Lettuce you're stupid and unimaginative to boot.
let's say the $1 is in a blue envelope and the $10 is in a red envelope. they trade because the guy with the red envelope prefers a blue envelope and thinks there's also $10 in it. he could also buy a blue envelope for $1 if he wanted. at the instant moment of the trade, how is he not objectively worse off? |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 2:53 PM Author: Milky Sadistic Legal Warrant Lettuce Can you formulate a premise where there is such a notion? We can say that two people trading with each other are at that point in time objectively subjectively better off. But otherwise? rofl no.
wat |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 2:53 PM Author: Pearly razzle den Objectively subjectively (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20106295) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 2:57 PM Author: cobalt parlor Yes, as in by vitrue of the trade ocurring we know, for whatever reason, they feel they are better off (i.e. subjectively) as a result. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20106317) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 3:08 PM Author: magical sienna orchestra pit sex offender If "we know" it it's not subjective. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20106424) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 3:32 PM Author: cobalt parlor If you like apples more than oranges. I "know" your subjective preference.
Good article on subjective values |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 3:40 PM Author: magical sienna orchestra pit sex offender Right, so we can say it's objectively true that the parities are better off, because we can know objectively whether the parties valued apples more than oranges. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20106680) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 3:35 PM Author: magical sienna orchestra pit sex offender Where two parities to a trade derive utility (measured as willingness to pay) from the trade that exceeds the foregone utility of not conducting the trade, they are better off.
There, that wasn't hard. |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 2:53 PM Author: Fighting incel station Why don't you just pick one of the responses? Why does it have to be all or none? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20106291) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 2:59 PM Author: cobalt parlor Because then the morons on this bort, like you, will assume I am picking the easy ones to counter and avoiding the "hard" ones. Remeber, you are the same idiot who thinks RP must be hiding something because he is does not want to release his tax returns. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20106337) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 3:02 PM Author: Fighting incel station But by refusing to answer them all you just give everyone the impression that you're totally stumped and can't answer any of them. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20106363) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 3:43 PM Author: magical sienna orchestra pit sex offender (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20106716) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 2:47 PM Author: Sooty yarmulke do you even consider the possibility that the person you're debating might have something to teach you?
that you might have room to learn and grow as an intellectual?
or is it always "I'm the expert, I'll prove them wrong"?
|
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 2:48 PM Author: cobalt parlor Of course, which is why my first posts tend to clearly be written with that perspective. The problem is when I see a 20 second response crafted by someone who clearly knows nothing of the topic. It would be like me attacking Keynesians without having read the General Theory and the various accompanying works. Even then there are numerous instances where I have engaged in a productive discussion but I cannot do it when it is x20 within the same thread. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20106258) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 2:50 PM Author: Sooty yarmulke moreover, its weak as hell to post a bunch of links and then say, go read that, then you'll understand,
if you can't explain it in plain english, then you're the one who's full of shit |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 2:52 PM Author: cobalt parlor Context brother, the post I responded to was:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: March 2nd, 2012 9:59 AM Author: painfully insecure dweeb
A fairly brief critique of AE from a gmu faculty member http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20104657)
If that article has already been totally refuted by others, why would I need to post my own response? |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 5:12 PM Author: Soggy olive step-uncle's house "I'm not going to engage in a flame war with a dozen morons are making posts which clearly indicate they have read zero of the relevant subject matter."
I see no indication you've read the GMU article. Have you read it? |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 2:33 PM Author: Self-absorbed pervert bawdyhouse only stupid people can believe that austrian economics is all derived using "deductive logic" from fundamental axioms (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20106170) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 2:44 PM Author: cobalt parlor link where it is not? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20106236) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 3:07 PM Author: Excitant codepig do you ever cite anything other than the mises.org forums (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20106409) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 5:09 PM Author: Soggy olive step-uncle's house praxeology - that's the thing where you assume your conclusions, right? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20107278) |
|
Date: April 27th, 2014 11:19 PM Author: Erotic Abode (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#25461450) |
|
Date: December 21st, 2018 11:33 AM Author: Narrow-minded Soul-stirring Senate Sneaky Criminal (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#37446902) |
|
Date: March 31st, 2012 4:29 PM Author: violent cream indian lodge >hat is beyond the scope of this bort's abilities
these are not new ideas to the people on the board you pedantic fuck. you have been brainwashed. we are pointing that out. please kill yourself. |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 3:03 PM Author: obsidian aggressive trailer park knife Missed this argument. What was it? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20106368) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 3:04 PM Author: Fighting incel station Date: February 28th, 2012 5:29 PM Author: Cow goes Moo
"in that instant of time"
Can you not fucking read?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1885751&forum_id=2#20076411) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 3:09 PM Author: obsidian aggressive trailer park knife I'm confused. He can't be arguing that transactions in which you have poor information about what you're getting (a bad product, a bad investment) such that, were you to know otherwise, you would not enter into that transaction, make you better off by definition whenever you enter into them, because the transaction is voluntary. That's silliness. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20106427) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 3:11 PM Author: Fighting incel station He says he won't explain why he's right because we wouldn't understand, so we just have to take him at his word. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20106449) |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2021 6:48 AM Author: sickened chapel jew He does eat 12 McDoubles for breakfast every day and is still alive, so we should implicitly trust him (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#43163062) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 3:12 PM Author: Milky Sadistic Legal Warrant Lettuce and of course he's above such silliness. oh xoxo small thinkers! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20106458) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 3:26 PM Author: cobalt parlor First, nobody here has perfect information, nor is there such a thing as "poor" information you either have perfect information or you do not. You cannot try and break it down into components.
Second, My claim is only that in the minds of both parties they feel that they themselves are enriched by the act of trade. No other conclusion can follow. |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 3:30 PM Author: magical sienna orchestra pit sex offender How does it follow that since both parties think they're better off, they actually are better off? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20106608) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 3:33 PM Author: cobalt parlor There is no "actually" better off. In order to conlude that you would need to have an objective scale of wellness from which to base your assesment. I look forward to seeing such a scale. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20106635) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 3:37 PM Author: magical sienna orchestra pit sex offender If there's no "actually" better off how can you claim they're better off for having conducted the trade? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20106662) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 5:14 PM Author: Soggy olive step-uncle's house Because it's one if the premises he used to formulate his argument. It's as clear cut an example of circular reasoning as I've seen since I took the LSAT. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20107303) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 3:30 PM Author: obsidian aggressive trailer park knife Oh. Okay. I mean no one ever has perfect information, of course. So no one has information, then?
So what's this claim about being better off at that instant in time? By "better off at that instant in time" do you merely mean you feel better about, like, yourself and your life for at least an instant--however long that's supposed to be?
Completely tabling a discussion about whether what you've just put forward is, you know, useful or non-insane, you can see why people were a little confused by language like "better off," right? It's not like most folks, even smart ones, think "better off" inheres completely within the mind, without reference to external things. I mean, sure, some smart people do, but it's not exactly intuitive. |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 3:39 PM Author: cobalt parlor "Oh. Okay. I mean no one ever has perfect information, of course. So no one has information, then? "
Nobody has perfect information, but also, you cannot say someone has "poor" information. You can only speak in relative terms (i.e. A has less info than B on product X).
"useful or non-insane, you can see why people were a little confused by language like "better off," right? It's not like most folks, even smart ones, think "better off" inheres completely within the mind, without reference to external things. I mean, sure, some smart people do, but it's not exactly intuitive."
Yes, there is little doubt that people have been indoctrinated to believe that there is an objective sense out there that determines things like "Better off". This falls within the same realm of people talking about "Greater Good", "Utility" and "What is best for other people". Same sort of nonsense stems from this inability to recognize that it is subjective and that these assertions cannot be made. |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 3:40 PM Author: Milky Sadistic Legal Warrant Lettuce so $10 is not objectively better than $1? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20106684) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 4:02 PM Author: cobalt parlor We don't know what else was going on in that trade. What happens if you have tax auditors looking into your wealth? What happens if you want to form a good relationship with the person? $10 is not objectively better than $1 because that does not occure in a vaccuum. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20106855) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 4:04 PM Author: Milky Sadistic Legal Warrant Lettuce we do know because we made up the fucking hypothetical. no taxes. relationship unchanged. it happens in a vacuum. are you that dense? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20106868) |
|
Date: June 13th, 2013 12:46 PM Author: Sable Spectacular Stag Film Cuck this guy questions the fucking hypo jesus christ lol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#23387313) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 3:41 PM Author: magical sienna orchestra pit sex offender "Yes, there is little doubt that people have been indoctrinated to believe that there is an objective sense out there that determines things like "Better off"."
You're perpetuating the indoctrination by repeatedly asserting that both parities to a voluntary transaction must be better off. |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 3:42 PM Author: chestnut mad-dog skullcap Insulin is not better than Krokodil?
Life is not better than death? |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 4:13 PM Author: Excitant codepig getting fucked unlubed in the asshole by a big dicked nigger with syphilis is not better than reading a cow goes moo post? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20106929) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2012 3:43 PM Author: obsidian aggressive trailer park knife I mean yeah, people have been "indoctrinated" to think that the worth of one's life has reference to the outside conditions of one's life in the West since at least Aristotle; whereas, on the contrary, whereas it was only with Bentham in the 18th century that anything like what you're describing got rolling. Interestingly, it is the concept of 'utility' in its original incarnation that you're describing when you describe utterly subjective good as constitutive of 'the good' per se, so your derisive comment about the very concept you advance leads me to believe you've kind of got your head up your ass about this stuff, if your silly idea didn't already lead me to that conclusion. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20106718) |
|
Date: March 31st, 2012 4:32 PM Author: violent cream indian lodge he doesn't want to hear this shit. its not on mises.org reading list. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20354267) |
|
Date: March 31st, 2012 3:07 PM Author: Excitant codepig hardcore austrians, a great source of circular reasoning and being pedantic about definitions (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20353660) |
|
Date: April 11th, 2012 11:34 PM Author: Violet kitchen (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20444078) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 2:54 PM Author: Beady-eyed Chartreuse Dilemma (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#20461614) |
|
Date: June 13th, 2013 12:32 PM Author: adventurous topaz clown house (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#23387206) |
|
Date: July 14th, 2013 9:27 PM Author: Violet kitchen (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#23644642) |
|
Date: April 27th, 2014 11:03 PM Author: Violet kitchen (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#25461372) |
|
Date: June 17th, 2018 9:36 PM Author: Well-lubricated Resort (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1887777&forum_id=2#36262826) |