 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
hash3m,
ne thing, two opposing views of it - hardly the stuff of objectivity.
lol. That doesn't mean fraud is non-objective, it just means one of those people is wrong. If one person thinks 2 is 3, it doesn't mean numbers are subjective, it just means he's wrong.
You libel, you do that, and you continue to do that, and from your view, are you wrong? If you libel, like you do, and you continue to libel, like you do, you may call it "right", or you may call it "wrong", but measurably it is called "libel", libel is the accurate word, you libel, but to you it is something done, something "accomplished", something done again, something "accomplished' again. You do it. You continue to do it. You, from my end, are creating a 2 and calling it a 3. It is measurable as a 2. You libel. You continue to libel.
The word "libel" means nothing, neither 2 nor 3, it is like the word "fraud", it depends upon the person doing the measuring. You measure what you do and call it whatever you call it, when it suits you. I measure what you do, each time you do it, again, and again, and it is, in fact, libel. My measure isn't as objective as math. It is accurate each time, but it isn't math. How can the difference between my measure and your measure be accurately accounted for? You call something fraud if someone else does it, perhaps, but if you do it, what do you call it? If you are the victim, you call it what? That is not the stuff of objectivity.
Math doesn't fall into that category of things that are subjected to interpretation; or manipulation.
Example:
I trade 1 thing for two things with someone who I convince, by some actions on my part designed to convince, that the person trading with me is getting the better end of the deal.
The fact is that one thing is traded for two things, simple math.
My actions designed to convince someone else isn't math. If I do it, if I make that plan, that plan to libel, or that plan to steal, I'm not counting wrong, as far as I am concerned I am counting right, I am counting upon my ability to pass false, misleading, and inaccurate data, data that is false on purpose, data that is false for a reason, data that is measurably accurate if the data accomplishes the designed task - it if false my my view, and it is accurate from my view. It is false and innacurate from the view of the victim. It is subjective.
If your reasons for publishing false data concerning what I think and what I write is to discredit me, to glom onto me a false image, to create negative feedback in the hopes that someone else will steer well clear of me, based upon your false data, and certainly not based upon what I write, since your libelous false misrepresentations are inaccurate, if your reasoning is x and x occurs, then you accomplish your goal with your version of math? That is not math.
Your math works for that intended purpose. It isn't math. It is libel. Call it what you will.
Now, if you find that everyone excluding me, everyone alive today, without exception, believing in your libelous falsehoods concerning what you publish here against me, you then can claim that your version of math is true. It is Math, because you and everyone else says so. That doesn't change the facts, rather, that measures the number of people who share your libelous beliefs, which are false.
Fraud is a word that intends to describe something done by people who incorporate specific actions designed to accomplish specific goals. Fraud could be a form of math, sure, 1 plus 1 equals 3. People use it all the time, not universally, everyone can't be successful at fraud, each time it is used, to accomplish the same goal; there must be a victim, otherwise there would be no point to it. Math, on the other hand, is either accurate, true, and measurably true, in every single case, no matter who is using it, it always works the same way, every time, unless the math in question is as yet not well understood by the people using it - certainly not addition, subtraction, division, etc. - as you appear to be claiming, or associating, with your grouping of "fraud" with "math".
Fraud is fraud. Math is math. One mans' fraud isn't another mans math, not mine, certainly not mine. You can claim that fraud is like math, and measuring it as such, I've seen the ruler you use, it is the same ruler you may be using that measures your libelous publications, while that ruler can't be used by me, it has no gradations, the only gradations it has on it are the erasable ones you put on it. It is subjective. It isn't objective. If it were objective, I could measure the same "fraud", or the same "libel", and come up with the same, accurate, measure as you do.
You would cease to produce your libel immediately if you were to use my measure of "fraud", and you don't, therefore "fraud" isn't even close to the objectivity of math.
Saying that "fraud" is analogous to "math" is like saying the Ten Commandments on stone tablets is analogous to a calculator. One is certainly objective as any user can find the sum of one plus one on the calculator. Ask a professional fraud, or libeler, for the product of some problem resolved by the stone tablets and the answer may sound like the "right" answer but what does the fraud or the libeler actually do?
The calculator answers the math problem every time in every effort to prove the answer; if it works accurately. If it doesn't, it is broken. If it adds 5 plus 5 and comes up with -378, a fraud, or libeler, may have a use for it.
One apple exists. Eat it. How many apples are left?
1 - 1 = 3?
Ask the fraud, or the libeler, for the interpretation of the stone tablets and the answer may be the same as the one I get, but when proving time comes, libel continues, fraud continues, the measure is subjective.
If you do not connect the examples I offer to the viewpoint I communicate, such at the recruitment for military service example, then what am I to make of such an omission?
the supposed "voluntary" action caused by an effective fraud.
Since fraud is implicit theft, the transaction is NON-voluntary. The idea of stealing something on a voluntary basis is a contradiction.
Are you arguing with your Straw-Man? For my part, in this discussion, I have my reasons for it, my reasons have been confessed; they are true reasons, accurate communications of true reasons. You can do the same thing, it would be equitable, you could state an accurate confession concerning what you are doing here in this thread, and why you are doing it here in this thread.
From the measure of the victim, the subjective measure, fraud and libel are wrong, or "theft", or whatever word is used to convey the accurate measure of it from the subjective viewpoint of the victim. From the viewpoint of the producer of the fraud, the beneficiary, it may also be "theft", as a matter of fact; the word is the same word after the fact, but what about before the fact? The fraud or libeler doesn't go around advertising what he is about to do with the correct label, it wouldn't work that way, the victims may be able to read.
Since fraud is implicit theft
Fraud is certainly not "implicit" to the victims before the fraud is accurately executed as planned by the fraud, no more than a libel is "implicit" in the libelers mind; presumably.
I don't libel, how would I know?
Again; math is "implicit" as a tool used by anyone, ever, universally, to solve math problems. Fraud isn't the same problem solver for each person.
Fraud solves the problem of having to work for a living, presumably, from the frauds measuring device. Fraud may be easier than working to produce something of value.
Fraud is a problem from the victims measuring device.
Libel solves the problem of having to address actual challenges offered to the libeler; from the libelers measuring device; presumably.
Libel is a problem from the victims measuring device.
That is one interpretation of the word "equal". It isn't the one used by some people as some people trade equally. The version of "equal" between traders who trade "equally" can be more precisely communicated as "equitably" traded; not 1 for 1, but 1 measure of total cost for one measure of total cost (a possible example of an equitable trade that is equal from a cost/value perspective).
Why must you and whomever you exchange something with insist upon a non-equal trade?
If someone trades, that means they preferred what they got over what they gave, which means both products served different purposes, which means they are non-equal. Law of marginal utility + subjective value.
Who are you arguing with? Why do you omit, or ignore, my part in this discussion? Why do you prefer to create some nebulous argument?
Who ever claimed that one exact thing would ever be traded for one exact copy of the same thing by anyone ever - if that is what you presume to be worth arguing about?
An equal trade can easily be measured by the cost required to replace the thing traded measured against the cost required to replace the thing being traded for. Precisely "equal" is one way of seeing a trade, not my way, it is one way. "Equitable" trades are seen similarly by at least two people, the people trading equitably - they both see the trade as an equal trade, not necessarily as a precisely equal trade where the same exact thing, in the same exact condition, is exchanged for an exact, and an exactly equal, copy.
What would be the point? Who would want that version of "equal" trades?
Not me.
Is that an argument conjured up by a Man of Straw?
Equitable trades intend to transfer purchasing power equitably, so as to gain by accessing division of labor, specialization, competition, and economies of scale, and avoid gaining at the expense of anyone, if at all possible.
That is my part of this discussion. You can ignore it, of course. You can ignore my part of this discussion, if it challenges you too much, and you can keep on commenting in this thread as you keep on constructing an argument with some nebulous non-entity - certainly not anything or anyone associated with me.
As to the rest of the dogma associated with Austrian Economics:
I've read Menger's work. and it is worthless to me, it is based upon inaccurate measures of value, false things. It is based upon a supposed value linked to scarcity. In his own words the value of things is based upon the scarcity of things. I much prefer the measure of cost as a more accurate measure of value.
If the dogma you prefer works for you then I'm in no position to judge. What does that have to do with this thread? Does this thread cause you some measure of concern relative to your dogmatic beliefs concerning economy?
That is not math above. That is a subjective way of perceiving both "utility" and "value".
Law of marginal utility + subjective value
If I measure value as "how scarce something is" then that is what I choose to do. If I measure value as "how much it will cost me to get it", then that is what I do. One is as subjective as the other, neither are objective.
If I wake up and oxygen is scarce, I can't breathe, I value oxygen more than when I wake up as oxygen is abundant.
If I find that it cost me no effort to breathe my value judgment of air is less than when I find that I have food stuck in my air passage. My cost for failing to procure a ready supply of air is death.
Which is more subjective? Which is better for you? You will choose what is better for you. I will not be subjected to your version of "marginal utility" or "value".
I will, instead, be subjected to your libel.
Libel, to you may have some "marginal utility'. Libel, to you, may hold some subjective value. What does your libel cost me?
What will it cost me to replace what your libel has stolen from me?
I don't want your libel, and I certainly don't want your way of seeing economy. It works for you at my expense, in a measurable way. Your libel cost me.
I measure the value of my defense based upon a cost associated with failing to defend myself against your libel. I don't view my defense as a subjective value based upon scarcity; no more that I view oxygen as a subjective value based upon scarcity. Failure to defend cost me. Failure to procure a steady supply of oxygen will cost me too. You are not strangling me. You are libeling me.
If you are pre-disposed to libel against me, it seems to me, it would be very bad for me if you were in control of my supply of oxygen. You could employ that control of my supply of oxygen, with its "Marginal Utility", and you could extract from me a very large measure of "Subjective Value" by making my supply of oxygen just scarce enough to get whatever you desire from me.
Your cost may be a simple screwing down of the knob on my oxygen supply; while my cost is whatever you make me do, skip rope, dance, whatever you want, since I must have that oxygen. You can claim that I volunteer to give you all you ask for too, and you can make me praise your "economic dogma" as you desire too.
You can even make me believe in it - presumably. I do need oxygen.
You have your way of seeing things, and it is subjective. To me the above quote is measurably false, an example of "double speak" or "duplicity" or "dogma".
double inequality of values
If it works for you to get what you aim to get then it does. I'm not here to quibble about what you want and how you get it. This thread on this forum is specific, and my motives for being here are specific. My specific thread and my specific motives do not concern Austrian Economic Profit and Wage Paying Systems.
Why bring that dogma here? Why publish that dogma here as if it were objective fact, if that is what you are truly doing, or even truly believing?
What is the point of publishing subjective economic viewpoints as if those subjective economic viewpoints were facts - if that is what you are doing?
My example of a "voluntary" exchange was offered, as an example of my side of this part of this diversion from the topic, and to ignore it is to ignore my part of this side of this part of this diversion from the topic.
the transaction is far from any moral sense of legitimacy.
Legitimacy is determined by whether something occurs voluntarily, not by how different individuals subjectively gauge morality.
Why ignore my part of this part of this diversion from the topic?
What is the point?
My example concerned two "volunteers" exchanging military service for pay; at the moment the transaction transacted.
I have an award here in my home. I helped out my fellow human beings who are currently working in the U.S. Military. Despite all that I know concerning what is being done with the U.S. Military, it seems to me, the people in it are still people. If you choose to ignore my part of this discussion, then what is your business here exactly?
People are tortured, and massive numbers of people are murdered.
A perfect example of a non-voluntary exchange. It is illegitimate because the people did not prefer to be murdered or tortured in exchange for their oil.
At the moment when the volunteer signs on the bottom line and joins the Military a transaction has voluntarily occurred. Then, in time, the person moves from that table to somewhere else, and then somewhere else, and a trail of tortured and murdered people occur. The people do what they think is right. If they "think" they are defending liberty, and they risk everything to do that, they are risking everything for what they think is right, and they are volunteering to do that. It is all voluntary, from their viewpoint. You can call it legitimate. You can call it illegitimate. You can ignore it. I don't.
I prefer to see it accurately. I prefer not to place false labels on it, to make me feel more comfortable about it. I prefer or meet the challenge of knowing what is and what is not accurate. You can help me. Why do you ignore me? Why do you libel against me?
Is your dogma so precious as to be worth my hide? How many people are you willing to expend to secure your dogma?
If you bring yourself to the point of exchange where the volunteers help each other sign a contract to join in Military Service, right there at a table, right there where a pen is used, then you bring yourself to my part of this part of this diversion from this topic where you have helped us go.
If you ignore that, then what was the point of helping us get here?