 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
hash3m,
The whole reason I put the effort into distinguishing the subjective feelings of "accuracy" from the objective fact of fraud is because I believe you will ultimately try to argue against some forms of voluntary exchange on the basis of "inaccuracy." I believe you will try to illegitimate some forms of voluntary transaction by labeling them "inaccurate."
Your aim is off the mark by a wide measure. You have me confused with your imagination; perhaps. Your subjective opinion is lacking objectivity. What possible event inspires you to make that error in calculation? How can you be so wrong?
Perhaps you fail to see your own errors? How, for example, do you arrive at the notion that "fraud" is objective? Fraud is subjective and measurably so, ask any two people, where one person produces the fraud and the other person is victimized by the fraud and see if the answers are the same as these two subjective perspectives convey their version of that supposedly objective thing. One thing, two opposing views of it - hardly the stuff of objectivity.
Fraud is not objective. The object of fraud is to cause a false subjective perspective; how can it be objective? If it were objective it wouldn't work. Why do you fail to see that despite all the data that supports that accurate observation?
Again your subjective opinion doesn't objectively measure the supposed "voluntary" action caused by an effective fraud. An effective fraud causes the victim to "volunteer" to give up less for more, and this can be accurately measured.
The only objective rule to determine the legitimacy of a transaction is whether or not it was voluntary.
If you now claim that "voluntary" is as "objective" as "fraud", then your crusade to address your belief in what I "will ultimately try" will dig an even bigger false perspective. Why go there, when your premise ("you will ultimately try...") is false in the first place?
That is measurably subjective and certainly not another case of you being objective. That is a case of subjective opinion being paraded as fact. It is not fact. What is necessary and what you think is necessary are not the same thing, not in that case. Why must you and whomever you exchange something with insist upon a non-equal trade? Why can't you see that other people have the power to trade equally despite your false presumption that supposes that they can't trade equally, or more precisely: equitably?
All voluntary exchanges are necessarily non-equal, and as such they may be misconstrued as non-accurate within your context.
Are you redefining the word: equal - as you have redefined the word "accuracy" to be something associated with "ad hoc"?
The reason why equitable commerce is a more accurate form of communication compared to equal commerce concerns how things are measured, and by whom.
If everyone, in a universal sense, is free to measure the exchange, without your enforced dictates being followed religiously, they are free to gain at the expense of the other people trading, gain nothing, or give up more for less, as they see fit. If the trade occurs in a measurable way by anyone during any trade whereby the trade is inequitable (someone gains more for less, or gives up more for less), then that is a measure of inequality, or inequity, by that measure, by that person, for that trade. If the other person claims that the trade is equitable, or equal, the other person doesn't defeat the other person's measure. In a universal sense, all true, and accurate measures, are as valid as all others. If one measures a trade as inequitable, and they still do the trade, the reason for doing it may not be a "voluntary" reason. The supposed "voluntary" reason may be one of necessity, an offer that can't be refused, not logically, not with any sense of expediency, or economy.
A person holding leverage over someone can force inequity upon the supposed trading "partner", and that person can claim that the exchange is voluntary, while the person holding the smelly end of the stick has an opposite opinion. The trade is one trade, seen from two opposite perspectives. When the trade is seen as a win/win from both perspectives, the trade may be equitable, presuming that no fraud has occurred - whereby the loser is measurably less benefited by the one exchange unknowingly, and the factor of "not knowing" is a pre-meditated and effectively executed production of false data produced by the benefactor of the fraud and that false stuff is transferred accurately to the victim of the fraud.
Again: the victim may well be duped into a false belief in having benefited as much as the other trader (equity, not necessarily "equally") because the fraud was an accurate fraud, and effective fraud, a true fraud, a real fraud, a fraud that worked, a fraud that did not fail, and a fraud that did not fail due to the intended victim's lack of power to uncover the fraud before the fraud worked.
|
My intentions can be summed up as follows:
If that is your intention, let me ask you a few questions. If that is not your intention, simply ignore these questions and this post. What voluntary transaction can be illegitimate? Wouldn't it be really illegitimate to prevent people from transacting voluntarily?
I employ discussion as a means of exchanging ideas, so as to "borrow someone else's brain" since my brain is limited to what my brain can do, and another brain increases the power available in the process of processing ideas - or thinking.
My intention is to employ discussion so as to gain greater control over my thinking process, so as to better my life.
That is my intention. My intention is to employ discussion. My intention is to borrow your brain. My intention includes and intention to avoid argument. I see no point in argument. What would be the point of argument?
See how I borrow your brain? I ask for your perspective concerning what would be the point of argument from your viewpoint. I have my limited viewpoint of argument. I see argument as being counter-productive. That is my limit.
What is the point of argument?
Why do you presume to have the power to dictate to me? I will not ignore these questions and this post. I find these questions and this post to be valuable, and these questions and this post inspire me to respond. That sentence is a good example. I read it and I see a dictatorial statement produced by you and that dictatorial statement is obviously meant to target me. "That" may or may not be "my intention", I don't know what "that" is, your communication that is presumably meant to let me know what "that" is didn't communicate "that" to me well enough for me to accurately know what you think concerning "that" (my intention), and now that I have offered to you what my intention is, presumably, we can move on, and we can bypass any errors you may have produced concerning what is or what is not my intention.
If that is not your intention, simply ignore these questions and this post.
A person who suffers from behavioral modification routines may transact voluntarily in his or her own mind, while the transaction is far from any moral sense of legitimacy.
What voluntary transaction can be illegitimate?
Case in point:
Person A grows up to believe that Nationalism is synonymous with patriotism. Person A transacts with Person B. Person B is hired by the people who produce a sufficient quantity of false propaganda so as to modify the behavior of Person A. The transaction is a deal whereby Person A "joins the military". Person A volunteers to kill people for oil profit, in an accurate and measurable way. Person A thinks he or she is volunteering to "spread democracy" or "liberate", or fight the "War on Terror".
People involved in that transaction:
Person A (volunteer)
Person B (volunteer)
Person B has also volunteered and he or she is working at the recruitment office, processing volunteers during the transaction, where the volunteer signs at the bottom line on the transaction document.
Transaction:
Military Service
Back to the question (good question in my opinion):
Both people in the above transaction may very well be convinced of the legitimacy of that transaction at the time of the transaction. I see such things as being illegitimate in a measurable way. People are tortured, and massive numbers of people are murdered. I find that to be rather illegitimate.
What voluntary transaction can be illegitimate?
If, on the other hand, the "War on Terror" was a true thing, instead of a false ad campaign, and Person A, and Person B were truly being employed to liberate someone, or to legitimately do something, perhaps even "spread democracy" (whatever that means), then that wouldn't be an example of a voluntary transaction being illegitimate.
How is the truth measured accurately?
How about this:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/
This in particular:
$695,228,665,326
What if the shoe was on the other foot? What if China invaded Texas for its oil, then Alaska for its oil and gold, then California for all the goodies left there?
Wouldn't it be really illegitimate to prevent people from transacting voluntarily?
Would people here have a more accurate understanding of the "war on terror"?
What would happen if people here in this Nation State decided to have a "war on falsehood"; would you volunteer?
If the war on falsehood gains territory, will fewer people be selling their lives for oil profits, and is that a case of "preventing people for transacting voluntarily"?