Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Question for Politifags

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 2:45:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
When is it moral to aggress against two parties engaging in voluntary trade?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 3:08:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 2:45:14 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When is it moral to aggress against two parties engaging in voluntary trade?

When you can make money by doing so.
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 3:38:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 2:45:14 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When is it moral to aggress against two parties engaging in voluntary trade?

When the trade results in adverse externalities
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 4:17:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 2:45:14 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When is it moral to aggress against two parties engaging in voluntary trade?

When one party is being exploited.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 5:08:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 2:45:14 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When is it moral to aggress against two parties engaging in voluntary trade?

When it affects a third party.
My work here is, finally, done.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 9:28:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 4:17:39 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/24/2013 2:45:14 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When is it moral to aggress against two parties engaging in voluntary trade?

When one party is being exploited.

We should not leave one party at fault for the other party's ignorance.
imabench
Posts: 21,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 9:58:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 2:45:14 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When is it moral to aggress against two parties engaging in voluntary trade?

When I'm not invited
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 10:31:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 2:45:14 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When is it moral to aggress against two parties engaging in voluntary trade?

Depends on the nature of the trade, and the extent to which it is voluntary.

For example, let's say that you decide that the human trafficking business is something you'd like to be a part of. Let's say that your friend Nicholas Cage is the other party, whom you wish to sell people to. The US Government, if you smuggles the people you're trafficking, would be morally justified in intervening.

I can think of more examples, if you'd like.
Tsar of DDO
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 10:37:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 2:45:14 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When is it moral to aggress against two parties engaging in voluntary trade?

Voluntary exchange doesn't exist anyways. There are only power relations.
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 10:50:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 10:37:58 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 8/24/2013 2:45:14 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When is it moral to aggress against two parties engaging in voluntary trade?

Voluntary exchange doesn't exist anyways. There are only power relations.

lol, it's been a while since I've heard someone say that.
Tsar of DDO
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 3:59:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 9:28:24 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/24/2013 4:17:39 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/24/2013 2:45:14 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When is it moral to aggress against two parties engaging in voluntary trade?

When one party is being exploited.

We should not leave one party at fault for the other party's ignorance.

Yes we should, if they are purposefully manipulating them. If I told you I was giving you a thousand dollars for an hour of your labour, but instead pay you a million zimbabwean dollars, or the equivalent of say 3p (I don't know the exchange rate, sue me), then we'd adequately say that this is an unfair trade based on exploitation or ignorance.

However, "exploitation" and "ignorance" are awkwardly vague, which creates problems in political practice.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 4:13:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 10:37:58 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 8/24/2013 2:45:14 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When is it moral to aggress against two parties engaging in voluntary trade?

Voluntary exchange doesn't exist anyways. There are only power relations.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 4:33:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 3:59:44 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 8/24/2013 9:28:24 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/24/2013 4:17:39 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/24/2013 2:45:14 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When is it moral to aggress against two parties engaging in voluntary trade?

When one party is being exploited.

We should not leave one party at fault for the other party's ignorance.

Yes we should, if they are purposefully manipulating them. If I told you I was giving you a thousand dollars for an hour of your labour, but instead pay you a million zimbabwean dollars, or the equivalent of say 3p (I don't know the exchange rate, sue me), then we'd adequately say that this is an unfair trade based on exploitation or ignorance.

However, "exploitation" and "ignorance" are awkwardly vague, which creates problems in political practice.

That's not exploitation. That's a breach of the contract. If you are giving me a thousand dollars, you can't give it to me in another currency, I expect a thousand dollars.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 4:38:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
When one party aggresses against the other, when one party dishonors any contractual agreement between the two, and when the two parties aggress against a third party together.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 4:48:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 10:37:58 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 8/24/2013 2:45:14 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When is it moral to aggress against two parties engaging in voluntary trade?

Voluntary exchange doesn't exist anyways. There are only power relations.

This sums up what I would respond with.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 4:49:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 4:33:17 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/24/2013 3:59:44 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 8/24/2013 9:28:24 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/24/2013 4:17:39 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/24/2013 2:45:14 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When is it moral to aggress against two parties engaging in voluntary trade?

When one party is being exploited.

We should not leave one party at fault for the other party's ignorance.

Yes we should, if they are purposefully manipulating them. If I told you I was giving you a thousand dollars for an hour of your labour, but instead pay you a million zimbabwean dollars, or the equivalent of say 3p (I don't know the exchange rate, sue me), then we'd adequately say that this is an unfair trade based on exploitation or ignorance.

However, "exploitation" and "ignorance" are awkwardly vague, which creates problems in political practice.

That's not exploitation. That's a breach of the contract. If you are giving me a thousand dollars, you can't give it to me in another currency, I expect a thousand dollars.

It's not his fault you didn't realize by "dollars" he was referring to "dollars" used by a nation other than the US.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 5:10:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 4:49:14 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/24/2013 4:33:17 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/24/2013 3:59:44 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 8/24/2013 9:28:24 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/24/2013 4:17:39 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/24/2013 2:45:14 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When is it moral to aggress against two parties engaging in voluntary trade?

When one party is being exploited.

We should not leave one party at fault for the other party's ignorance.

Yes we should, if they are purposefully manipulating them. If I told you I was giving you a thousand dollars for an hour of your labour, but instead pay you a million zimbabwean dollars, or the equivalent of say 3p (I don't know the exchange rate, sue me), then we'd adequately say that this is an unfair trade based on exploitation or ignorance.

However, "exploitation" and "ignorance" are awkwardly vague, which creates problems in political practice.

That's not exploitation. That's a breach of the contract. If you are giving me a thousand dollars, you can't give it to me in another currency, I expect a thousand dollars.

It's not his fault you didn't realize by "dollars" he was referring to "dollars" used by a nation other than the US.

Most nations don't refer to their currency as dollars typically. Dollars is only in the english language.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 6:11:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 5:10:14 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/24/2013 4:49:14 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/24/2013 4:33:17 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/24/2013 3:59:44 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 8/24/2013 9:28:24 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/24/2013 4:17:39 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/24/2013 2:45:14 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When is it moral to aggress against two parties engaging in voluntary trade?

When one party is being exploited.

We should not leave one party at fault for the other party's ignorance.

Yes we should, if they are purposefully manipulating them. If I told you I was giving you a thousand dollars for an hour of your labour, but instead pay you a million zimbabwean dollars, or the equivalent of say 3p (I don't know the exchange rate, sue me), then we'd adequately say that this is an unfair trade based on exploitation or ignorance.

However, "exploitation" and "ignorance" are awkwardly vague, which creates problems in political practice.

That's not exploitation. That's a breach of the contract. If you are giving me a thousand dollars, you can't give it to me in another currency, I expect a thousand dollars.

It's not his fault you didn't realize by "dollars" he was referring to "dollars" used by a nation other than the US.

Most nations don't refer to their currency as dollars typically. Dollars is only in the english language.

Australia uses dollars.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 10:56:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 5:10:14 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/24/2013 4:49:14 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/24/2013 4:33:17 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/24/2013 3:59:44 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 8/24/2013 9:28:24 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/24/2013 4:17:39 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/24/2013 2:45:14 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When is it moral to aggress against two parties engaging in voluntary trade?

When one party is being exploited.

We should not leave one party at fault for the other party's ignorance.

Yes we should, if they are purposefully manipulating them. If I told you I was giving you a thousand dollars for an hour of your labour, but instead pay you a million zimbabwean dollars, or the equivalent of say 3p (I don't know the exchange rate, sue me), then we'd adequately say that this is an unfair trade based on exploitation or ignorance.

However, "exploitation" and "ignorance" are awkwardly vague, which creates problems in political practice.

That's not exploitation. That's a breach of the contract. If you are giving me a thousand dollars, you can't give it to me in another currency, I expect a thousand dollars.

It's not his fault you didn't realize by "dollars" he was referring to "dollars" used by a nation other than the US.

Most nations don't refer to their currency as dollars typically. Dollars is only in the english language.

http://en.wikipedia.org...(disambiguation)
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 8:20:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 4:33:17 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/24/2013 3:59:44 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 8/24/2013 9:28:24 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/24/2013 4:17:39 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/24/2013 2:45:14 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When is it moral to aggress against two parties engaging in voluntary trade?

When one party is being exploited.

We should not leave one party at fault for the other party's ignorance.

Yes we should, if they are purposefully manipulating them. If I told you I was giving you a thousand dollars for an hour of your labour, but instead pay you a million zimbabwean dollars, or the equivalent of say 3p (I don't know the exchange rate, sue me), then we'd adequately say that this is an unfair trade based on exploitation or ignorance.

However, "exploitation" and "ignorance" are awkwardly vague, which creates problems in political practice.

That's not exploitation. That's a breach of the contract. If you are giving me a thousand dollars, you can't give it to me in another currency, I expect a thousand dollars.

Zimbabwean dollars are dollars. I'm not breaching the contract, I'm giving you what you asked for.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
proglib
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 7:12:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 6:11:07 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 8/24/2013 5:10:14 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/24/2013 4:49:14 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/24/2013 4:33:17 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/24/2013 3:59:44 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 8/24/2013 9:28:24 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/24/2013 4:17:39 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/24/2013 2:45:14 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When is it moral to aggress against two parties engaging in voluntary trade?

When one party is being exploited.

We should not leave one party at fault for the other party's ignorance.

Yes we should, if they are purposefully manipulating them. If I told you I was giving you a thousand dollars for an hour of your labour, but instead pay you a million zimbabwean dollars, or the equivalent of say 3p (I don't know the exchange rate, sue me), then we'd adequately say that this is an unfair trade based on exploitation or ignorance.

However, "exploitation" and "ignorance" are awkwardly vague, which creates problems in political practice.

That's not exploitation. That's a breach of the contract. If you are giving me a thousand dollars, you can't give it to me in another currency, I expect a thousand dollars.

It's not his fault you didn't realize by "dollars" he was referring to "dollars" used by a nation other than the US.

Most nations don't refer to their currency as dollars typically. Dollars is only in the english language.

Australia uses dollars.

And if you've ever heard them talking, you'd know Aussies don't speak English. xD
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

http://unitedwegovern.org...
proglib
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 7:26:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2013 8:20:35 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 8/24/2013 4:33:17 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/24/2013 3:59:44 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 8/24/2013 9:28:24 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/24/2013 4:17:39 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/24/2013 2:45:14 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When is it moral to aggress against two parties engaging in voluntary trade?

When one party is being exploited.

We should not leave one party at fault for the other party's ignorance.

Yes we should, if they are purposefully manipulating them. If I told you I was giving you a thousand dollars for an hour of your labour, but instead pay you a million zimbabwean dollars, or the equivalent of say 3p (I don't know the exchange rate, sue me), then we'd adequately say that this is an unfair trade based on exploitation or ignorance.

However, "exploitation" and "ignorance" are awkwardly vague, which creates problems in political practice.

That's not exploitation. That's a breach of the contract. If you are giving me a thousand dollars, you can't give it to me in another currency, I expect a thousand dollars.

Zimbabwean dollars are dollars. I'm not breaching the contract, I'm giving you what you asked for.

All this is, IMHO, is a difference in specificity of the assumptions.

If you create a contract in the United States promising dollars, there is a pretty defensible assumption that you mean U.S. dollars. I have a feeling that even if I wasn't specific enough in the contract to specify U.S. dollars that in a court of law, I'm going to win based on fraud. This is a natural use of common sense in the law.

If you tried the above with a person with a mental or developmental disability your a$$ would be in deep trouble.

Personally, I would say that voluntary, non-fraudulent exchanges between mentally capable people should generally be left alone.

A lot of the counter arguments are making assumptions that the parties are not mentally capable and acting in good faith.

Oh, to me the following is ideological B.S. that needs to be backed up:

At 8/24/2013 10:37:58 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 8/24/2013 2:45:14 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When is it moral to aggress against two parties engaging in voluntary trade?

Voluntary exchange doesn't exist anyways. There are only power relations.

You want to make it tautological that there are only power relations, fine. However, within "power relations," there are some that use explicit force, fraud, etc., and there are some where the force is only implied by the rule of law that says we aren't allowed to steal from each other, and such.

I would define the latter as more voluntary, in that within the parameters of not stealing from each other I'm offering a good or service to someone who has the choice to spend their money for that good or service, or to go elsewhere.

Cheers
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

http://unitedwegovern.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 12:52:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2013 7:26:24 PM, proglib wrote:
At 8/25/2013 8:20:35 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 8/24/2013 4:33:17 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/24/2013 3:59:44 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 8/24/2013 9:28:24 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/24/2013 4:17:39 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/24/2013 2:45:14 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When is it moral to aggress against two parties engaging in voluntary trade?

When one party is being exploited.

We should not leave one party at fault for the other party's ignorance.

Yes we should, if they are purposefully manipulating them. If I told you I was giving you a thousand dollars for an hour of your labour, but instead pay you a million zimbabwean dollars, or the equivalent of say 3p (I don't know the exchange rate, sue me), then we'd adequately say that this is an unfair trade based on exploitation or ignorance.

However, "exploitation" and "ignorance" are awkwardly vague, which creates problems in political practice.

That's not exploitation. That's a breach of the contract. If you are giving me a thousand dollars, you can't give it to me in another currency, I expect a thousand dollars.

Zimbabwean dollars are dollars. I'm not breaching the contract, I'm giving you what you asked for.

All this is, IMHO, is a difference in specificity of the assumptions.

You know what they say about assumptions. However, I agree that it is when someone makes an assumption that is fair but wrong, and neither party recognises that, no party is in the wrong. However, if it is ludicrous (Zimbabwean dollars for example) or one uses the assumption with the aim to use the other person as a means to an end only (such as knowing a product will not sufficiently fulfill the needs of the consumer, yet still selling it), then then the contract can be fairly stated null and void politically.

If you tried the above with a person with a mental or developmental disability your a$$ would be in deep trouble.

I'd like to think that if I tried it with anyone I'd be in deep trouble.

Personally, I would say that voluntary, non-fraudulent exchanges between mentally capable people should generally be left alone.

Voluntary exchanges generally affect more than just the two people involved, however. The problem is how stakeholders seem to have too little say in these negotiations - namely, none.

A lot of the counter arguments are making assumptions that the parties are not mentally capable and acting in good faith.

Oh, to me the following is ideological B.S. that needs to be backed up:

At 8/24/2013 10:37:58 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 8/24/2013 2:45:14 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When is it moral to aggress against two parties engaging in voluntary trade?

Voluntary exchange doesn't exist anyways. There are only power relations.

You want to make it tautological that there are only power relations, fine. However, within "power relations," there are some that use explicit force, fraud, etc., and there are some where the force is only implied by the rule of law that says we aren't allowed to steal from each other, and such.

I would define the latter as more voluntary, in that within the parameters of not stealing from each other I'm offering a good or service to someone who has the choice to spend their money for that good or service, or to go elsewhere.

Implicit force is just as powerful. Implicit force is the "give me your money or I will shoot you". It can simply be more indirect: "Give me your money or you will starve to death" is similarly using the dangerous force.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
slo1
Posts: 4,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 1:34:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 2:45:14 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When is it moral to aggress against two parties engaging in voluntary trade?

It is all relative, but most people would consider the below instances as valid:
1. When illegal. (Selling crack, violates universal contract code)
2. When it is involves National Security (Israel blocking arms shipments to Gaza)
3. When violates particular codes of morality. (protesting abortion clinic, boycotting Chick-fil-a for stance on gays)

Since all the above instances are relative to a persons belief system and there is no universal objective definition of morality the true answer is whenever the people who have power can justify it.
proglib
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 3:38:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/26/2013 12:52:39 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 8/25/2013 7:26:24 PM, proglib wrote:
At 8/25/2013 8:20:35 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 8/24/2013 4:33:17 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/24/2013 3:59:44 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 8/24/2013 9:28:24 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/24/2013 4:17:39 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/24/2013 2:45:14 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When is it moral to aggress against two parties engaging in voluntary trade?

When one party is being exploited.

We should not leave one party at fault for the other party's ignorance.

Yes we should, if they are purposefully manipulating them. If I told you I was giving you a thousand dollars for an hour of your labour, but instead pay you a million zimbabwean dollars, or the equivalent of say 3p (I don't know the exchange rate, sue me), then we'd adequately say that this is an unfair trade based on exploitation or ignorance.

However, "exploitation" and "ignorance" are awkwardly vague, which creates problems in political practice.

That's not exploitation. That's a breach of the contract. If you are giving me a thousand dollars, you can't give it to me in another currency, I expect a thousand dollars.

Zimbabwean dollars are dollars. I'm not breaching the contract, I'm giving you what you asked for.

All this is, IMHO, is a difference in specificity of the assumptions.

You know what they say about assumptions. However, I agree that it is when someone makes an assumption that is fair but wrong, and neither party recognises that, no party is in the wrong. However, if it is ludicrous (Zimbabwean dollars for example) or one uses the assumption with the aim to use the other person as a means to an end only (such as knowing a product will not sufficiently fulfill the needs of the consumer, yet still selling it), then then the contract can be fairly stated null and void politically.

If you tried the above with a person with a mental or developmental disability your a$$ would be in deep trouble.

I'd like to think that if I tried it with anyone I'd be in deep trouble.

Personally, I would say that voluntary, non-fraudulent exchanges between mentally capable people should generally be left alone.

Voluntary exchanges generally affect more than just the two people involved, however. The problem is how stakeholders seem to have too little say in these negotiations - namely, none.

A lot of the counter arguments are making assumptions that the parties are not mentally capable and acting in good faith.

Oh, to me the following is ideological B.S. that needs to be backed up:

At 8/24/2013 10:37:58 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 8/24/2013 2:45:14 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When is it moral to aggress against two parties engaging in voluntary trade?

Voluntary exchange doesn't exist anyways. There are only power relations.

You want to make it tautological that there are only power relations, fine. However, within "power relations," there are some that use explicit force, fraud, etc., and there are some where the force is only implied by the rule of law that says we aren't allowed to steal from each other, and such.

I would define the latter as more voluntary, in that within the parameters of not stealing from each other I'm offering a good or service to someone who has the choice to spend their money for that good or service, or to go elsewhere.

Implicit force is just as powerful. Implicit force is the "give me your money or I will shoot you". It can simply be more indirect: "Give me your money or you will starve to death" is similarly using the dangerous force.

Several good points. Particularly about externalities. I was focused more on an exchange just between two people that had little effect on third parties. In the real world, that often isn't the case.

However, I would say that externalities should be clearly identified and have a real effect on third parties. For example, driving under the influence of marijuana has clear implications for other folks, where buying marijuana not as much. Though of course one could not drive under the influence without obtaining the drug from somewhere.

Stuff gets complicated, doesn't it?
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

http://unitedwegovern.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 6:52:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Proglib, I'd very much agree with your point that you put forth: I agree that it is massively important as you've highlighted that we must note what externalities are going to take place, and their severity. However, I'd ask is this a question for the practical politician to solve depending on how practical something is in a given country in a given technological state of affairs and money to play about with, rather than any severe philosophical issue.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...