A Question I got via PM

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]

When he stated that all voluntary transactions are just that's exactly what he was implying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cause and effect.

[ QUOTE ]

Ever drawn an Edgeworth box in your life?

[/ QUOTE ]

Plenty, would you mind explaining what they've got to do with this though?

[Felz]

[ QUOTE ]

Cause and effect.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not cause and effect, it's the same thing.

[ QUOTE ]
Plenty, would you mind explaining what they've got to do with this though?

[/ QUOTE ]

The gains of trade (i.e. voluntary transaction) can be distributed very unevenly which can be considered more or less just and fair.

Anyways what I'm saying is that you can't run around and claim something to be fair or just when you're using a very narrow definition of justice or fairness and even fail to specify it.

It's not like there's a generally accepted definition of justice and fairness. For instance the understanding of Rawls and Nozick/Hayek regarding justice and fairness are like miles apart yet neither is "wrong".

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]

The gains of trade (i.e. voluntary transaction) can be distributed very unevenly which can be considered more or less just and fair.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this is a subjective view of fairness imposed from outside. Answer me this one, from the point of view of the participants of a trade which is more just, a voluntary trade or a coreced one?


Edit :

[ QUOTE ]
If I determine that my end of a transaction is fair, and the guy I'm trading with decides his end of the transaction is fair, who the [censored] are you, you moronoic arrogant prick, to tell me otherwise?

[/ QUOTE ]

or this [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Felz]

[ QUOTE ]
But this is a subjective view of fairness imposed from outside.

[/ QUOTE ]

ANY view of fairness is subjective.

[ QUOTE ]
Answer me this one, from the point of view of the participants of a trade which is more just, a voluntary trade or a coreced one?

[/ QUOTE ]

In economics there is no "coercive trade" ... trade = voluntary and in this case "by definition"

[tomdemaine]

Fine use the word transaction instead of trade is it helps you answer the question.

[Felz]

[ QUOTE ]
Fine use the word transaction instead of trade is it helps you answer the question.

[/ QUOTE ]

If one of the participants believes in one of the many variations of distributive fairness or justice he might prefer a coercive transaction the other participant would not voluntarily agree to and also might consider any voluntary transaction as unfair.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fine use the word transaction instead of trade is it helps you answer the question.

[/ QUOTE ]

If one of the participants believes in one of the many variations of distributive fairness or justice he might prefer a coercive transaction the other participant would not voluntarily agree to

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you think the other person would feel about that?

[ QUOTE ]
and also might consider any voluntary transaction as unfair.

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely if he thought it was unfair he wouldn't agree to it so it would no longer be a transaction. Who thinks 'man I'm really gonna get screwed in this transaction lets do it!'?

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fine use the word transaction instead of trade is it helps you answer the question.

[/ QUOTE ]

If one of the participants believes in one of the many variations of distributive fairness or justice he might prefer a coercive transaction the other participant would not voluntarily agree to and also might consider any voluntary transaction as unfair.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very true. See my post above for an example of this form of distributive fairness.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Cause and effect.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not cause and effect, it's the same thing.

[ QUOTE ]
Plenty, would you mind explaining what they've got to do with this though?

[/ QUOTE ]

The gains of trade (i.e. voluntary transaction) can be distributed very unevenly which can be considered more or less just and fair.

Anyways what I'm saying is that you can't run around and claim something to be fair or just when you're using a very narrow definition of justice or fairness and even fail to specify it.

It's not like there's a generally accepted definition of justice and fairness. For instance the understanding of Rawls and Nozick/Hayek regarding justice and fairness are like miles apart yet neither is "wrong".

[/ QUOTE ]

Very true. And MY definition of fairness and justice begins and ends with me being the king and ruler of the universe and all that is in it. All things I say and do are fair and just, and anyone who tries to interfere is unfair and unjust. In my kindgom unfairness and injustice is severely punnished. All things I instruct others to say and do are also fair and just by definition (mine), and anyone who begs to differ is unfair and unjust and will face the consequences of their unfairness and injustices.