A Question I got via PM

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is an interesting argument, if a person is not able to determine for themselves what is fair, how can anybody at any time determine what is fair for other people? If people are unable to determine what is fair then essentially there can be no way to set standards or definitions of fairness.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is somewhat correct. A person can determine for itself what is fair or not but any general definition of fairness, while it can be created, doesn't have to be accepted by everyone else or anyone else. It's a strong value judgement and not objective.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Which is why some third party (i.e. government) cannot possibly set a "fair" price by some arbitrary fiat.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Since when is this universally true: "all voluntary transactions are just"

There's a crapload of different definitions of justice in economics, you can't just pull one out of your back and state it like it's the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

They're really shouldn't be any definitions of 'justice' in economics, as justice is an ethical issue and not an economic one.

Justice has to do with giving people what they are due; if someone owns property, then they have the right to do do with it what they please (so long as they show others the same respect). Hence, all coercive transactions are unjust, and voluntary transactions are just.

This has nothing to do with 'market mechanisms' or anything of the sort, it doesn't really have anything to do with economics.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
All of the above is only true if you first reject that there can be common good that overrides the individual's choice. I don't, you do. The society I live in does, your's doesn't. too bad, eh?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. It's far better to suffer injustice than to do injustice, so I would think I'm better off than most.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
DROs would be worthless in assessing what is "fair" in an AC world if the only valid measure of fairness is the perception of the parties to the dispute.

[/ QUOTE ]

DROs might still be quite good at assessing 'market value'--they just wouldn't be able to force one party to buy or sell for this price, since that wouldn't be just.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Guy buys juice at store

2) Guy pays starving homeless man smallish amounts of money to eat dog feces on camera

3) Guy goes to foreign country and pays a 10 year old girl (who may or may not have been sold into the sex trade) for money

4) During a research trip to an isolated part of Alaska, a person comes down with some problem that causes him severe, non life threatening pain. The sole doctor says he is sure he can treat it, but says he will only do so if the man pays him his full life savings.

5) Same as above, but make it something like apendicitis, where we can be near certain the person would die if left untreated

6) I have to do nothing more than press a button to prevent some super villian killing you. Despite the fact that Im certain pressing the button will save your life and inflict upon me no pain, I still demand your life saving before pressing the button.
7) I hold a gun to your head and demand money

[ QUOTE ]
Actions become less voluntary as you go down the list, and I think most definitions of 'voluntary' exclude the last, but, as far as I know, there isnt one agreed on definition of when an action loses its 'voluntaryness' and becomes a coerced act.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]


Obviously all this will depend (to some degree) on how we define 'voluntary'; my own take would be that only #7 (though I think I could be talked into #6 as well) would constitute an act of aggression against another. The other cases (excepting #1) all seem like cases of one person being horrible to another person, but in a non-aggressive way. So I'd be tempted to say 1-6 are all voluntary, but thats using a definition of voluntary that basically means that no aggression took place. Of course that doesn't really seem like the best way to understand what is wrong with all these scenarios, or how one should act in them.

[Felz]

[ QUOTE ]
Justice has to do with giving people what they are due; if someone owns property, then they have the right to do do with it what they please (so long as they show others the same respect). Hence, all coercive transactions are unjust, and voluntary transactions are just.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is purely an opinion and not a fact. There is more to economics than mises.org brings to the table.
I could just as easily claim that private property in itself is coercive and unjust making any transactions involving the transfer of private ownership unjust. And this is referring to procedural justice.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
This is purely an opinion and not a fact. There is more to economics than mises.org brings to the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ethics isn't mere 'opinion' any more than physics or history is. This has nothing to do with my specific economic beliefs, either; it's just a simple separation of different branches of knowledge.

[ QUOTE ]
I could just as easily claim that private property in itself is coercive and unjust making any transactions involving the transfer of private ownership unjust.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can claim anything you'd like. However, if you made this particular claim, you'd be wrong.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously all this will depend (to some degree) on how we define 'voluntary'; my own take would be that only #7 (though I think I could be talked into #6 as well) would constitute an act of aggression against another. The other cases (excepting #1) all seem like cases of one person being horrible to another person, but in a non-aggressive way. So I'd be tempted to say 1-6 are all voluntary, but thats using a definition of voluntary that basically means that no aggression took place. Of course that doesn't really seem like the best way to understand what is wrong with all these scenarios, or how one should act in them.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah, its all definitional.


If we go with your definition (ie. 7, maybe 6, are the only non voluntary) then I disagree with the statement that 'all voluntary transactions are fair', since I find some on the list before 6 (not sure exactly where I stop yet) to be unfair.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
If we go with your definition (ie. 7, maybe 6, are the only non voluntary) then I disagree with the statement that 'all voluntary transactions are fair', since I find some on the list before 6 (not sure exactly where I stop yet) to be unfair.

[/ QUOTE ]

I might too, depending on how we defined 'fair'. I avoided using the word 'fair' and prefer to use 'just' since for me 'just' has a clearer meaning (in my mind, 'justice' deals only with rights, and thus only #7 and maybe #6 are unjust--but the people #2-5 may be unfair, ungenerous, greedy, or otherwise immoral).