A Question I got via PM

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In any voluntary trade a person must define for them self what is fair or not fair, if there is no universal agreement on fairness the definitions of those involved must be the ones used ergo the quote "a voluntary trade is a fair trade".

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I can agree to a transaction and still think it's unfair.
You're basing your argument on some kind of procedural concept of fairness, which is also the libertarian view of fairness but not the only one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because fairness is subjective does not make all definitions of fair or unfair correct. The libertarian definition says nothing more than that people's actions define how they view fairness more than their words do, or that a person's actions define how much they value their own definition of fairness. When a person engages in a trade that they deem "unfair" they are saying that what they got in the trade is worth more than what they gave up + the amount that they value fairness. It is fairly irrelevant which definition you take from the libertarian perspective, the person either willingly gives up their definition of fairness, or the person's actions define fairness better than his words.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You mean equitable, I mean fair in the sense of justice.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean.

[/ QUOTE ]

In terms of morality. Getting the maximum value for something you're doing isn't immoral (though it may be mean or anti-social). But initiating force to skew a transaction is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again that's your value judgement, not shared by many. Read these boards about the evil pharmaceutical companies who charge a price they consider "fair", in order to recoup R&D and make a profit.

[bkholdem]

[ 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 ]
that you think that your definition of fair should be what other people use is what keys me into you being arrogant

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, what is my definition of fair? If anything, all I was saying that there is NO generally accepted definition of fairness or justice.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think very many people are arguing to take away your freedom of speech to freely consult with other people to help them assess what is and what is not fair, using your own time and resources to do so.

In fact you could got take 50million out of your bank account and organize a 'fairness consultancy' organization and offer free services to whomever you choose and I don't think any anarchists are going to try to stop you from doing so.

[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.

[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.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
A voluntary action is fair by definition. If the person partaking in it doesn't feel that its fair then... they voluntarily choose not to.

[/ QUOTE ]


For the most part I agree with this (easily greater than 99% of the time), but there may be exceptions. I posted this list in a thread regarding the debate as to whether all voluntary actions are just:

[ 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.



So, I guess, I might disagree with "A voluntary action is fair by definition", depending on the definition of voluntary.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
lol as much as you like. Provide a link where fair compensation wasnt received, until then its just a bunch of rhetoric. And "fair" means the value before the run up in prices due to the project itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

As pvn and kaj have pointed out, the compensation can only be 'just' if it is what the person who owns the property would like in exchange. But if the person was getting what he/she would like in exchange for his/her property, then there would be no need for the government to seize it. Therefore, compensation for land seized for eminent domain is never just.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this were true then all disputes over value would be unresolvable.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah, totally. I mean, it would be totally impossible to allow to people to freely decide on the value of an object through fair exchange. I CANT THINK OF ONE EXAMPLE OF THAT EVER HAPPENING!!

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
lol as much as you like. Provide a link where fair compensation wasnt received, until then its just a bunch of rhetoric. And "fair" means the value before the run up in prices due to the project itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

As pvn and kaj have pointed out, the compensation can only be 'just' if it is what the person who owns the property would like in exchange. But if the person was getting what he/she would like in exchange for his/her property, then there would be no need for the government to seize it. Therefore, compensation for land seized for eminent domain is never just.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this were true then all disputes over value would be unresolvable.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah, totally. I mean, it would be totally impossible to allow to people to freely decide on the value of an object through fair exchange. I CANT THINK OF ONE EXAMPLE OF THAT EVER HAPPENING!!

[/ QUOTE ]

I apologize that I didnt make it painfully obvious to you that resolving disputes over value implied a third party's analysis, such as the beloved DRO. (If the parties can freely decide amongst themselves, there would be no dispute).

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.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How can this not be clear after 30 seconds of thinking about it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because while there is value in preserving a resource, there is often much greater value in exploiting it. When a forest is controlled by a private landowner, he may see the forest as nothing but valuable lumber. If he sells the lumber, he will become wealthy. If a regulator sells the lumber, he doesn't even get a bonus (barring corruption).

The private landowner may choose to preserve the forest for future sale and hope the asset appreciates, but the value of that forest is likely tied up in the lumber available, so the next owner will also have strong incentive to exploit it.

As far as global warming goes, I'm usually able to predict what the anarchist arguments will be, particularly on a topic I'm interested in like the environment and I have no idea where Borodog is going with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Trees are a renewable resource... I'm too lazy to look up the numbers but I would bet the lumber companies plant more trees in a year than the govt, and the tree huuging orgs plant in 5 years.

Throw in the fact that govt protected forests are not maintained very well, and dry brush ignites and burns thousands of acres of land every year.... what is the harm in cutting trees down for profit? Is it better for them to burn at no profit? I like wood, you can build houses, make baseball bats, and pencils and toothpicks out of it. What can you do with a tree that has burnt to the ground?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's even better than that. Cutting down trees to make houses and baseball bats and pencils is GOOD. The carbon that is sunk in that wood then becomes "fixed". A house is less likely to burn, and hence release the stored carbon into the atmosphere, than trees in a forrest. Further, new trees absorb carbon from the atmosphere at a much, much higher rate than old trees (which grow slower).

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
lol as much as you like. Provide a link where fair compensation wasnt received, until then its just a bunch of rhetoric. And "fair" means the value before the run up in prices due to the project itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

As pvn and kaj have pointed out, the compensation can only be 'just' if it is what the person who owns the property would like in exchange. But if the person was getting what he/she would like in exchange for his/her property, then there would be no need for the government to seize it. Therefore, compensation for land seized for eminent domain is never just.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this were true then all disputes over value would be unresolvable. "Market value" is called that because its a standard that can be judged by an independent third party from a review of actual transactions. One party's contention that his property is worth $200,000 when no similar property has sold for more than $50,000 doesnt mean that $200,000 is the "just" price.

Your conclusion points out exactly why theres a prolem with your defintion...you wind up in a situation where no compensation is "just", which is clearly untenable in a market based society.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what if a dispute over value is "unresolvable"? My neighbor has a picasso, he wants $2,000,000 for it. I offered him $50. We can't resolve the dispute.

SO [censored] WHAT? Should I run to some guy with a lot of guns to step in and make him sell it to me for some "just" value?