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?

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]


What does "equality of justice" even mean? Plus justice or fairness isn't necessarily connected to voluntary transactions.


[/ 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.

[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".

[Felz]

[ 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 ]

This is NOT correct.

[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]

[tolbiny]

Post deleted by iron81

[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"

[Felz]

[ 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 ]

Then the two of you subjectively decided to call the transaction fair. Its still isn't fair "by definition" unless you actually make an effort to present that very definition.

And the mere fact that you, tolbiny, are undereducated doesn't make me a moronic arrogant prick.

Edit:
The point is that partaking in a voluntary transaction doesn't necessarily require it to be considered "fair" or "just" (not even by the participants).

[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.