A Question I got via PM

[tolbiny]

[ 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.


[/ 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 ]

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


[/ QUOTE ]

No, the fact that all your arguments end up being "nu uhh" is what keys me into you being moronic, and the fact that you think that your definition of fair should be what other people use is what keys me into you being arrogant, and that you try to name drop things you've read keys me into you being a prick. It has nothing to do with my education levels (I'm not sure why you would think the amount of education a stranger has would have any significant bearing on why your an AMP).

[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!'?

[Felz]

[ 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.

[Felz]

[ 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!'?

[/ QUOTE ]

Classic example:
You had a huge car accident and are about to die. Someone comes across and offers you to call the ambulance if you pay/owe him whatever amount of money (let's assume this kind of contract would be legal).

You'd most likely agree voluntarily but not necessarily consider this fair.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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!'?

[/ QUOTE ]

Classic example:
You had a huge car accident and are about to die. Someone comes across and offers you to call the ambulance if you pay/owe him whatever amount of money (let's assume this kind of contract would be legal).

You'd most likely agree voluntarily but not necessarily consider this fair.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean equitable, I mean fair in the sense of justice. Something can be fair without neccesarily being "nice".

[Felz]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[tolbiny]

[ 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 ]

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".

[tomdemaine]

[ 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.

[Felz]

[ 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.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Bob owns a house and wants to sell it for $200,000, then it doesn't matter whether you think his price is way too high given what other similar houses have sold for, or too low, or whatever. It's his house, and part of being that owner of said house means he can ask whatever the [censored] he wants when selling it.

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

Wrong. All voluntary transactions are just; it's just the coercive transactions that end up being entirely unjust. This is exactly what one should expect from a market society.

None of this has anything to do with 'market value', which we could still talk about and calculate independently of of 'just' prices. The issue is that getting 'market value' for my house won't be just unless it's the price I'm asking for.

[/ 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?