Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Saurabh

Regulars
  • Posts

    162
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Saurabh

  1. That impresses me (in the context of my argument only - not for stealing as it is understood conventionally). I do not want to respond to that question - since you do not have a claim on my practising my morality. But, I will think more and respond, if you can convince me logically.
  2. If you do not agree with my approach, then may I suggest that we discuss that first? Because, if the means are wrong, then the end can't be justified. Thx!
  3. Would you not pay even if it is proven that my position is right? (I am asking this for personal curiousity. It has no bearing on the debate. You may choose not to answer.)
  4. sotwarenerd, I really like the way you have defined the concepts of rights. Thx! Also, my dilemma in accepting your above statement is that: If a man claims that land today, he precludes the unborn from claiming it. He may use the land and righfully own the value created by him. But he can't own the scarce source of value creation - the land. What do you think?
  5. I will send my cheque to the society once and if my assertions are proven to be true - and a systematic and convincing analysis is done of how much I owe. I own a piece of land, on which I may be appropriating some rent unfairly. Do you own any land? And I hope that if this debate is concluded logically (favoring my position), then will you send your check as well.
  6. Freestyle, I assume you agree with my debating approach. Every man cannot have NO claim because that IV is already floating in form of $ in the economy. Because it has been paid as part of price to someone. Now we must 'diffuse' these $ equally. (Please don't bother right now about how we will do it). You see my point?
  7. I am starting again to be more clear. (Freestyle I will respond to your post later). My re-phrased argument: A. Original-state land has the property of being fertile (albeit in varying degrees) B. This gives land some intrinsic value (IV) C. This IV becomes a part of the wheat's price (which ends up with a human being as $) D. Every man has equal claim on the part of the price paid for IV. Because, this IV ends up as $ with some individual; and that individual has not done anything to earn it. So, it should be paid to no particular person, but to all. My approach for the debate: Stage 1: Prove that D is true (conditional on B and C). Stage 2: Prove B. Prove C. My rationale for choosing this approach: We need to debate B, C and D. Out of these three, D is the most important moral arguement for me. B and C are economics arguments. (note that I changed B to remove the moral component from it). For these two arguements, I will need to read a few economics textbooks, which will take time. (Though I have reasonable confidence that B and C will turn to be true). Hence, I first seek debate on D. 'Coz even after proving B and C, D may turn out be wrong. I am just trying to prioritize my effort, as I am taught to do in my profession. But you may disagree with my approach logically - and then I will react appropriately
  8. On B1 and B2: There is no need to prove this statement right now. This is because my argument is in two-stages: Stage 1: Prove that If B and If C, then D. Stage 2: Prove B. Prove C. I am still at the stage 1 of the debate. I did make this approach clear in my original post: '..My aproach is to get agreement on D based on condtions B and C. After that I will debate why my conditions B and C are true..)! On B3: This is a fair objection (in terms of being a stage 1 question). I will respond to this in my next post. On D1 and D2: These are similar objections, and I will respond to both.
  9. Zip, Softwarenerd, 2046, and Randriod I have aggregated below all the objections that you have raised on my argument. Please let me know if I am missing any objection. I will respond to the objections later today. At this point, I also encourage people who agree (if applicable) with my argument (or approach, or partial argument), to let their agreement known. Thx! My argument: A. Nature provides us original-state land which has the property of being fertile (albeit in varying degrees by location). B. If we can show that this original-state land has some intrinsic value, then this value must not be appropriated by any one person. Because, this intrinsic value has not created by human action. It has been created by the original powers of the soil. C. If we can show that the wheat grown on this land fetches a price which is a sum of both this intrinsic value and the value-add by humans, then a moral question arises - who should claim that part of the price which has arisen due to the intrinsic value of land? D. So, if that moral question arises, the answer to that question would be: Every man has equal claim on this intrinsic value part. Because, this intrinsic value part is being paid (as part of price) to some individual. And that individual has not done anything to earn this part. So, if it HAS to be paid, then it should be paid to no particular person, but to everyone. Objections raised on the argument so far: On B: Prove that there is there intrinsic value in land Prove how the absence of prior human action should prevent human appropriation On c: Prove that there is any sot of excess wealth in anything I or anyone else produces from land On D: A pioneer provides himself with land by using his mind to discover the original properties of land Prove that anyone but the owner who has put the productive effort into getting crops or minerals or use out of the land should share the product of his labour with anyone else P.S. Marc, Thanks for joinining the debate. Can you let us know your full position on the issue?
  10. Softwarenerd and Zip, I may take back the burden of proof, but let me digress from the original debate for a while: If B is debating on an issue and he disagrees with A's position, then B needs to prove why he disagrees. so, the burden of proof comes to B in such case. However, B is right to put the entire burden on A if B does not have a starting position- and A wants B to take a position. In which case B's correct reaction is: 'I don't understand' (and not 'I disagree'). Let me please know the nature of your reaction, before I can respond to your refutations. So, to summarize: If your reaction is: I don't understand; then tell me so I will take the burden of proof. But, if your reaction is: I disagree; then please take the burden of proof and do the needful. Thanks!
  11. Freestyle, By what right can appropriator claim that value. He can only claim the value he creates, right? I take back this line. I actually meant the following: 'Also w.r.t to your 1: Option D does not presupposes innate value to everyone... It claims and supports that'. Thx for link to AR's article. I will read it. Softwarenerd, I did justify my claim saying that : "...this value must not be appropriated by any one person. Because, this intrinsic value has not created by human action. It has been created by the original powers of the soil". If you are not satisfied, may I place the burden now on you to prove that this value can be appropriated rightfully by someone? (In fact this burden of proof lies on Freestyle and Zip as well). Zip, I agree with your refinement of A. I mean this to be a condition that I am putting, in order to argue. My condition is: 'If we can show that this original-state land has some intrinsic value'. Do you realize that the question of 'accepting' does not arise for this sentence? Most likely you mean my following statement: '...then this value must not be appropriated by any one person'. In which case please see my response to softwarenerd. I will respond to your remaining post, once you agree (or logically diasgree) with my debate approach. 2046, I don't understand this statement. Request you to use more accurate words. Moreover, I used the word 'us' not 'individual'. I don't understand this statement. Request you to elaborate. Thanks. I agree with you here, but I think this is a trivial statement. Please clarify if you think otherwise. Let us first clear these basic things, and the debate on the remaining argument.
  12. Randroid, Thanks for your response - as now we both are clear where our disagreement lies. Once I aggregate all responses, I will provide my support for condition B. I am assuming that you are OK with the rest of the argument. Freestyle, Please support following claims: 3 2: "...for even if there were intrinsic value with no ownership, which there is not, it would mean that ONLY the appropriator of it has taken that value..." Also w.r.t to your 1: Option D does not presupposes innate value ... It claims and supports that.
  13. Friends, To continue and re-frame this debate, I am breaking down my argument in 4 parts: A, B, C and D. A is a metaphysical fact. B and C are conditions. D is a conditional claim with its support. My aproach is to get agreement on D based on condtions B and C. After that I will debate why conditions B and C are true. This way we can debate in a structured manner, and without scattering the debate into non-core or non-fundamental issues. A. Nature provides us original-state land which has the property of being fertile (albeit in varying degrees by location). B. If we can show that this original-state land has some intrinsic value, then this value must not be appropriated by any one person. Because, this intrinsic value has not created by human action. It has been created by the original powers of the soil. C. If we can show that the wheat grown on this land fetches a price which is a sum of both this intrinsic value and the value-add by humans, then a moral question arises - who should claim that part of the price which has arisen due to the intrinsic value of land? D. So, if that moral question arises, the answer to that question would be: Every man has equal claim on this intrinsic value part. Because, this intrinsic value part is being paid (as part of price) to some individual. And that individual has not done anything to earn this part. So, if it HAS to be paid, then it should be paid to no particular person, but to everyone. My suggestions for your responses: 1) Please respond in following format: Claim statement.Support statement. Because this is how we can do a logical debate. 2) Please let me know where you stand on A, B, C and D. You have three options: Agree, Disagree, Open (want to explore) 3) Please don't useg inductive logic (e.g. arguing that: A claim implies bureaucracy. Bureaucracy we have 'seen' is bad. Hence, your position is wrong). Also, please feel free to challenge me even on my suggestions above. If any of you feels that my above-mentioned situation is a hypothetical one, then indicate so and I will respond. I want to know very clearly the source of your disagreement.
  14. Guys, I will re-read all your responses over the weekend, and will again join the debate. At this point, I also want to express that I am happy being a part of this forum because I can see that the members are serious about their views - even if there is disagreement. Unfortunately, I find less people around me (physically) who are willing to debate such issues, and display such conviction and seriousness.
  15. I agree with both your assertions - as long as the market is a free market. But my basic claim is that original-state land is not landlord's property. So, the question of his trading the property in the market does not arise. If you disagree with me, please refute my basic claim. Landlord can, however, interact with market and trade the value he added to the land. (I guess the source of confusion could be due to different definitions being understood for rent. I am talking about economic rent, and not the rent as it is understoood conventionally). This is one reason, I am asking for additional time - so that I can re-frame my position using more accurate words.
  16. Friends, Thanks for all participation in the debate so far. May I suggest to freeze this debate for a few days? I would like some time now to reflect on all the responses and on my position, and also to read AR's essays on Rights.
  17. Castle, I will respond to your post in some time, as I need time to frame my response to your detailed post. Randroid, You have raised good objections. Voluntary agreement is not possible in all cases. Landlord commands a scarce resource and can ask for any rent. Realize that there in no fundamental perfect competition (economics term) for a limited resource like land. I agree with you. But you are focusing on a side-issue. The main takeaway from my example is that there will be a scarcity rent. Do you have any objections here? The analogy is not appropriate. Edison should be awarded for creating value. Unborn can create and righfully own additional value (e.g. advanced bulbs) by standing on Edison's shoulders. But, in my example, if you award the land to C, you preclude unborn D from using that limited resource. Realize that C's identifying a productive land does not 'create' any value. Edison's bulb does.
  18. Jake, I am trying to make a honest equiry, with as less use of emotion as possible. But, if you or anyone think my approach is wrong, please tell me how. And I will change the approach if justified. My definition of morality is same as you pointed out. But, I do not understand how my assertion deprives men of their means of survival. Men can only survive if they have right to own products of their mental and physical effort. And am I not denying that right! Also, you assume that I am for govt. control. Actually, I am only for societal ownership of economic rent. This implies Govt., I agree. But govt. does not HAVE to be bad. Badness is not a fundamental property of govt. At this point, I also want to know if other also evaluate this debate the same way as Jake. If not, then please respond. If yes, then there is no point wasting everyone's time as Jake mentioned.
  19. Zip, I will give my response using an example. Let us say wheat was produced from a land and sold in market for $100. $20 went to Labor as Wages. $20 went to the person who lent money (for seeds and equipment). Now the question in what part of remaining $60 should fairly belong to the Landlord? Let us say landlord has maintained his land overtime through proper irrigation, etc. Hence, he created and earned some value. Let us say that value is $20. Now, we are left with $40. Now, let us say that landlord applied his intelligence and could identify this most-productive land. Then I agree with you that he should get rewarded for his use of intelligence (but I elaborate on this in the last para). Let us say this part was $20. Now, we are left with $20. This part has arisen without any human action of body or mind. This part has arisen due to scarcity of supply of land. This is the part that needs to the go to the society. Now, I recognize that I have used arbitrary numbers here. But, the essence of the example is that scarcity rents are a fact of life, and should be distributed equally. I also recognize the practical difficulty in estimating all these parts of the rent. But, that we can deal with later (and I promise I will do so), once we conclude the basic moral argument. Now, I come back to your point on rewarding C for his intelligence in identifying the land. I feel like agreeing wiht you, but the conflict is that if I reward C by giving him $20 forever, then am I not being unfair with unborn people, who could have also identified this land like C did. I am tending towards giving C only limited-tenure rights to the $20 periodic cash flows in this case. But I still need to think more.
  20. Zip, I think that is a very good point. I need to think about your point and get back. Also, I am not against C if he gets paid commensurately for adding some value to the land (e.g. by making it more fertile, etc).
  21. Brian, I had already defined Morality and Origin of rights (post #23). If you have read AR's definition on these 2 things, please know that my definition is also the same. Else, you may want to read Virtue of selfishness (Ch. 12). I don't understand your point. One has to use some words to explain something right?
  22. Randroid, The problem is that A has to pay the rent to C (landlord). I am nowhere saying that A needs to pay rent to B. I used the A and B example to show how rents arise in an economy (as also explained by Ricardo). My question is how can landlord claim rent as he did nothing to earn it? I agree with you that: It's not A's fault that B doesn't know what to do with a patch of land or figures it out too slowly. A is more intelligent or enterprising and hence can bid higher than B for use of that land. But, he will need to pay some rent to C. I am against that rent going to C(landlord).
  23. Dear Brian, I have already answered these two questions in my previous posts. Please let me know if you disagree, and why.
  24. Can you please tell me what you mean by 'Human creation'? I did not use this term in my assertion. Did you mean 'human action'? Let me begin the debate from scratch. Below is my claim and its support. Every man has an equal birth-right to a THING that exists in nature without any human action (e.g. uncultivated land, air, water, etc). This is because no one can claim more right that the other man for such a thing - because such a thing existed independent of any human action. Whoever disagrees, may I request you to counter my argument (using deductive logic), and preferably (though not necessarily) in 3-4 lines. Thanks!
×
×
  • Create New...