Personal rights - Part 2 (General)

by clarity, Sunday, January 31, 2010, 08:07 @ Joe Kelley

The problem you may have with this measure of this thing called “rights”, other than the total dependence this thing relies upon each individual as each individual gives, or takes away, these rights from whomever they may meet, is that, your problem with this, is that the opposite of “rights” sounds a whole lot like capitalism from this viewpoint, as each person rewards each other person for their capacity to extract every bit of profit from each other whenever possible in capitalism, and therefore, by exposure of the big lie, you can’t accept this version of “rights”, even though you make all the pretense of asking for it.

OK, gentlemen, I pledge allegiance to "do unto others," "do no harm," "reciprocity," "mutuality," "thou shalt not murder," and many other counsels of what I regard as good behavior.

Reasonable people can disagree on when, how, where, and in what ways these general principles are violated. Juries and judges have been working at this for a long time. Their judgments sometimes vary and conflict. Further, reasonable people can disagree on who is guilty of what and how much they are guilty, and they can disagree on the remedies.

Labyrinth and I disagreed on rent and vacant apartments, or at least that was my perception. He hasn't stopped painting me as favoring exploitation because I would not endorse his particular expropriation remedy. That's a silly accusation. It's a lengthy road between the pledge and recommending that people occupy vacant apartments. Before I arrive at that destination, I need more good argument and reasoning.

As for you, Joe, you too are saying something just as silly about my attitudes toward capitalism, extracting profits, the big lie, not accepting your version of rights, etc etc etc, even accusing me of pretense because I do not line up with your version of reality.

Heck, we do not even know what you mean by capitalism. I avoid using the word studiously, at least most of the time. I said it is good to accumulate capital. Is that what you mean by capitalism? I said I favored private property. Is that what you mean? Or do you mean the existing system of political-economic rule in the U.S.? I even said that profit and loss are unavoidable and that it is good to seek profit and avoid loss. Is that what has led you to think that I favor the existing system whereby people seek rents through the state?

It is possible to seek profit and avoid loss and get profit and avoid loss without doing anyone any harm, without utilizing the power of the state, and that is what I always have in mind.

It is a profitable use of my time to shop around to find the best deal on a car. It was once a profitable use of my time to learn how to play music and perform for others. I avoided wasting my time and my resources as best I knew how, which I regret to say was not that well.

One can seek profit without violating the idea that cost is the limit of price. It is by seeking profit and entering a market where price is higher than cost that price is driven down to cost.

This assumes that cost can be identified. I think it can't be. If I can sell a book on ebay for $100 that costs me $50, I will buy more of those books and keep offering them and profiting until the buying declines and the price starts to fall. Meanwhile, if I buy enough books at $50, I may drive that price up. Cost will equal price when the profits vanish. It will happen at some price that I cannot know beforehand.

Price being driven to cost is a good thing. It will happen if the markets are open to entry and production.