Subject:
|
Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 8 Sep 1999 12:48:24 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
(lpieniazek@novera.)NoSpam(com)
|
Viewed:
|
1639 times
|
| |
|
|
<37D44B67.BC996AD6@voyager.net> <FHpz7x.MKI@lugnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Simon Robinson wrote:
> The fact that you've indicated you're prepared to
> take steps against any factoree who you feel
> doesn't provide a good, honest and reliable
> trading service makes me feel even more happy - and even quite proud - to
> be a part of that factoring network.
Good, I am glad that you feel that way, it's a stance I've sort of
started to take without getting a lot of explicit buy in from factorees
that it was OK to move in that direction. My documentation disclaims any
responsibility or *warrantee* , and I intend to stick by that, but that
doesn't mean that I would not use best efforts to resolve, to the extent
that I have any power.
> And the fact that we can have these debates here, while at the same time
> maintaining those solid trading links is very nice as well.
Agreed.
> Anyway - back to the argument...
>
> > > But to try and link trust to political views in the way you
> > > just have sucks.
> >
> > I'm not sure what to say here, but it IS what I do and I'm not going to
> > apologise for it. My world view, which is right there out on the table
> > for everyone to examine, says that once I make a deal I am honor bound
> > to follow through on it. I'm not sure that's as true for someone who
> > espouses "from each according to their ability, to each according to
> > their need...".
>
> I'd say that if you feel that way then that is quite a misunderstanding the
> rationale
> behind redistributionist[1] thinking - but I've addressed that in my reply
> to Chris
> Weeks.
Right. I read it. I just don't agree. I DO think that there is some
amount of muddy thinking about rights in redistributionist thinking,
we'll get to that in a bit. My concern, and I will persist in holding it
to be valid in my situation, is that once you think it's OK to violate
rights by having government take, or for you personally to steal "for a
good cause" where does it stop?
That is an unpopular view. I was excorciated (sp?) by most when I got on
Eric's case back in the price tagging debate (I think that was on RTL)
for saying that if he felt it was OK to change or remove price tags, how
did I know he wouldn't cheat me. I just don't buy the "well it's OK to
steal from X, (where X is, a big corporation, a government, a taxpayer)
but I'd never steal from YOU" as 100% solid. I never will do a deal with
Eric either unless I am convinced that a) the merch he's dealing me
wasn't obtained that way and b) none of my money is at risk, completion
risk is 100% the other way.
>
> I think part of the reason I found what you said a bit offensive was that
> there seemed to be a tone in it of 'anyone who agrees with me must
> be intrinsically more trustworthy' Sorry if that wasn't what you intended -
> but I think you can probably see the problem with that attitude without me
> commenting on it :).
Yes, if that were my attitude (that is, I would trust some guy off the
street I had never traded with who happened to be waving a don't tread
on me flag and wearing a Marrou for president button more than I trusted
people who I had a long history of successful trades with who happened
to hold redistributionist views) you'd certainly be justified in getting
your back up. I would too.
But it's not. I use that and all other data as I see fit to carry out
whatever analysis and decision I choose. I consider political stance a
mild predictor. I consider past dealings with others a strong predictor.
I consider past dealings with me a VERY strong predictor. I will brook
with no interference in my process, and ultimately, I don't really CARE
what you think of the process except to the extent that it interferes
with my ability to attract and retain quality factorees and to the
extent that it affects public perception of me as an honest and fair
trader. If the public perception of me is "solid trader, but a little
screwy with all that libertarian stuff, although it doesn't interfere
with commerce" that's A OK by me.
> Your post raises some interesting questions though. In one sense, yes
> you are within your rights to use whatever evidence you want to to
> judge other people's likely trustworthiness. However, if you use
> inappropriate
> 'evidence', I wonder whether that could be interpreted as interfering with
> other peoples' rights.
Interesting thesis and one worthy of detailed reexamination even though
it has been covered before.
> As an example, a few people have discussed the fact that blacks are in
> general more likely to commit crimes. Whatever the reasons for that,
> that means that I would presumably be quite correct to trust a black man
> whom I didn't know less than I would trust a white man that I didn't know -
> because the truth is that the black man _is_ statistically more likely to
> turn out to be someone who's going to beat me up[2]. Your argument seems
> to suggest that I'm quite within my rights to take that attitude.
Yes, it does suggest that, and you are within them. We must be careful
to distinguish between the free acts of commerce between free
individuals, and the monopolistic use of force by government ostensibly
in the service of enforcing rights. I guess I would ask you why you
would NOT in fact trust someone you had no other information about but
who was statistically more likely to do you wrong less than someone you
had no other information about but who was statisticially less likey to
do you wrong? To ignore information available to you seems counter
survival. (1)
I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Discrimination by private
individuals, while sometimes reprehensible, must be allowed.
Discrimination by government, which has a monopoly, must be prohibited.
While it may be economically foolish for me as a store owner not to sell
tools made for left handers and cater to the right hand trade only, it
is within my rights to do so. There is no right to commerce and the left
handers are free to set up their own store and discriminate against
right handers if they so choose.
> Unfortunately
> if I do that I'm also contributing to racism - and interfering with the
> rights
> of the vast majority of blacks (who are perfectly good citizens) not to
> be discriminated against.
While discriminating against a black person or a lefthander or a redhead
may or may not contribute to racism, handedism, or haircolorism, there
is no right to commerce and it does not interfere with the rights of
anyone. In fact, forcing a property owner to deal with others than who
she chooses to is interfering with the rights of that property owner to
dispose of it as he or she sees fit.
This notion that people have a right to do business with anyone they
choose to is not valid! They only have a right to choose to do business
with those that choose to do business with them. It flows both ways.
In the realm of Lego, I can discriminate against you or anyone I choose
to for any reason I wish to or no reason at all, as far as I am
concerned. Now, to do so is often foolish, and I must be prepared to
suffer the consequences (lower sales, reputation as a bigoted idiot, or
whategver).
In fact I intend to start discriminating against some of my factorees
very soon. I intend to impose a surcharge on each transaction that does
NOT use my factor information form and anyone who doesn't like it is
free to take their custom elsewhere. Now, you say, that isn't
discrimination, it's merely a term of doing business with me and it's
OK.
But it IS discrimination, because one of my factors has told me he
doesn't like it and it is inconvenient for him to fill it out. So by
your theory, I am violating his rights, he has an anti form bias. I
don't care. It's not about his convenience, it's about mine. And I
intend to impose my convenience on my customers. (the factorees and the
non factoree buyers and sellers). The market will judge me.
> I think that if you try to judge people's honesty
> by their declared political views then you are potentially
> putting yourself in the same
> league as someone who judges someones character by their colour.
>
> Simon
> http://www.SimonRobinson.com
>
> [1] My new word for the day. Sounds awful but I can't think of anything else
> that fits.
>
> [2] This example is more real than you might imagine. In London there's been
> some arguments about the police being more likely to stop and question
> blacks than whites. So the ethnic minority community feels they are being a
> victim
> of racism.
Yes. In the US it's called DWB (driving while black, a wordplay on DWI,
driving while intoxicated) and the police are notorious for doing it.
It's terrible. But they are the government and they should NOT be
discriminating. We are speaking of free trade, not government power.
> But many in the police would probably feel they are doing their
> best
> to make good use of their limited resources to prevent crime where it's most
> likely to occur.
And they are wrong. To think that way is to fall into the "well if a
tool CAN be used for evil we must ban it" trap of trying to restrain
thoughts or restrain behaviour a priori.
1 - To do otherwise is counter survival. Just as walking off a cliff
because you BELEIVE you will be supported by the angel Gabriel is... but
not to the same degree. Now, note well that I would not trust random
strangers I meet on the street very much at all, regardless of other
characteristics. At least not in today's society. You get what you
measure for, and we are incenting bad behaviour instead of good.
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ Member ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to
lugnet.
NOTE: I have left CTP, effective 18 June 99, and my CTP email
will not work after then. Please switch to my Novera ID.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
277 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
