Topic: national minimum wage LAWS. good or bad? - page 16. (Read 21127 times)

Heh I don't think he will get it. I actually see this happen all the time. People make an assumption they think is fact but no one really conceded to that and then they draw conclusions based on it.

cbeast assumes that because we haven't had something in the past, we can't have it in the future. He thinks such an assumption is fact when in reality it's completely wrong. Anything new, any political system, philosophy, or basic goods or services, ANYTHING you want to pick that we have today, we can point to a time in the past when they were just a "crazy" theory. So not only is he making the mistake to think I conceded to his assumption, but the assumption is false.

Saying a market regulated strictly by consumption i.e. a free market is "Utter nonsense!" because we haven't had a pure macro economic example yet is fallacious precisely because the fact that haven't had something yet is irrelevant.

Now this is no way means that the counter argument of it being possible is automatically true, it just means it's not false for that reason. We can then look at micro examples and see if we can detect elements of such markets on a smaller scale to get an idea of whether or not it could be possible. And anyone who honestly examines the world can find plenty of examples in their own personal life where they are a participant in a market that is regulated strictly by consumption (such as dating, buying bread..) which I'd argue is a very good indicator that it is possible on a macro level as well.

But of course all of this is above his head so what I'm doing here is really talking to everyone who is interested and can understand this.

I agree, so far from my reading of what you've said, you clearly aren't able to do so.

hazek is talking to you about what a free market can accomplish.  You deny what he says simply based on a claim that "a free market is a myth".  If you actually understood argumentation, you would know that your response is entirely nonsequitorial -- it doesn't actually argue anything that disproves what hazek said.  That is to say: you are not even talking with him, you're talking past him.

So, how about responding to the aaaaaaaaaargument? www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLODu02R_gA&feature=youtu.be&t=17m13s

I notice a serious lack of actual argument here.

Can you start participating in the conversation like you mean it?  Thanks.

Yes, I am not able to make inductive arguments based upon assumptions. My bad. Good luck with creating the free market! I'll continue to promote a resource based economy like is used by every family in the world.

I'm sorry, from what you're telling me it is my opinion you lack basic comprehension and reasoning skills for us to be able to have a productive discussion and so I'm removing myself from it. Cheerio.

Now who is begging the question? I think the only difference between us in human motivation. I do not believe in markets. I see them as abstract notions inculcated upon children, much like Santa Claus. Slavery is another issue, and that's why god invented gunpowder.

Good thing people didn't think like you that there can not be a world without direct slavery just because they didn't know a world where that was ever possible before. 

Are you beginning to see the fallacy?

Perhaps I should have exclaimed Poppycock and Balderdash! Harrumph! You may believe that a free market can exist, but I will not attend your church.

Oh, how should I have interpreted your "Utter nonsense." comments then?

Again, fallacy: begging the question.

All I'm saying is that a market driven by consumption doesn't exist. I did not say it isn't a good idea. But such a thing does not, and cannot currently exist. Even Bitcoin will not solve that problem. Some future descendant of Bitcoin may do so.

That's not it.

Let me help you out a bit:

Your argument: A market regulated strictly by consumption i.e. a free market is utter nonsense because it is a myth i.e. there is no macro economic example.

Now go to either of these:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

And figure it out.

Begging the question is positing an argument without backing it up. I did not profer anything. Calling something a myth is nothing more that expressing skepticism. It is a fugure of speech. I was not implying that it is a grand mythos followed by worshippers.

Get back to me once you understand why I said you used that fallacy and where you made your mistake.

I am not the one trying to prove a negative here. Since you claim a free market exists, do you have any evidence?

Fallacy: begging the question. Heard of it?

Show me evidence of a macro-economic free market and I will show you a market controlled by government regulations.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Utter nonsense. The notion of a free market is a myth.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

What I really want is good outcomes, to maximize my potential more precisely, and I know that just like with food I buy a market regulated strictly by consumption i.e. a free market will yield the best products at the cheapest prices so too I know a market strictly regulated by consumption will yield the best jobs with the highest wages.

And here I thought you were making a libertarian argument. My bad.