Voluntary Exchange

[AAFitz]

So essentially it's like some mental institutions

That is more accurate than any statement previously made, and Ill bet, ever made on CC forums.

[AAFitz]

Has anyone ever wondered why the government will not agree to allowing you the ability to apportion your total taxes into particular services?
(e.g. 10% into military, 30% into education, etc.)

It would make things so much easier because people with their tax money could choose the services that they expect to be best, thus the government can now know what is best for the people.

But this would never happen. Why? Because the government takes your money for its own purposes, and your consent really doesn't matter (because there really was no contract which you signed that stated the duties of both parties). See ya at the polls! I'm sure they'll offer you some serious legislation to consider!--compared to the amount they control.

It is the fact that people are stupid enough to even suggest something so stupid, that proves, giving this as an option would be...stupid.

[BigBallinStalin]

When someone offers only complaints without solution, they offer nothing.

Hello, Mr. Vauge. What exactly are you implying?

[BigBallinStalin]

Has anyone ever wondered why the government will not agree to allowing you the ability to apportion your total taxes into particular services?
(e.g. 10% into military, 30% into education, etc.)

It would make things so much easier because people with their tax money could choose the services that they expect to be best, thus the government can now know what is best for the people.

But this would never happen. Why? Because the government takes your money for its own purposes, and your consent really doesn't matter (because there really was no contract which you signed that stated the duties of both parties). See ya at the polls! I'm sure they'll offer you some serious legislation to consider!--compared to the amount they control.

The problem is if you leave it up to the people how much they are going to contribute to x,y and z they will just apportion to whatever branch they think is in their best interest but in reality the average person doesn't know what that really is since your average person is lazy and not motivated to find the actual truth. A "government" is much more likely to see all the cards and therefore more apt to make the best decisions as to where the money ought to go.

Oh, how so?

Through a usual minority of votes from uniformed voters?
Through politicians who are as self-interested as you and me?
From many, infighting groups of 'experts' prone to groupthink?
Through exchanges between politicians and special interest groups?
And finally the outcomes of government were created by multiple groups of different interests, which can conflict with each other, yet somehow the preferences of the people is better reflected through this method, then simply allowing someone to apportion his taxes to something which is in his own actual interest?

Your assumption about the government has no merit, but this is beside the point.

(1) There is no explicit contract with you and the government, but why is this the case? Because the government knows that people will not willingly agree to such draconian provisions--compared to the milder provisions within contracts/exchanges e.g. a car loan.

[patches70]

When you are 18 or whatever you receive something in the mail letting you know that you have to register for the draft. You've already collected, for 18 years, the benefits of living in a society that could ask you to fight for whatever the country deems necessary.

Unless, of course, you are female, you would get no such letter. Did those females collect the same benefits as the males for 18 years?


Yes, this imaginary social contract that we are all supposedly bound, a contract that changes at the whims of the government masters. To bound one's self to such a thing is to bound one's self to a lifetime of servitude.

A society that is based on mutual cooperation that is voluntary is far better than totalitarian enforced obedience. The idea of the social contract is nothing more than yet another form of coercion.

As to the draft, the Central government didn't even have the power to do such a thing until 1917. Were not people bound by the social contract before that?

There is also the issue of using the draft when a declaration of war hasn't even been issued in the first place. The latest being Vietnam. It was important enough to draft people (against their will) to fight on the other side of the world but not important enough to even issue a formal declaration of war, as cited in the Constitution.
When was the last time a declaration of war was issued?
In the absence of a declaration of war, how can the government justify such a thing as a draft and forcing individuals to engage in activities against their will?

What ever the government deems necessary is what this social contract encompasses. That is a one way ticket into loss of freedom. How any cannot understand this is a testament to how easily they are manipulated.

[BigBallinStalin]

I've read your posts, and you've been making the same essential points.


FT, if the State via the use of force prevents competitors from providing similar services, then they're still acting like bandits in a turf war. Within a liberal democracy, if you disagree with the nonexistent contract, you can't setup your own government (so your "living on an island" argument becomes moot, nor do we "share" a country. That's an imaginative assumption). Furthermore, there is no contract. You have explicitly agreed to nothing, and no one here has convincingly stated that implied consent was given. Under these actual circumstances, if an organization coerces you into making an exchange, then it's involuntary.

I liken a country to a public park. You are free to roam about within the guidelines of the park, there are certain areas of the park where you are not allowed(utilities, etc.), you can't plop yourself on the blanket of someone else without permission(private), and the cost of the upkeep of the park is more or less paid for by all. If you choose not to visit the park you aren't benefiting from it personally except for the fact that you can visit it anytime you wish if you feel so inclined. While you may argue that the person who never visits the park in their whole life is getting short-changed, well then just imagine that you live on that blanket in the park and now you have an even closer analogy.

Okay, so far you agree that
(1) Your living on an island argument is moot.

The government is not a public park. We don't exercise similar capabilities in a public park compared to our significantly lesser capability to influence government and its many bureaucracies. Therefore, your analogy is silly. A country is not 'shared' as you continue stating. If you disagree, then you'll have refute this post.

The bandit brandishes his guns and gives me a 'choice'. Either pay him $100 in taxes per week or pay $450 him now, incur >$450 in costs in leaving (selling your stuff if you can in time--which you have to pay sales tax for), then wait awhile, and then finally be allowed to leave. Sounds like the Mafia frisked me down while I 'voluntary' chose to leave!

That's still an involuntary exchange, but it hinges on whether or not I agreed to a condition. Did I previously agree to a such a consequence? Of course not. Did I sign anything with the liberal democracy before they draft or tax me? Of course not. #2-#5 are clearly involuntary.

Of course there will always be a cost involved in moving if not only convenience but your bandit example implies that you never benefited from the bandit previously. In the example of leaving the country, kingdom, etc., you've already accepted something in your time spent there thus far so the bandit coming to your house and giving you an ultimatum is just part of a greater agreement that you have already entered into. You can't decide now that you don't want to associate with the bandit because it's too late, you already have and you knew that this could happen. You just figured the bandit was off robbing other people and the odds that you would be next were slim to none.

It doesn't matter if you benefited from the bandit previously, nor does it matter that you were paying the tax previously and receiving his unwanted security services. That exchange was still involuntary, for reasons already explained.

Besides, it makes no difference if the bandits make a new offer, demanding higher taxes. Your position would state that "Oh, since I involuntarily paid taxes previously and received security which I didn't want, then this second exchange is voluntary." Makes no sense.

If someone threatens you with the use of force and offers you choice (a) Pay me, or choice (b) Pay me and leave, then that's not voluntary. You still have yet to explain how such an exchange is voluntary.

One could argue the same for the bandits, and now you're back to agreeing that if the bandits drafted you, that's voluntary (which is absurd).

So it's not ridiculous to imagine the bandits drafting you if you've already reaped the benefits of their presence (use your imagination) and now they are telling you that you need to pay up in the form of services. You knew full well that the bandits were part of the framework of your town and were benefiting from their "contributions" but you just assumed that they would never call on you to repay them so you stayed in town. You also had opportunity to move two towns over numerous times but you decided to take your chances on this one because it was more convenient.

Although you've making up new conditions to the example in order to dodge the problems with your position, I'll let it slide.

Let's assume I receive some positive externality from the bandits (e.g. "I've already reaped the benefits of their presence"). Does this mean that I agree to them kicking in my door and demanding $10,000 per week? No. There was no previous agreement, nor can one stretch this "implied consent" in order to justify that the theft of $10,000 is somehow a voluntary exchange.

Otherwise, I can do this: I'll bust into your house and demand $10,000 per week for services rendered. You see, I spent time posting here, and you've read some of my stuff (i.e. You've been reaping the benefits of my presence), so my friends and I will bring our guns and ask for your money or you can give us your money and leave your place. Is this a voluntary exchange? (No, it isn't, but your logic would state that it is voluntary, which is ridiculous). If you object, I'll retort with "you should've moved away, but instead you decided to take your chances." (makes sense? No, it's an involuntary exchange).


Therefore, "[with your approach] You can justify any use of force in order to extract wealth from others."

So... in the contract it states that if I use or don't use services for X amount of time, I must join that organization's military whenever it jumps into a war? No, there's nothing in the invisible contract which states that. FT, I have a deal. I'll offer you for 20 years my toenails clippings, but you must pay me 10% of your income--regardless of your use of my toenail clippings---OH, and you'll have to serve in my army whenever I want you to. Does that make sense? No, but when we add the word "government" in there, all of our reasonably held positions melt away; we suddenly invent these imaginative assumptions and creative contracts out of thin air.

Also, "the Selective Service System is a means by which the United States government maintains information on those potentially subject to military conscription. Most male U.S. citizens and male immigrant non-citizens between the ages of 18 and 25 are required by law to have registered within 30 days of their 18th birthdays (wiki)". Required by law. It's not a voluntary choice when made a party threatens to enforce its demand that you sign up for the draft, nor did anyone agree to this beforehand--nor does this contract mention one's consent with all the other ridiculous laws and taxes. If that was a contract examined in court, it would be thrown out--and no one would accept it until further expectations of both parties were clearly mentioned. (ha! Even male immigrant non-citizens (NON-CITIZENS) must comply. Non-citizens!)


Let's examine these two types of contracts: $1000 loan for a car, and the Invisible Contract for the draft and taxation for life and after death regardless of one's proportional use of goods by organization X, which exerts a monopoly on the provision and/or control of such goods. Which contract is more serious? And which do you think would require explicit consent in written form?

So it would be voluntary if when you turned 18 or whatever and you were required to register for the draft you could either agree to sign or leave the country/be killed? In my eyes this is just a formality as it's pretty much understood. Anyway, how are you going to measure how much each person's proportional use of any organization is? Your analogy of toenail clippings I think is way off. If you're going to make an analogy about the privilege of being a member of a society that protects you from most ills you ought to compare it to the air that you breath. You are benefiting from these organizations in ways you don't even realize!

What is understood? When black people were freed from slavery but chose to live here, does that mean that they agreed to be discriminated against and denied the ability to vote for 100+ years?

With your logic, you must say, "yes they did; they agreed voluntarily because they didn't leave."

No, they didn't agree, because there was nothing to agree to. There was no exchange, and this implied contract with the government is not real--it's imagined, but when brought to light, we realize how nonsensical it is.

Tangent:Anyway, how are you going to measure how much each person's proportional use of [i]any organization is? [/i]
Tangent: Oh, with the market, via prices and one's pricing strategy. Actually, I wouldn't have to measure anything if others are already demanding and supplying it. How does Coke measure each person's use? How does Cable TV measure each person's use? How does Private Neighborhood Security measure each person's use? Through the market, where voluntary exchange occurs. The government relies on involuntary exchanges, so it can set its own 'price'.

[AAFitz]

Has anyone ever wondered why the government will not agree to allowing you the ability to apportion your total taxes into particular services?
(e.g. 10% into military, 30% into education, etc.)

It would make things so much easier because people with their tax money could choose the services that they expect to be best, thus the government can now know what is best for the people.

But this would never happen. Why? Because the government takes your money for its own purposes, and your consent really doesn't matter (because there really was no contract which you signed that stated the duties of both parties). See ya at the polls! I'm sure they'll offer you some serious legislation to consider!--compared to the amount they control.

The problem is if you leave it up to the people how much they are going to contribute to x,y and z they will just apportion to whatever branch they think is in their best interest but in reality the average person doesn't know what that really is since your average person is lazy and not motivated to find the actual truth. A "government" is much more likely to see all the cards and therefore more apt to make the best decisions as to where the money ought to go.

Oh, how so?

Through a usual minority of votes from uniformed voters?
Through politicians who are as self-interested as you and me?
From many, infighting groups of 'experts' prone to groupthink?
Through exchanges between politicians and special interest groups?
And finally the outcomes of government were created by multiple groups of different interests, which can conflict with each other, yet somehow the preferences of the people is better reflected through this method, then simply allowing someone to apportion his taxes to something which is in his own actual interest?

Your assumption about the government has no merit, but this is beside the point.

(1) There is no explicit contract with you and the government, but why is this the case? Because the government knows that people will not willingly agree to such draconian provisions--compared to the milder provisions within contracts/exchanges e.g. a car loan.

Oh really? You ever read a variable rate mortgage contract? You'd be surprised at what well educated people will agree to.

[BigBallinStalin]

Has anyone ever wondered why the government will not agree to allowing you the ability to apportion your total taxes into particular services?
(e.g. 10% into military, 30% into education, etc.)

It would make things so much easier because people with their tax money could choose the services that they expect to be best, thus the government can now know what is best for the people.

But this would never happen. Why? Because the government takes your money for its own purposes, and your consent really doesn't matter (because there really was no contract which you signed that stated the duties of both parties). See ya at the polls! I'm sure they'll offer you some serious legislation to consider!--compared to the amount they control.

It is the fact that people are stupid enough to even suggest something so stupid, that proves, giving this as an option would be...stupid.

(1) Either we could use our brains and try to understand the incentives which politicians and bureaucrats face,

(2) or we could call each other stupid without providing a supporting argument.


If (1) that's cool. If (2), make a new thread. It would be thrilling.

[BigBallinStalin]

Has anyone ever wondered why the government will not agree to allowing you the ability to apportion your total taxes into particular services?
(e.g. 10% into military, 30% into education, etc.)

It would make things so much easier because people with their tax money could choose the services that they expect to be best, thus the government can now know what is best for the people.

But this would never happen. Why? Because the government takes your money for its own purposes, and your consent really doesn't matter (because there really was no contract which you signed that stated the duties of both parties). See ya at the polls! I'm sure they'll offer you some serious legislation to consider!--compared to the amount they control.

The problem is if you leave it up to the people how much they are going to contribute to x,y and z they will just apportion to whatever branch they think is in their best interest but in reality the average person doesn't know what that really is since your average person is lazy and not motivated to find the actual truth. A "government" is much more likely to see all the cards and therefore more apt to make the best decisions as to where the money ought to go.

Oh, how so?

Through a usual minority of votes from uniformed voters?
Through politicians who are as self-interested as you and me?
From many, infighting groups of 'experts' prone to groupthink?
Through exchanges between politicians and special interest groups?
And finally the outcomes of government were created by multiple groups of different interests, which can conflict with each other, yet somehow the preferences of the people is better reflected through this method, then simply allowing someone to apportion his taxes to something which is in his own actual interest?

Your assumption about the government has no merit, but this is beside the point.

(1) There is no explicit contract with you and the government, but why is this the case? Because the government knows that people will not willingly agree to such draconian provisions--compared to the milder provisions within contracts/exchanges e.g. a car loan.

Oh really? You ever read a variable rate mortgage contract? You'd be surprised at what well educated people will agree to.

I'm not denying the existence of implied consent and the problems which arise from the ambiguities of such contracts between individuals on the market. You're getting off-topic, so please make a new thread if you want to.

[Funkyterrance]

I've read your posts, and you've been making the same essential points.

The government is not a public park. We don't exercise similar capabilities in a public park compared to our significantly lesser capability to influence government and its many bureaucracies. Therefore, your analogy is silly. A country is not 'shared' as you continue stating.

If it's so silly would you do me the justice of listing some major and specific differences, all the while considering it is an analogy. Just saying it's silly isn't really a counter to it or any evidence that its a poor analogy.
In a park you allow the park's administration to make the decisions which allow the park to continue to be run in a satisfactory manner but when was the last time you registered a complaint to a public park regarding how they run things? Why would you trust an administration in the park example but not on a larger scale?

It doesn't matter if you benefited from the bandit previously, nor does it matter that you were paying the tax previously and receiving his unwanted security services. That exchange was still involuntary, for reasons already explained.

Besides, it makes no difference if the bandits make a new offer, demanding higher taxes. Your position would state that "Oh, since I involuntarily paid taxes previously and received security which I didn't want, then this second exchange is voluntary."

I believe if you knew about the exchange and made no action one way or another, then it's voluntary. It reminds me of a scenario: Let's say that you lived midway on a private road in an area that tends to get heavy snowfall. You, living between other individuals who pool money to have the road cleared every snowfall, get the benefit of being plowed out. When the other residents ask that you chip in you refuse because you protest that you never asked anyone to plow the road. You would be screwed if you didn't get plowed out but you are refusing to pay your part because of a technicality. You see how this is a little shortsighted? The fact that this benefit is granted you whether you asked for it or not does not mean that it doesn't exist or even mean that you don't "owe" for it. The phrase comes to mind: "Nothing's free in this life"? This bit about the snow is just to put this whole thing in perspective, not necessarily fitting this specific point. Another tangent I suppose.

If someone threatens you with the use of force and offers you choice (a) Pay me, or choice (b) Pay me and leave, then that's not voluntary. You still have yet to explain how such an exchange is voluntary.

If you're referring to the draft question, your above example is incomplete. You can't be drafted from a country from which you don't belong to. Your "team" is the only group that can expect that you "pay the piper".

Let's assume I receive some positive externality from the bandits (e.g. "I've already reaped the benefits of their presence"). Does this mean that I agree to them kicking in my door and demanding $10,000 per week? No. There was no previous agreement, nor can one stretch this "implied consent" in order to justify that the theft of $10,000 is somehow a voluntary exchange.

If you knew that they could kick in your door and demand 10k per week then yes, it means you agree. The numbers and extremity of the demands/scenarios makes no difference as long as you knew that passively or actively receiving said benefits brought the chance of such an event. Tapping on your door and wanting ten cents or smashing down your door and demanding 50k are equal as far as the principles are concerned.

Otherwise, I can do this: I'll bust into your house and demand $10,000 per week for services rendered. You see, I spent time posting here, and you've read some of my stuff (i.e. You've been reaping the benefits of my presence), so my friends and I will bring our guns and ask for your money or you can give us your money and leave your place. Is this a voluntary exchange? (No, it isn't, but your logic would state that it is voluntary, which is ridiculous). If you object, I'll retort with "you should've moved away, but instead you decided to take your chances." (makes sense? No, it's an involuntary exchange).

I never knew of this possibility, nor was it in the rules when I joined so this is not a good example. If I had known there was a chance that this might happen when I joined the site or any time after, I might leave or I might stay but it would be voluntary either way since I knew of the possibility. If you are actually offering this exchange I'll have to consider the calculated risk involved but that's no different than the draft is it?

Therefore, "[with your approach] You can justify any use of force in order to extract wealth from others."

I think my above comments interrupt this proof.

What is understood? When black people were freed from slavery but chose to live here, does that mean that they agreed to be discriminated against and denied the ability to vote for 100+ years? With your logic, you must say, "yes they did; they agreed voluntarily because they didn't leave."
No, they didn't agree, because there was nothing to agree to. There was no exchange, and this implied contract with the government is not real--it's imagined, but when brought to light, we realize how nonsensical it is.

Basically. It's unfortunate that their initial introduction to this country was certainly involuntary, their decision to continue to live here, whatever discriminations may exist, once they are physically able to leave, is voluntary as is their agreement that in the event of a war and their services are deemed necessary to join the fight. As far as being brought here in the first place, well a class action suit may be appropriate but that's not the matter in question.

Tangent:Anyway, how are you going to measure how much each person's proportional use of [i]any organization is? [/i]
Tangent: Oh, with the market, via prices and one's pricing strategy. Actually, I wouldn't have to measure anything if others are already demanding and supplying it. How does Coke measure each person's use? How does Cable TV measure each person's use? How does Private Neighborhood Security measure each person's use? Through the market, where voluntary exchange occurs. The government relies on involuntary exchanges, so it can set its own 'price'.

So with my snow plowing example, how is the person who is getting free plowing for nothing affecting the market? He/she isn't of course. I give Cokes away every time someone comes to my house for free; they aren't buying it but they're drinking it. So as far as Coke knows I am drinking more Coke than what is actual. You can't tie strings to every single transaction and follow it to it's grave just as you can't tell who is actually benefiting from every transaction.
In the private neighborhood example, those people who live in neighboring private communities most likely enjoy a higher level of security simply due to their proximity to those with neighborhood security but they aren't involved in the transaction one iota. The number of "invisible" benefits such as this are infinite and you can't possibly nail them down.

[AAFitz]

Has anyone ever wondered why the government will not agree to allowing you the ability to apportion your total taxes into particular services?
(e.g. 10% into military, 30% into education, etc.)

It would make things so much easier because people with their tax money could choose the services that they expect to be best, thus the government can now know what is best for the people.

But this would never happen. Why? Because the government takes your money for its own purposes, and your consent really doesn't matter (because there really was no contract which you signed that stated the duties of both parties). See ya at the polls! I'm sure they'll offer you some serious legislation to consider!--compared to the amount they control.

The problem is if you leave it up to the people how much they are going to contribute to x,y and z they will just apportion to whatever branch they think is in their best interest but in reality the average person doesn't know what that really is since your average person is lazy and not motivated to find the actual truth. A "government" is much more likely to see all the cards and therefore more apt to make the best decisions as to where the money ought to go.

Oh, how so?

Through a usual minority of votes from uniformed voters?
Through politicians who are as self-interested as you and me?
From many, infighting groups of 'experts' prone to groupthink?
Through exchanges between politicians and special interest groups?
And finally the outcomes of government were created by multiple groups of different interests, which can conflict with each other, yet somehow the preferences of the people is better reflected through this method, then simply allowing someone to apportion his taxes to something which is in his own actual interest?

Your assumption about the government has no merit, but this is beside the point.

(1) There is no explicit contract with you and the government, but why is this the case? Because the government knows that people will not willingly agree to such draconian provisions--compared to the milder provisions within contracts/exchanges e.g. a car loan.

Oh really? You ever read a variable rate mortgage contract? You'd be surprised at what well educated people will agree to.

I'm not denying the existence of implied consent and the problems which arise from the ambiguities of such contracts between individuals on the market. You're getting off-topic, so please make a new thread if you want to.

Its completely on topic as for one its a joke, and you complaining about a joke, is....well its just funny...but further, it is just a little anecdote about the fact that people will do stupid things on an individual level, so your argument that they should decide everything, is faulty, and possibly proven to be so.

[kentington]

Has anyone ever wondered why the government will not agree to allowing you the ability to apportion your total taxes into particular services?
(e.g. 10% into military, 30% into education, etc.)

It would make things so much easier because people with their tax money could choose the services that they expect to be best, thus the government can now know what is best for the people.

But this would never happen. Why? Because the government takes your money for its own purposes, and your consent really doesn't matter (because there really was no contract which you signed that stated the duties of both parties). See ya at the polls! I'm sure they'll offer you some serious legislation to consider!--compared to the amount they control.

It is the fact that people are stupid enough to even suggest something so stupid, that proves, giving this as an option would be...stupid.

What part of this are you calling stupid?
Because it wouldn't favor the government to do something like this?
It wouldn't favor the people to do something like this?
It would make things so out of whack that there would be a lot of government programs shut down?

[AAFitz]

Has anyone ever wondered why the government will not agree to allowing you the ability to apportion your total taxes into particular services?
(e.g. 10% into military, 30% into education, etc.)

It would make things so much easier because people with their tax money could choose the services that they expect to be best, thus the government can now know what is best for the people.

But this would never happen. Why? Because the government takes your money for its own purposes, and your consent really doesn't matter (because there really was no contract which you signed that stated the duties of both parties). See ya at the polls! I'm sure they'll offer you some serious legislation to consider!--compared to the amount they control.

It is the fact that people are stupid enough to even suggest something so stupid, that proves, giving this as an option would be...stupid.

What part of this are you calling stupid?
Because it wouldn't favor the government to do something like this?
It wouldn't favor the people to do something like this?
It would make things so out of whack that there would be a lot of government programs shut down?

Just the part about a pure democracy, where everything is voted on by individuals.

[PLAYER57832]

Has anyone ever wondered why the government will not agree to allowing you the ability to apportion your total taxes into particular services?
(e.g. 10% into military, 30% into education, etc.)

It would make things so much easier because people with their tax money could choose the services that they expect to be best, thus the government can now know what is best for the people.

But this would never happen. Why?

Becuase, given the chioce, people don't make the decisions that are really and truly best or even necessary for society.

Its partly that people just don't have the time. Its partly that people want to go for the "feel good" stuff over the "must do" stuff. I mean, its a lot nicer to give money to schools than to roads or tax administrations. But without people collecting and enforcing tax rules to some extent, there will be no tax collection.

Because the government takes your money for its own purposes, and your consent really doesn't matter (because there really was no contract which you signed that stated the duties of both parties). See ya at the polls! I'm sure they'll offer you some serious legislation to consider!--compared to the amount they control.

NO, we voted people in who operate for a short time to set priorities and rules.. but with limitatios set by many predicessors. This idea you and Nightstrike and few others have of the government acting on its own, without any input from society and just doing what it will is a child's view. Thought you were smarter than that.


PS nowhere in your "system" is there room for science or science dictates. Global climate change, loss of species, pollution and loss of effectiveness of antibiotics are all scientific facts, not political "issues" no different than deciding which person should be appointed to what office. Solutions that need to be discussed, not the fact.

[Dukasaur]

And for those who stated "unless free to leave" should be aware of some facts.

One cannot just renounce their citizenship. There are conditions, in the US at least, I speak for no other country. In the US you must go through a process. There is a fee involved, $450 you must pay if you wish to renounce your citizenship and your renunciation is not automatic.
Also, for those who renounce their citizenship there, in addition to the fee that must be paid, there is also a tax that can be imposed.
Also, the US is the only nation in the world that taxes not according to residency, but rather according to citizenship. So unless you actually renounce your citizenship you are still subject to the taxes and fees that the US deems you are to pay, you can't just simply live in another country to escape the involuntary exchanges in any of BBS' examples. You can even still be drafted even if you've never set foot in the US if you are a US citizenship.

The only way to escape these involuntary exchanges is to renounce one's citizenship and leave the country, which isn't free by to do by any means. It'll cost ya.

There was once a time when there was no cost associated with renouncing one's citizenship, but those days are long gone. There is a specific process you must go by and it takes months and you still might not be allowed to proceed. If it is deemed you are attempting to renounce your citizenship for the purpose of escaping the very involuntary exchanges that BBS noted, you will not be allowed to do so and will be committing a crime of which you can be fined and jailed.

You are not "free to leave".

So you should all consider that, at the very least.

Yeah, the "you're free to leave any time" line is generally used by people who have never actually faced the reality. Many countries have barriers to leaving, and virtually all countries have barriers to entering. Add to that the costs and hardships associated with relocation even within the same country, and this "free to leave" business is pretty ridiculous.

The U.S. is the only one I know of that will, as you point out, continue to tax you after you flee, but many countries with mandatory military service will continue to insist that you come and do your time in the army. Rarely do they succeed, but naive people who think it's just a joke have been caught and jailed for draft evasion even though they've become citizens of other countries in the meantime.

[aage]

I've only been skimming the thread so this has pobably been said before, but why are not all choices voluntary (with only a possible exception on the last one, semantically speaking)?

Is not everything we do by definition voluntary, and everything that happens to us by definition involuntary?

I say exception at the 5th, on drafting, because I don't know at what point exactly I am drafted. If I was drafted by the act of someone putting a signature under a form, that would be a good example of something happening to me, therefore involuntary. If someone were to come to my house and say "come along, please", I would have to make the conscious decision of coming along, therefore it being somethin I do, therefore voluntary. And even once I was drafted, I could always desert, which is a voluntary action, making the 'act' of being a drafted soldier voluntary. Blaming systems or other people for your decision is not taking responsibility. They may affect your decision making process, but you are the one holding the strings. This is your life. Conflicts of interest don't change that.

I saw Doom post something I disagreed with on the first page or so, so I'm going to respond to that now.

Question: How can any individual who lives in a physical world, and therefore subject to physical laws, be said to have a choice in anything? I mean this in two senses: the deterministic one and the fatalistic one. Being in a situation to make a choice is itself an involuntary exchange.

Or: if God knows everything that will happen, how can humans be said to have free choice?

Stand up.
Now sit down.
There you have it. You could have chosen to do that, or not. Either way, you were in charge.

Your argument on God is wrong, by the way. I think I explained this in a different thread as well. God being omniscient doesn't mean he knows "the future", but rather "the futures". Since he is a being outside of the human dimension of time (per being omnipresent), he views a timeline not chronologically but simply overviews the entirity of it. That is inaccurate, though, because all living things do have a free choice, and there is no such thing as one "timeline" or "future" (free choice per Paradise Lost's argument in book 1 that God allows Satan to revolt, even though he knows many lives would be spared if he had not allowed him to (or 'program' his mind in such a way that he would never have revolted, which he could, being omnipotent)). (Either that, or God is a masochistic asshole, but Christians always tell me God is the good guy.) By allowing free choice, one of all the possible futures will eventually come true and the rest will be useless.

[BigBallinStalin]

I've read your posts, and you've been making the same essential points.

The government is not a public park. We don't exercise similar capabilities in a public park compared to our significantly lesser capability to influence government and its many bureaucracies. Therefore, your analogy is silly. A country is not 'shared' as you continue stating.

If it's so silly would you do me the justice of listing some major and specific differences, all the while considering it is an analogy. Just saying it's silly isn't really a counter to it or any evidence that its a poor analogy.
In a park you allow the park's administration to make the decisions which allow the park to continue to be run in a satisfactory manner but when was the last time you registered a complaint to a public park regarding how they run things? Why would you trust an administration in the park example but not on a larger scale?

Because I don't have time to explain to someone the obvious differences between a liberal democracy and a public park.

Think of the amount of people involved: (3 people making only park-related decisions over a small piece of land versus 400+ politicians, 10,000s of bureaucrats, numerous interest groups, and millions of uninformed voters making decisions on public policy a large swath of land).

Think of the decision-making costs involved between those two quantities. Which is lower in cost? What of the difference in efficiency? What about local knowledge and its effects? Etc.

In other words, " We don't exercise similar capabilities in a public park compared to our significantly lesser capability to influence government and its many bureaucracies."

They're not the same; it's a bad analogy.

If you disagree, then you'll have refute this post.

It doesn't matter if you benefited from the bandit previously, nor does it matter that you were paying the tax previously and receiving his unwanted security services. That exchange was still involuntary, for reasons already explained.

Besides, it makes no difference if the bandits make a new offer, demanding higher taxes. Your position would state that "Oh, since I involuntarily paid taxes previously and received security which I didn't want, then this second exchange is voluntary."

I believe if you knew about the exchange and made no action one way or another, then it's voluntary. It reminds me of a scenario: Let's say that you lived midway on a private road in an area that tends to get heavy snowfall. You, living between other individuals who pool money to have the road cleared every snowfall, get the benefit of being plowed out. When the other residents ask that you chip in you refuse because you protest that you never asked anyone to plow the road. You would be screwed if you didn't get plowed out but you are refusing to pay your part because of a technicality. You see how this is a little shortsighted? The fact that this benefit is granted you whether you asked for it or not does not mean that it doesn't exist or even mean that you don't "owe" for it. The phrase comes to mind: "Nothing's free in this life"? This bit about the snow is just to put this whole thing in perspective, not necessarily fitting this specific point. Another tangent I suppose.

Okay, FT. You're repeating your Positive Externality argument, and it's still nonsense. With your definition, all such exchanges are voluntary if a positive externality is present and if people are free-riding. Therefore, I can hold a gun to your head and demand payment for my typing services because of the positive externality; otherwise, you must vacate your house. According to your logic, you would be making a voluntary choice, but that's absurd--as has been already explained.

If someone threatens you with the use of force and offers you choice (a) Pay me, or choice (b) Pay me and leave, then that's not voluntary. You still have yet to explain how such an exchange is voluntary.

If you're referring to the draft question, your above example is incomplete. You can't be drafted from a country from which you don't belong to. Your "team" is the only group that can expect that you "pay the piper".

I'm not sure why I have to keep repeating myself, so I'll just refer you back to my previous post.

You're not defending your instances of 'voluntary' exchanges, nor are you conceding anything, so why should I continue this string of responses? For all I know, you've been scaling back the goal posts for 'voluntary' exchange, and who knows where you'll stand them on the next post.

Let's assume I receive some positive externality from the bandits (e.g. "I've already reaped the benefits of their presence"). Does this mean that I agree to them kicking in my door and demanding $10,000 per week? No. There was no previous agreement, nor can one stretch this "implied consent" in order to justify that the theft of $10,000 is somehow a voluntary exchange.

If you knew that they could kick in your door and demand 10k per week then yes, it means you agree. The numbers and extremity of the demands/scenarios makes no difference as long as you knew that passively or actively receiving said benefits brought the chance of such an event. Tapping on your door and wanting ten cents or smashing down your door and demanding 50k are equal as far as the principles are concerned.

Awareness of impeding doom does not make an exchange voluntary. That's convoluted thinking, FT.

For example, according to your stated conditions of a voluntary exchange:
"You didn't pay me for my typing services, FT, and so what if you didn't agree to my offered price or have been free-riding!. Tomorrow my friends and I will bring our guns to your place, and we'll 'make an offer you can't refuse'. Pay us $10,000 or vacate your property."

That's not a voluntary exchange, and I'm not sure why I have to keep repeating this.

Otherwise, I can do this: I'll bust into your house and demand $10,000 per week for services rendered. You see, I spent time posting here, and you've read some of my stuff (i.e. You've been reaping the benefits of my presence), so my friends and I will bring our guns and ask for your money or you can give us your money and leave your place. Is this a voluntary exchange? (No, it isn't, but your logic would state that it is voluntary, which is ridiculous). If you object, I'll retort with "you should've moved away, but instead you decided to take your chances." (makes sense? No, it's an involuntary exchange).

I never knew of this possibility, nor was it in the rules when I joined so this is not a good example. If I had known there was a chance that this might happen when I joined the site or any time after, I might leave or I might stay but it would be voluntary either way since I knew of the possibility. If you are actually offering this exchange I'll have to consider the calculated risk involved but that's no different than the draft is it?

The awareness of the consequences from the Mafia or Gun-Crazy CC Posters makes no difference. Did you previously voluntary agree to the conditions and penalties with a contract? Yes or no? No. Therefore, the following consequences are not somehow magically voluntary.

You're taking extreme leaps to justify that the Mafia breaking your legs in exchange for security payments is a voluntary exchange.

Therefore, "[with your approach] You can justify any use of force in order to extract wealth from others."

I think my above comments interrupt this proof.

Unfortunately, they haven't.

What is understood? When black people were freed from slavery but chose to live here, does that mean that they agreed to be discriminated against and denied the ability to vote for 100+ years? With your logic, you must say, "yes they did; they agreed voluntarily because they didn't leave."
No, they didn't agree, because there was nothing to agree to. There was no exchange, and this implied contract with the government is not real--it's imagined, but when brought to light, we realize how nonsensical it is.

Basically. It's unfortunate that their initial introduction to this country was certainly involuntary, their decision to continue to live here, whatever discriminations may exist, once they are physically able to leave, is voluntary as is their agreement that in the event of a war and their services are deemed necessary to join the fight. As far as being brought here in the first place, well a class action suit may be appropriate but that's not the matter in question.

Yeah, this is what you're doing.

At time: 0, party A makes an involuntary exchange with party B, and party A cannot leave.
At time: 1, party A can now leave; therefore, the involuntary exchange is magically voluntary.

Therefore, "[with your approach] You can justify any use of force in order to extract wealth from others."

FT, what makes an exchange voluntary? When consent is given, and not under duress. Being consistent with your reasoning, you're arguing that African Americans have agreed to be denied a vote and many civil rights for decades. Since that is not true, for they have agreed to no such exchange, then we can reject your argument that simply remaining in one place does not confer consent--especially when the exchange is made under duress.

Tangent:Anyway, how are you going to measure how much each person's proportional use of [i]any organization is? [/i]
Tangent: Oh, with the market, via prices and one's pricing strategy. Actually, I wouldn't have to measure anything if others are already demanding and supplying it. How does Coke measure each person's use? How does Cable TV measure each person's use? How does Private Neighborhood Security measure each person's use? Through the market, where voluntary exchange occurs. The government relies on involuntary exchanges, so it can set its own 'price'.

So with my snow plowing example, how is the person who is getting free plowing for nothing affecting the market? He/she isn't of course. I give Cokes away every time someone comes to my house for free; they aren't buying it but they're drinking it. So as far as Coke knows I am drinking more Coke than what is actual. You can't tie strings to every single transaction and follow it to it's grave just as you can't tell who is actually benefiting from every transaction.
In the private neighborhood example, those people who live in neighboring private communities most likely enjoy a higher level of security simply due to their proximity to those with neighborhood security but they aren't involved in the transaction one iota. The number of "invisible" benefits such as this are infinite and you can't possibly nail them down.

Yeah, this isn't refuting my position. If you consume a product (e.g. Coke), you trade $whatever.00 for it, and they receive $whatever.00 for it. It doesn't matter if you give Coke to your friends; that's a different exchange.

With government, there are involuntary exchanges (taxation). The government sets the price which you must agree to. Since this price is not in line with supply and demand, then it's not a market price (there's additional reasons too). The government does not measure proportional use; they simply set the 'price' (i.e. tax), take the money, and spend it however they want--using whatever means to justify increasing Budget A.

Consumer preferences are more accurately reflected through voluntary exchanges. When people are forced to agree to contracts when the threat of violence is used, then obviously this will distort consumer preferences.

[BigBallinStalin]

Has anyone ever wondered why the government will not agree to allowing you the ability to apportion your total taxes into particular services?
(e.g. 10% into military, 30% into education, etc.)

It would make things so much easier because people with their tax money could choose the services that they expect to be best, thus the government can now know what is best for the people.

But this would never happen. Why?

Becuase, given the chioce, people don't make the decisions that are really and truly best or even necessary for society.

Its partly that people just don't have the time. Its partly that people want to go for the "feel good" stuff over the "must do" stuff. I mean, its a lot nicer to give money to schools than to roads or tax administrations. But without people collecting and enforcing tax rules to some extent, there will be no tax collection.

Because the government takes your money for its own purposes, and your consent really doesn't matter (because there really was no contract which you signed that stated the duties of both parties). See ya at the polls! I'm sure they'll offer you some serious legislation to consider!--compared to the amount they control.

NO, we voted people in who operate for a short time to set priorities and rules.. but with limitatios set by many predicessors. This idea you and Nightstrike and few others have of the government acting on its own, without any input from society and just doing what it will is a child's view. Thought you were smarter than that.


PS nowhere in your "system" is there room for science or science dictates. Global climate change, loss of species, pollution and loss of effectiveness of antibiotics are all scientific facts, not political "issues" no different than deciding which person should be appointed to what office. Solutions that need to be discussed, not the fact.

You're not making sense. I've tried re-reading your post, but it's too jumbled. Sorry.

[BigBallinStalin]

I've only been skimming the thread so this has pobably been said before, but why are not all choices voluntary (with only a possible exception on the last one, semantically speaking)?

Is not everything we do by definition voluntary, and everything that happens to us by definition involuntary?

I say exception at the 5th, on drafting, because I don't know at what point exactly I am drafted. If I was drafted by the act of someone putting a signature under a form, that would be a good example of something happening to me, therefore involuntary. If someone were to come to my house and say "come along, please", I would have to make the conscious decision of coming along, therefore it being somethin I do, therefore voluntary. And even once I was drafted, I could always desert, which is a voluntary action, making the 'act' of being a drafted soldier voluntary. Blaming systems or other people for your decision is not taking responsibility. They may affect your decision making process, but you are the one holding the strings. This is your life. Conflicts of interest don't change that.

I saw Doom post something I disagreed with on the first page or so, so I'm going to respond to that now.

Question: How can any individual who lives in a physical world, and therefore subject to physical laws, be said to have a choice in anything? I mean this in two senses: the deterministic one and the fatalistic one. Being in a situation to make a choice is itself an involuntary exchange.

Or: if God knows everything that will happen, how can humans be said to have free choice?

Stand up.
Now sit down.
There you have it. You could have chosen to do that, or not. Either way, you were in charge.

Your argument on God is wrong, by the way. I think I explained this in a different thread as well. God being omniscient doesn't mean he knows "the future", but rather "the futures". Since he is a being outside of the human dimension of time (per being omnipresent), he views a timeline not chronologically but simply overviews the entirity of it. That is inaccurate, though, because all living things do have a free choice, and there is no such thing as one "timeline" or "future" (free choice per Paradise Lost's argument in book 1 that God allows Satan to revolt, even though he knows many lives would be spared if he had not allowed him to (or 'program' his mind in such a way that he would never have revolted, which he could, being omnipotent)). (Either that, or God is a masochistic asshole, but Christians always tell me God is the good guy.) By allowing free choice, one of all the possible futures will eventually come true and the rest will be useless.

Don't be a dick. This exchange with DoomYoshi about God and Determinism/Free Will is off-topic. Please make a new thread.



Is not everything we do by definition voluntary, and everything that [i]happens to us by definition involuntary? [/i]

No, cuz definitions and examples.

[Funkyterrance]

Because I don't have time to explain to someone the obvious differences between a liberal democracy and a public park.

Cranky?
There are obvious differences, yes, but that's that's the nature of an analogy.

Think of the amount of people involved: (3 people making only park-related decisions over a small piece of land versus 400+ politicians, 10,000s of bureaucrats, numerous interest groups, and millions of uninformed voters making decisions on public policy a large swath of land).

Think of the decision-making costs involved between those two quantities. Which is lower in cost? What of the difference in efficiency? What about local knowledge and its effects? Etc.

In other words, " We don't exercise similar capabilities in a public park compared to our significantly lesser capability to influence government and its many bureaucracies."

They're not the same; it's a bad analogy.

Bleh. Yeah of course they aren't the same, it's an analogy. It's scaled down, etc., but the framework is the same. It's fine though, I'm not super attached to my "park" analogy lol.

Okay, FT. You're repeating your Positive Externality argument, and it's still nonsense. With your definition, all such exchanges are voluntary if a positive externality is present and if people are free-riding. Therefore, I can hold a gun to your head and demand payment for my typing services because of the positive externality; otherwise, you must vacate your house. According to your logic, you would be making a voluntary choice, but that's absurd--as has been already explained.

Firstly, I'm not the only one repeating myself so can we calm it with the accusations? You've already used the scenario of someone coming into your house and holding a gun to your head. I already explained that you knew that might happen so yeah, it's voluntary. Either you are being a hypocrite here or we have just reached a stalemate, or both.

Awareness of impeding doom does not make an exchange voluntary. That's convoluted thinking, FT.

Aside from the Ad Hominem attack, I just think you don't like what my definition of voluntary exchange implies: you owe something to an entity that you have knowingly received something from, no matter how inconvenient this debt may be. It's understood and it's a voluntary exchange if you don't make the effort to leave it(the exchange) the instant you don't like what it entails.

For example, according to your stated conditions of a voluntary exchange:
"You didn't pay me for my typing services, FT, and so what if you didn't agree to my offered price or have been free-riding!. Tomorrow my friends and I will bring our guns to your place, and we'll 'make an offer you can't refuse'. Pay us $10,000 or vacate your property."

Yeah, just because it sounds strange doesn't mean it's untrue. It's a calculated risk on my part to keep on typing. If you decide to come I will have to suck it up but I just might be ready since you have enjoyed my posts as well so if my gun is bigger than your gun you may end up paying me instead. So now we are both involved in a voluntary exchange.

The awareness of the consequences from the Mafia or Gun-Crazy CC Posters makes no difference. Did you previously voluntary agree to the conditions and penalties with a contract? Yes or no? No. Therefore, the following consequences are not somehow magically voluntary.

You are hung up on this written contract thing but it's not the only viable way to form a voluntary exchange. I didn't sign off on the doughnut I bought this AM but it was a voluntary exchange just the same.

You're taking extreme leaps to justify that the Mafia breaking your legs in exchange for security payments is a voluntary exchange.

You're using extreme examples to try and distort the actual exchanges but I'm insisting that the priciples always remain the same. One could even argue it's cheap tactics to use the "gun to your head" example but I'm not really bothered because in my mind it really makes no difference.

Yeah, this is what you're doing.

At time: 0, party A makes an involuntary exchange with party B, and party A cannot leave.
At time: 1, party A can now leave; therefore, the involuntary exchange is magically voluntary.

FT, what makes an exchange voluntary? When consent is given, and not under duress. Being consistent with your reasoning, you're arguing that African Americans have agreed to be denied a vote and many civil rights for decades. Since that is not true, for they have agreed to no such exchange, then we can reject your argument that simply remaining in one place does not confer consent--especially when the exchange is made under duress.

If you are making the comparison between someone being born in a country and someone being forcefully placed in another country, I can see flaws. If you are born there you are "born in" to a situation where you would not exist if not for preexisting conditions and therefore I feel one "owes". If you were forcefully brought somewhere, you don't owe anyone anything because this was against your will as opposed to no will at all. There's a pretty big difference. Suggesting you owe nothing to the society which you were brought into mirrors an ungrateful child. I'm not calling you a child or childish, just noting a similarity to clarify my viewpoint.

Yeah, this isn't refuting my position. If you consume a product (e.g. Coke), you trade $whatever.00 for it, and they receive $whatever.00 for it. It doesn't matter if you give Coke to your friends; that's a different exchange.

With government, there are involuntary exchanges (taxation). The government sets the price which you must agree to. Since this price is not in line with supply and demand, then it's not a market price (there's additional reasons too). The government does not measure proportional use; they simply set the 'price' (i.e. tax), take the money, and spend it however they want--using whatever means to justify increasing Budget A.

Consumer preferences are more accurately reflected through voluntary exchanges. When people are forced to agree to contracts when the threat of violence is used, then obviously this will distort consumer preferences.

It is refuting you position to some extent because I don't know for certain if my guests prefer Coke. They may prefer Pepsi but they are guests so they are drinking it to be polite perhaps. Maybe there is a massive company out there that provides free, terrible coffee to all its employees. The employees drink it because it's free and it's not nearly a good enough reason to leave the company(bad coffee) to as far as the market is concerned, this coffee is loved by millions! It's just evidence that the market doesn't always reflect reality. The government doesn't measure proportional use, no, but it can know better how much each person needs as opposed to each person persuing what they think they need. You want to use the market as this blanket solution to everything but it just doesn't work as a cure-all in the real world as we know it.

[BigBallinStalin]

Well, I'm tired of repeating myself, so I'll write this one off.

16 people got it right, but the marginal costs for the other 4 are too high to persuade.

[aage]

I've only been skimming the thread so this has pobably been said before, but why are not all choices voluntary (with only a possible exception on the last one, semantically speaking)?

Is not everything we do by definition voluntary, and everything that happens to us by definition involuntary?

I say exception at the 5th, on drafting, because I don't know at what point exactly I am drafted. If I was drafted by the act of someone putting a signature under a form, that would be a good example of something happening to me, therefore involuntary. If someone were to come to my house and say "come along, please", I would have to make the conscious decision of coming along, therefore it being somethin I do, therefore voluntary. And even once I was drafted, I could always desert, which is a voluntary action, making the 'act' of being a drafted soldier voluntary. Blaming systems or other people for your decision is not taking responsibility. They may affect your decision making process, but you are the one holding the strings. This is your life. Conflicts of interest don't change that.

I saw Doom post something I disagreed with on the first page or so, so I'm going to respond to that now.

Question: How can any individual who lives in a physical world, and therefore subject to physical laws, be said to have a choice in anything? I mean this in two senses: the deterministic one and the fatalistic one. Being in a situation to make a choice is itself an involuntary exchange.

Or: if God knows everything that will happen, how can humans be said to have free choice?

Stand up.
Now sit down.
There you have it. You could have chosen to do that, or not. Either way, you were in charge.

Your argument on God is wrong, by the way. I think I explained this in a different thread as well. God being omniscient doesn't mean he knows "the future", but rather "the futures". Since he is a being outside of the human dimension of time (per being omnipresent), he views a timeline not chronologically but simply overviews the entirity of it. That is inaccurate, though, because all living things do have a free choice, and there is no such thing as one "timeline" or "future" (free choice per Paradise Lost's argument in book 1 that God allows Satan to revolt, even though he knows many lives would be spared if he had not allowed him to (or 'program' his mind in such a way that he would never have revolted, which he could, being omnipotent)). (Either that, or God is a masochistic asshole, but Christians always tell me God is the good guy.) By allowing free choice, one of all the possible futures will eventually come true and the rest will be useless.

Don't be a dick. This exchange with DoomYoshi about God and Determinism/Free Will is off-topic. Please make a new thread.



Is not everything we do by definition voluntary, and everything that [i]happens to us by definition involuntary? [/i]

No, cuz definitions and examples.

I don't think discussion about free will is off-topic here. Maybe the choice of the words "voluntary" and "involuntary" just wasn't very good, or you're focussing on only a small part of the argument.

Also, I see no reason why the definitions you give are better than the ones I give, and why I couldn't argue against your examples. That's the point of discussing this.

Voluntary action can be described as anticipated, but not necessarily conscious, goal-orientated movement.
An involuntary action is one which occurs without the conscious choice of an organism.
~Wikipedia

vol·un·tar·y (adjective, noun, plural vol·un·tar·ies). adjective: done, made, brought about, undertaken, etc., of one's own accord or by free choice: a voluntary contribution.
in·vol·un·tar·y. adjective: 1. not voluntary; independent of one's will; not by one's own choice: an involuntary listener; involuntary servitude.
~Dictionary.com

voluntary, adj., adv., and n. 1b: Of actions: Performed or done of one's own free will, impulse, or choice; not constrained, prompted, or suggested by another.
involuntary, adj. 1a: Not voluntary; done or happening without exercise or without co-operation of the will; not done willingly or by choice; independent of volition, unintentional.
~OED

Seems like the internet's on my side.


I suppose you will want to hear that democracy means you chose for something already, but then again, if you are part of a democracy simply by being in the area of that democratic state or country, that is not necessarily a conscious action or decision. Besides, if ten people are in a room and nine of them want the walls to be pink, that's often tough luck for the tenth, which is wrong because his vote is not considered; it is entirely disregarded, which is often the problem in democratic systems.

[Neoteny]

Well, I'm tired of repeating myself, so I'll write this one off.

16 people got it right, but the marginal costs for the other 4 are too high to persuade.

The marginal cost of your mom is too high.

[aage]

Well, I'm tired of repeating myself, so I'll write this one off.

16 people got it right, but the marginal costs for the other 4 are too high to persuade.

Well, if this was a democracy, those 16 people could then decide that those four people simply have it wrong by power of majority.

[BigBallinStalin]

I've only been skimming the thread so this has pobably been said before, but why are not all choices voluntary (with only a possible exception on the last one, semantically speaking)?

Is not everything we do by definition voluntary, and everything that happens to us by definition involuntary?

I say exception at the 5th, on drafting, because I don't know at what point exactly I am drafted. If I was drafted by the act of someone putting a signature under a form, that would be a good example of something happening to me, therefore involuntary. If someone were to come to my house and say "come along, please", I would have to make the conscious decision of coming along, therefore it being somethin I do, therefore voluntary. And even once I was drafted, I could always desert, which is a voluntary action, making the 'act' of being a drafted soldier voluntary. Blaming systems or other people for your decision is not taking responsibility. They may affect your decision making process, but you are the one holding the strings. This is your life. Conflicts of interest don't change that.

I saw Doom post something I disagreed with on the first page or so, so I'm going to respond to that now.

Question: How can any individual who lives in a physical world, and therefore subject to physical laws, be said to have a choice in anything? I mean this in two senses: the deterministic one and the fatalistic one. Being in a situation to make a choice is itself an involuntary exchange.

Or: if God knows everything that will happen, how can humans be said to have free choice?

Stand up.
Now sit down.
There you have it. You could have chosen to do that, or not. Either way, you were in charge.

Your argument on God is wrong, by the way. I think I explained this in a different thread as well. God being omniscient doesn't mean he knows "the future", but rather "the futures". Since he is a being outside of the human dimension of time (per being omnipresent), he views a timeline not chronologically but simply overviews the entirity of it. That is inaccurate, though, because all living things do have a free choice, and there is no such thing as one "timeline" or "future" (free choice per Paradise Lost's argument in book 1 that God allows Satan to revolt, even though he knows many lives would be spared if he had not allowed him to (or 'program' his mind in such a way that he would never have revolted, which he could, being omnipotent)). (Either that, or God is a masochistic asshole, but Christians always tell me God is the good guy.) By allowing free choice, one of all the possible futures will eventually come true and the rest will be useless.

Don't be a dick. This exchange with DoomYoshi about God and Determinism/Free Will is off-topic. Please make a new thread.



Is not everything we do by definition voluntary, and everything that [i]happens to us by definition involuntary? [/i]

No, cuz definitions and examples.

I don't think discussion about free will is off-topic here. Maybe the choice of the words "voluntary" and "involuntary" just wasn't very good, or you're focussing on only a small part of the argument.

Also, I see no reason why the definitions you give are better than the ones I give, and why I couldn't argue against your examples. That's the point of discussing this.

Voluntary action can be described as anticipated, but not necessarily conscious, goal-orientated movement.
An involuntary action is one which occurs without the conscious choice of an organism.
~Wikipedia

vol·un·tar·y (adjective, noun, plural vol·un·tar·ies). adjective: done, made, brought about, undertaken, etc., of one's own accord or by free choice: a voluntary contribution.
in·vol·un·tar·y. adjective: 1. not voluntary; independent of one's will; not by one's own choice: an involuntary listener; involuntary servitude.
~Dictionary.com

voluntary, adj., adv., and n. 1b: Of actions: Performed or done of one's own free will, impulse, or choice; not constrained, prompted, or suggested by another.
involuntary, adj. 1a: Not voluntary; done or happening without exercise or without co-operation of the will; not done willingly or by choice; independent of volition, unintentional.
~OED

Seems like the internet's on my side.


I suppose you will want to hear that democracy means you chose for something already, but then again, if you are part of a democracy simply by being in the area of that democratic state or country, that is not necessarily a conscious action or decision. Besides, if ten people are in a room and nine of them want the walls to be pink, that's often tough luck for the tenth, which is wrong because his vote is not considered; it is entirely disregarded, which is often the problem in democratic systems.

See ya in your new thread, dude!