SOCAL's Razor

[Enhance]

I don't think knapplc meant that the farmer can "only eat bread" and nothing else. I think he was using bread as a tool to encompass all foods. You could plug in any kind of food producer for his example, but I believe he just chose bread because going into detail with every other type of food would be mundane.

 

It's kind of like the saying give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he will eat for a lifetime. Obviously, you can't just eat fish because that is an unhealthy diet. But the point of that saying is knowing how to do something is better than being given what you need for a day.

 

This is not me offering my opinion on the matter, just saying what I think knapplc meant. If I am wrong though, knapplc can correct me.

No, he meant that bread was the only choice, hence his use of the word monopoly to describe it. Monopoly implies no other entry or choice. Unfortunately, other choices do exist and therefore his logic and his conclusion are both wrong

Well, having a monopoly over bread doesn't mean you have a monopoly over food, does it? I know what monopoly means, but if I was the only producer of cranberries, I wouldn't have a monopoly over the entire food industry. I'd just have a monopoly over cranberries. Perhaps we are interpreting what he said in two different ways.

[SOCALHUSKER]

I don't think knapplc meant that the farmer can "only eat bread" and nothing else. I think he was using bread as a tool to encompass all foods. You could plug in any kind of food producer for his example, but I believe he just chose bread because going into detail with every other type of food would be mundane.

 

It's kind of like the saying give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he will eat for a lifetime. Obviously, you can't just eat fish because that is an unhealthy diet. But the point of that saying is knowing how to do something is better than being given what you need for a day.

 

This is not me offering my opinion on the matter, just saying what I think knapplc meant. If I am wrong though, knapplc can correct me.

No, he meant that bread was the only choice, hence his use of the word monopoly to describe it. Monopoly implies no other entry or choice. Unfortunately, other choices do exist and therefore his logic and his conclusion are both wrong

No, Enhance is 100% correct. Your failure to understand that helps explain why you can't grasp the futility of your hippopotamus applesauce utopia.

So, if other choices are available how is it a monopoly? Or do you not grasp the concept of a monopoly either?

[carlfense]

[knapplc]

I don't think knapplc meant that the farmer can "only eat bread" and nothing else. I think he was using bread as a tool to encompass all foods. You could plug in any kind of food producer for his example, but I believe he just chose bread because going into detail with every other type of food would be mundane.

 

It's kind of like the saying give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he will eat for a lifetime. Obviously, you can't just eat fish because that is an unhealthy diet. But the point of that saying is knowing how to do something is better than being given what you need for a day.

 

This is not me offering my opinion on the matter, just saying what I think knapplc meant. If I am wrong though, knapplc can correct me.

No, he meant that bread was the only choice, hence his use of the word monopoly to describe it. Monopoly implies no other entry or choice. Unfortunately, other choices do exist and therefore his logic and his conclusion are both wrong

No, Enhance is 100% correct. Your failure to understand that helps explain why you can't grasp the futility of your hippopotamus applesauce utopia.

So, if other choices are available how is it a monopoly? Or do you not grasp the concept of a monopoly either?

 

Would it make you happy if instead of "baker" and "bread" I used "food producer" and "food?" When you have to quibble over such ridiculous points in a basic analogy, it becomes clear that you're not even trying to understand anyone else's point of view, you're just talking to talk.

[SOCALHUSKER]

I don't think knapplc meant that the farmer can "only eat bread" and nothing else. I think he was using bread as a tool to encompass all foods. You could plug in any kind of food producer for his example, but I believe he just chose bread because going into detail with every other type of food would be mundane.

 

It's kind of like the saying give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he will eat for a lifetime. Obviously, you can't just eat fish because that is an unhealthy diet. But the point of that saying is knowing how to do something is better than being given what you need for a day.

 

This is not me offering my opinion on the matter, just saying what I think knapplc meant. If I am wrong though, knapplc can correct me.

No, he meant that bread was the only choice, hence his use of the word monopoly to describe it. Monopoly implies no other entry or choice. Unfortunately, other choices do exist and therefore his logic and his conclusion are both wrong

Well, having a monopoly over bread doesn't mean you have a monopoly over food, does it? I know what monopoly means, but if I was the only producer of cranberries, I wouldn't have a monopoly over the entire food industry. I'd just have a monopoly over cranberries. Perhaps we are interpreting what he said in two different ways.

No, it doesn't. But in his scenario he stated that in order to eat one MUST eat bread, and he did the same for every other scenario. Therefore, he is implying that bread, the butcher, police, and military are the only options for that specific good or service. Not only that but he says that since those are the only choices that they must be coercive monopolies. However, in reality there a millions of other options and therefore no such monopoly can exist absent the legislation, taxes, favors, subsidies or other interventions of the state. The state creates monopolies, it doesn't destroy them.

 

Basically knapplc doesn't understand the simple concepts of coercion, voluntary or monopoly.

[knapplc]

No, it doesn't. But in his scenario he stated that in order to eat one MUST eat bread, and he did the same for every other scenario. Therefore, he is implying that bread, the butcher, police, and military are the only options for that specific good or service. Not only that but he says that since those are the only choices that they must be coercive monopolies. However, in reality there a millions of other options and therefore no such monopoly can exist absent the legislation, taxes, favors, subsidies or other interventions of the state. The state creates monopolies, it doesn't destroy them.

 

Basically knapplc doesn't understand the simple concepts of coercion, voluntary or monopoly.

 

Since you can't prove in any way that your hippopotamus applesauce utopia is evenly remotely feasible, you're left to dicker over the meaning of an analogy. That's great.

 

What's next, a discussion on the definition of "is?"

[jnkyrdoff6]

I don't think knapplc meant that the farmer can "only eat bread" and nothing else. I think he was using bread as a tool to encompass all foods. You could plug in any kind of food producer for his example, but I believe he just chose bread because going into detail with every other type of food would be mundane.

 

It's kind of like the saying give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he will eat for a lifetime. Obviously, you can't just eat fish because that is an unhealthy diet. But the point of that saying is knowing how to do something is better than being given what you need for a day.

 

This is not me offering my opinion on the matter, just saying what I think knapplc meant. If I am wrong though, knapplc can correct me.

No, he meant that bread was the only choice, hence his use of the word monopoly to describe it. Monopoly implies no other entry or choice. Unfortunately, other choices do exist and therefore his logic and his conclusion are both wrong

No, Enhance is 100% correct. Your failure to understand that helps explain why you can't grasp the futility of your hippopotamus applesauce utopia.

So, if other choices are available how is it a monopoly? Or do you not grasp the concept of a monopoly either?

 

Would it make you happy if instead of "baker" and "bread" I used "food producer" and "food?" When you have to quibble over such ridiculous points in a basic analogy, it becomes clear that you're not even trying to understand anyone else's point of view, you're just talking to talk.

I think the point SOCAL was trying to make, though, is that these situations simply can't exist in a free market. Only the government protects monopolies like the cable company. One food producer? I can't believe for a second that, in a world without protection from competitors to that food producer, competitors wouldn't spring up and undercut prices. Even if, for example, prices are as low as is manageably possible, and the food producer is discriminating against one farmer, can that farmer not trade with others to get that food?

[knapplc]

I think the point SOCAL was trying to make, though, is that these situations simply can't exist in a free market. Only the government protects monopolies like the cable company. One food producer? I can't believe for a second that, in a world without protection from competitors to that food producer, competitors wouldn't spring up and undercut prices. Even if, for example prices are as low as is unmanageably possible, and the food producer is discriminating against one farmer, can that farmer not trade with others to get that food?

It. Is. An. Analogy.

 

It is not meant to be a strict definition of a real marketplace. Got it?

[knapplc]

And I'm glad we've finally moved away from this utopian idyll and on to more worthy subjects. It took a while, but I finally did prove that SOCAL's society is based on hippopotamus applesauce, which is simply silly.

 

Anyway, back to the discussion of the finer points of analogy...

[jnkyrdoff6]

I think the point SOCAL was trying to make, though, is that these situations simply can't exist in a free market. Only the government protects monopolies like the cable company. One food producer? I can't believe for a second that, in a world without protection from competitors to that food producer, competitors wouldn't spring up and undercut prices. Even if, for example prices are as low as is unmanageably possible, and the food producer is discriminating against one farmer, can that farmer not trade with others to get that food?

It. Is. An. Analogy.

It is not meant to be a strict definition of a real marketplace. Got it?

A terrible one...

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

Would it make you happy if instead of "baker" and "bread" I used "food producer" and "food?" When you have to quibble over such ridiculous points in a basic analogy, it becomes clear that you're not even trying to understand anyone else's point of view, you're just talking to talk.

Actually I am trying to understand your view, however it makes about as much sense as a deaf person interpreting the sounds of a person who speaks in tongues. (I know you can comprehend that).

 

You fail to realize that no such "food producer" monopoly can ever occur, at least without the aid of government. Since there will always be choices and those searching for profit, no monopoly is possible in a free market, let alone a coercive one.

[knapplc]

 

Would it make you happy if instead of "baker" and "bread" I used "food producer" and "food?" When you have to quibble over such ridiculous points in a basic analogy, it becomes clear that you're not even trying to understand anyone else's point of view, you're just talking to talk.

Actually I am trying to understand your view, however it makes about as much sense as a deaf person interpreting the sounds of a person who speaks in tongues. (I know you can comprehend that).

 

You fail to realize that no such "food producer" monopoly can ever occur, at least without the aid of government. Since there will always be choices and those searching for profit, no monopoly is possible in a free market, let alone a coercive one.

 

You're not trying to understand anything. You're backpedaling furiously because you have no way of showing that your hippopotamus applesauce utopia is even remotely viable, so your whole argument has devolved into dickering over the reality of something as unreal as an analogy.

[SOCALHUSKER]

but I finally did prove that SOCAL's society is based on hippopotamus applesauce, which is simply silly.

 

Anyway, back to the discussion of the finer points of analogy...

 

Yeah, just as you proved a government is voluntary and monopolies can exist absent a state. Talk about hippo applesauce, is that what your smoking?

[Enhance]

And I'm glad we've finally moved away from this utopian idyll and on to more worthy subjects. It took a while, but I finally did prove that SOCAL's society is based on hippopotamus applesauce, which is simply silly.

 

Anyway, back to the discussion of the finer points of analogy...

Apparently an analogy is a fixed representation of everything that could possibly fall under the circumstances provided?

 

 

This whole debate is very similar to the WBC debate. They say God hates homosexuals. Because the government protects homosexuals, they hate the government. Because soldiers protect the governments that protects homosexuals, they hate soldiers. Because most citizens admire/revere the soldiers that protect our government that protects homosexuals, we hate all citizens that don't agree with us. Everything turns into an extension of itself regardless of how idiotic it may sound. Eventually, we all begin arguing mundane details that take away from the bigger picture.

 

Brian anuerysm commencing..

[knapplc]

Yeah, just as you proved a government is voluntary and monopolies can exist absent a state.

 

See? We can agree. Thank you for conceding the point. Good discussion.