• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

What's a politics question you've always wanted to ask Cribb but haven't [...]?

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
So it has been ok for India to sea itself out of the **** economically and to have a growing middle class, but it isn't for Bangladesh?
Most have been done legally according to norms set by the various countires.

There are just too many Indians. I don't like it either.
 

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Then you could move to a less populated place under Cribb's new rules.

Preferably a place with no internet connection :ph34r:
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I'm removing the layer of utility entirely rather than adding another layer on top of it.

My position in a nutshell is that all value is subjective, and to respect this means to maximise people's potential (or 'freedom') to live by and apply their own subjective value system to its greatest extent. The state often gets in the way of this by imposing its own supposedly objective value system over the entire jurisdiction through the threat of force.
I'm still quite sure this is inconsistent. In your system the state is the one apparatus you can't use to maximise your own subjective value. Why not? Because at its heart it relies on the use of force, and so would allow people to deprive others of some fundamental freedom. But we all would agree with that argument when it came to, say, torturing someone for the amusement of the majority. So the question becomes: which freedoms are fundamental? And you differ from the rest of us because you think that far more freedoms are fundamental than the rest of us do, particularly those concerning property. It's purely an appeal to natural rights- not that there's anything wrong with that, but that's what it is.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Most of my infractions were for posting along these lines ftr :ph34r:
It's too annoying. Even when I go abroad, find Indians every where. Thankfully I have interest of travelling rather than standing beside a tourist spot and clicking a photo. Usually the definition of going to a place essentially for most of them is to go to a place, visit 3 tourist spots for 10 minutes each, take a photo and post it on Facebook.
 

G.I.Joe

International Coach
It's too annoying. Even when I go abroad, find Indians every where. Thankfully I have interest of travelling rather than standing beside a tourist spot and clicking a photo. Usually the definition of going to a place essentially for most of them is to go to a place, visit 3 tourist spots for 10 minutes each, take a photo and post it on Facebook.
Thankfully you live in Kolkata where the Bangladeshis are displacing those pesky Indians.
 

Spikey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Prince EWS: Are you worried that people may take your silence as a sign that you agree with Pratters' views
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Most have been done legally according to norms set by the various countires.

There are just too many Indians. I don't like it either.
What are your opinions on the rather prolific Indian community on CW? Needs trimming imo. Me and zorax should be the first ones cut.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
I came in to leave this

Liberland: hundreds of thousands apply to live in world's newest 'country' | World news | The Guardian

Well good luck, something tells me we won't hear so much from the project in a couple of years
I haven't looked into it yet but a bunch of people on the Australian Libertarian Society and UK Libertarian Discussion Facebook pages are insistent that it'll be in no way any sort of libertarian nation, so I'm holding off getting excited until I've read their complaints properly and done some research. Hopefully it doesn't just become our Marxism-Leninism. ;)
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
I'm still quite sure this is inconsistent. In your system the state is the one apparatus you can't use to maximise your own subjective value. Why not? Because at its heart it relies on the use of force, and so would allow people to deprive others of some fundamental freedom. But we all would agree with that argument when it came to, say, torturing someone for the amusement of the majority. So the question becomes: which freedoms are fundamental? And you differ from the rest of us because you think that far more freedoms are fundamental than the rest of us do, particularly those concerning property. It's purely an appeal to natural rights- not that there's anything wrong with that, but that's what it is.
I am essentially making an anti-force argument, but an anti-force argument doesn't have to be rooted in deontology. I'm not saying "force should be minimised because it violates natural rights"; I'm using a much more consquentialist argument and saying "force should be minimised because, recognising that value is subjective, this will result in more people being able to live by their own system of values." There's little better recognition of subjective value than allowing people to set their own rules to their own property.

This is essentially what allows me to believe in some 'positive rights' freedom in some circumstances and some wealth redistribution where natural rights libertarians do not; sometimes subjective value is better recognised by making sure people have the means to social mobility.
 
Last edited:

Spark

Global Moderator
I'm pretty sure I've talked to you about this before but there's something about subjective value which is ill-defined for me.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
I'm pretty sure I've talked to you about this before but there's something about subjective value which is ill-defined for me.
It was originally a purely economic theory put forward by Carl Menger to explain price mechanisms. It grew from that point in some circles (mainly followers of Hayek) to be an all-encompassing theory of all valuations, even those which were not actually related to trade.

Where I think some people get lost in it is in thinking it can effectively eat itself by creating paradoxes. So they ask things like.. "If all value is subjective, isn't freedom subjective? Isn't the value of the theory of subjective value also then subjective?" In a way the answer to these questions is yes, but the point of maximising freedom from a subjective value standpoint is not to put forward freedom as an objective good like natural rights libertarians would, but to create the best possible framework for the recognition and application of subjective value. It's not true that one could dismiss something like tyranny or oppression with "oh well, can't use force to prevent that because value is subjective", because the oppression creates a system of pseudo-objective value as decided by the oppressor. For subjective value to have meaning as a concept, people must be free to apply their version of it and have the means to. These conditions can compete with each other at their cores, which is why they must be balanced, and this leads itself quite well into the Hayekian classical liberal pursuits of freedom from forceful intervention and equality of opportunity.
 
Last edited:

Top