The Purpose of Incarceration

Post Reply New Topic

I'll go at it sentence by sentence. First providing the context for the response: you had made a mocking statement about my belief that markets were rational. I will note that you never said how rational, however, in response I did go over the issue of economics somewhat, first starting with rationality and then moving into issues that I saw with your own view.

"Most economists think that markets display some elements of rationality, the issue isn't whether they do, but how much at this point."
Generally true. Most economists do think that markets display some elements of rationality, and the debate is about the

"Additionally given the massive organization of society that markets continually facilitate, it is essentially impossible for them to be completely irrational."
Well, yes. This is pretty true, as an irrational system will immediately fail, but markets do not immediately fail, but rather the system generally works.

"Then again, I somehow doubt that you spend a lot of time looking over mainstream economic thought, and I imagine that you tend to dogmatically reject the premises more than anything else."
This is a speculative statement. There is little to be said true or false about this sentence. One can consider it overly speculative, however, some of your statements in the past do show an ignorance about the workings of the neoclassical framework. As well, I really don't see how anyone can honestly maintain the LTV without being an LTV dogmatist, I mean, the starting point is just fundamentally wrong and the view of value as possibly being broken down into homogeneous labor units just seems utterly silly.

"Ok, I'll be honest, I think the LTV is utterly stupid, and that the STV is by this point so obvious that it cannot reasonably be denied, so I've just said my piece there."
There is no flaw here, this is my own position. I have read about this matter somewhat in the past, and I have seen a few internet debates before, and I don't think that the LTV is correct.

"And even if we get into the history, part of the issue is one of the nature of production now and then, as the modern economy is a lot more subjectively oriented than past economies as the most basic goods generally consume less of our income than before and have more subjectively important variety."
I am making the assumption that historical background will inform theoretical constructs, and this does not seem false. Additionally, the change in output is hard to question. I mean, while Adam Smith could easily hold to the notion that agriculture was the value-creating part of the economy, modern people wouldn't really make sense of that notion, and this is partially due to the change in our society.

So, I don't see the flaw in any sentence. Perhaps you have imposed one upon what I have said, but that is a flaw in your head, not in my words.


Who said you had to do anything?


Honestly, most of what I write here happen to be things that can either be found on the internet or found using some level of logic. Does this mean that my posts are perfect? No. Profoundly ignorant though? I don't see how you've demonstrated that at all. Additionally, I don't see how italicizing "he puts a case against" really makes sense.


So you mean it is amusing and makes the person criticized feel greater comfort due to my soft cushions and comfy chairs? Well, I am glad that this is the case.


I am already respecting your right to free association. This is a public forum, rather than a private relation, and you are associating with it.

buzzz, wrong

So, you are divining some abstract essence? I mean, you can't make an "ontological point" without invoking some notion of essences and I recognize that people use various contingent categories, but to say that you can divine a point about the material nature of human psychology from an abstract essence? That seems absurd. You might be able to do something using some form of evolutionary psychology, or even rational model, but an ontology? We might as well be delving into theology.


Are you even necessarily saying the same things? I mean, "creepiness" really seems to me to be a matter of social relations, and the notion that everything that can be called a mind would necessarily end up becoming creepier from being a prostitute seems absurd. If created a learning intelligence an put it to use as a sex worker, would it necessarily become creepier? Let's say this is a robot that looks human enough for people to use it sexually and it is made to do this for favors. Would this robot necessarily become creepier with experience? I see no reason why it would. And so, I don't see how one can point to some human theory of being and derive meaningful conclusions if we are just a flesh version of that prior robot, that evolved through natural processes.


A big issue is supply and demand. Prostitution will always be in high demand, and relatively low supply. If society continually lowers the supply, then the field of prostitution becomes increasingly attractive. So, the entire idea of a "better alternative" ends up becoming absurd, because at some point, we'll likely end up with prostitutes who get ridiculous salaries. I mean, as it stands, the average prostitute makes more than the average architect (fact stated in the popular book Freakonomics in chapter 3), and architects are highly educated, while prostitution requires very little formal training. So, really, I don't see how you come to the conclusion that "society is flawed if prostitution looks attractive", because trying to make keep people from entering the field of prostitution will paradoxically help make it more attractive by limiting supply, and as it stands, prostitution has attractions over positions that require significant levels of education. So, I think your position there is absurd.


No, because people consider that impolite.

Pointing out that animals engage in prostitution shows that prostitution isn't something purely human in invention and therefore unnatural, and as such provides a reason to think that prostitution may actually be natural behavior and part of the evolutionary make-up of human beings as well and therefore not problematic for that reason.


Protecting people within our social group against violent acts is quite natural for a social creature such as humanity, and legislation is merely the form this takes in an impersonal society. In a personal society, instead we would use vengeance to achieve that same end, and it would likely naturally happen unless the female in question wasn't liked by the group.

Prostitution isn't quite so similar because harm is harder to define. The harm isn't done by the john, because the prostitute might actually solicit the john and agrees to the transaction. The harm isn't done by the prostitute, because the prostitute provides a useful service to the john, one that he is willing to pay for. In order to say it is wrong, your approach is to blame the background economic conditions of the transaction, and those are much more impersonal and less intentional than what we have with a case of rape.


Sociobiology is likely a better pursuit than something as abstract as ontology.

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

@ - fuzzy

I apologise if I've come across as obnoxious or arrogant, I have no quarrel with you nor do I seek one. I adopted the tone I did in those couple of posts in order to approximate the tone and attitude of a certain individual who seems to think he can waltz around patronising other members of the forum. Again my apologies, I'm more than willing to engage in debate with someone willing to address me as equal but I have no interest in doing so with those who don't

If you'll indulge me : "I believe in the brotherhood of man, all men, but I don’t believe in brotherhood with anybody who doesn’t want brotherhood with me. I believe in treating people right, but I’m not going to waste my time trying to treat somebody right who doesn’t know how to return the treatment."
Malcolm X, speech, Dec. 12 1964, New York City.

edit: my further apologies to DentArthurDent for sending his thread haywire, shall we go back to the topic?