Good news and bad news -Landlords face new costs

[LandOfConfusion]

On 25/11/2021 at 11:57, Locke said:

Well that's just like pressing a balloon down in one spot and trying to keep the whole thing from going up in another.

I had a conversation about BTL a couple of years ago with an Australian "Libertarian". It was one of those rare times when you realise you don't actually have the complete picture and he made me realise that what I had assumed to be obvious common ground was not so common after all. And I'm seeing evidence of this in your reply.

So tell me where you think I'm wrong, if at all:

1. Society exists.
2. Society is like a union of members (citizens) working towards common goals.
3. A fundamental pillar of society is that it treats everyone equally but
4. with the possible exception of those who manage society who may hold temporary 'higher' privilege(s) but only and exclusively to enable them to do their society-serving job.
5. Businesses are not citizens.
6. The role of business is to serve society and/or it's individual members.
7. A key role of society involves protecting both itself and it's members from abuses committed by businesses.
8. Society's job is not to provide a safety net to nor serve or be subordinate to business.
9. Where a conflict of interest arises between those of business and those of society it is society's job to favour itself.

?

[iamnumerate]

1 hour ago, LandOfConfusion said:

I had a conversation about BTL a couple of years ago with an Australian "Libertarian". It was one of those rare times when you realise you don't actually have the complete picture and he made me realise that what I had assumed to be obvious common ground was not so common after all. And I'm seeing evidence of this in your reply.

So tell me where you think I'm wrong, if at all:

1. Society exists.
2. Society is like a union of members (citizens) working towards common goals.
3. A fundamental pillar of society is that it treats everyone equally but
4. with the possible exception of those who manage society who may hold temporary 'higher' privilege(s) but only and exclusively to enable them to do their society-serving job.
5. Businesses are not citizens.
6. The role of business is to serve society and/or it's individual members.
7. A key role of society involves protecting both itself and it's members from abuses committed by businesses.
8. Society's job is not to provide a safety net to nor serve or be subordinate to business.
9. Where a conflict of interest arises between those of business and those of society it is society's job to favour itself.

?

I agree with 

1, 2 in theory but not practice - 3 no of course not some people get cheap housing but not others.

I agree with 4 and 5.  For 6 what does serve society mean?  If a TV production company just produced love island is that serving society?

For 9 the law exists if someone breaks the law they should be punished if a business is doing something legal e.g selling a new legal narcotic but harmful then that action should be criminalized.

[LandOfConfusion]

1 minute ago, iamnumerate said:

I agree with 

1, 2 in theory but not practice - 3 no of course not some people get cheap housing but not others.

I agree with 4 and 5.  For 6 what does serve society mean?  If a TV production company just produced love island is that serving society?

For 9 the law exists if someone breaks the law they should be punished if a business is doing something legal e.g selling a new legal narcotic but harmful then that action should be criminalized.

1 & 2: Failure to implement tend to be common core problems, but it's the theory I'm interested in right now.

3: You could argue that in theory everyone has the same potential to cheap access to housing, although practice might be different.

I should probably also add something about providing a basic safety net to citizens but with caveats to prevent abuse.

6: (The role of business is to serve society and/or it's individual members) means that businesses cannot simply sponge; they must create or provide reciprocal value. It's not society's job to make their business work.

9: Absolutely. In theory society's job is to prevent external agents including business from inflicting harm either to the society itself or it's members. Of course practice is often different and you could probably split hairs all day with corner cases, e.g. alcohol although #2 might except that if personal freedoms are a common goal.

[iamnumerate]

1 minute ago, LandOfConfusion said:

1 & 2: Failure to implement tend to be common core problems, but it's the theory I'm interested in right now.

3: You could argue that in theory everyone has the same potential to cheap access to housing, although practice might be different.

I should probably also add something about providing a basic safety net to citizens but with caveats to prevent abuse.

6: (The role of business is to serve society and/or it's individual members) means that businesses cannot simply sponge; they must create or provide reciprocal value. It's not society's job to make their business work.

9: Absolutely. In theory society's job is to prevent external agents including business from inflicting harm either to the society itself or it's members. Of course practice is often different and you could probably split hairs all day with corner cases, e.g. alcohol although #2 might except that if personal freedoms are a common goal.

I agree with all that apart from 6 - creating value is a bit vague. I would say businesses should obey the law and pay all the taxes they should do.

 

[Locke]

1 hour ago, LandOfConfusion said:

I had a conversation about BTL a couple of years ago with an Australian "Libertarian". It was one of those rare times when you realise you don't actually have the complete picture and he made me realise that what I had assumed to be obvious common ground was not so common after all. And I'm seeing evidence of this in your reply.

So tell me where you think I'm wrong, if at all:

?

The questions you are asking are the critical ones. Most people reject the answers and even if you have the mental machinery to accept them (very few people do), it is very difficult to.

Edit: I meant to say, these answers are probably going to be quite upsetting for you and I understand if you reject them

Edit2: and they will sound like complete insanity. To use a pop culture reference, most of the people in The Matrix would be completely unable to grasp or accept the fact they are in a simulation and yet even that idea is far less "matrix-ey" than what I am saying below

 

1. Society exists. Society does not exist. Countries do not exist. Governments do not exist. Things which are mental concepts do not exist. To your presumed immediate response: does the fact there are churches, priests and billions of believers whose behaviour is shaped at least in part by religious scripture mean that God exists?
2. Society is like a union of members (citizens) working towards common goals. No. Members of societies can and often do have incompatible goals. A society is a group of people with some subjective criteria applied to membership
3. A fundamental pillar of society is that it treats everyone equally but >implying that societies where people are treated unequally do not exist. Odd.
4. with the possible exception of those who manage society who may hold temporary 'higher' privilege(s) but only and exclusively to enable them to do their society-serving job. Post hoc rationalisation. A government is a group of people who claim the exclusive moral right to initiate violence.
5. Businesses are not citizens. A business is a group of people who work together to deliver goods or services to other people. Businesses do not exist in reality, only the people and capital of which it is composed. A citizen is the fictional character which a government applies to certain people, usually within a geographical region known as a country and says it will provide certain protections to and demands certain duties of. I think you meant "corporation" which is a fictional entity which a government says has rights (which do not exist) comparable to a citizen (which again, do not exist)
6. The role of business is to serve society and/or it's individual members. The role of a business is to implement the division of labour and specialisation in order to reduce the costs involved in delivering the goods and services which it delivers. People work in businesses, because this improves the reward each person can get from their labour compared to creating goods and services by themselves.
7. A key role of society involves protecting both itself and it's members from abuses committed by businesses. There is far too much here to unpack, but no, your statement is an opinion/wish
8. Society's job is not to provide a safety net to nor serve or be subordinate to business. Another opinion/wish
9. Where a conflict of interest arises between those of business and those of society it is society's job to favour itself. Opinion/wish

 

By the way, your Austrian friend likely has almost as many delusions (not meant as an insult) as you do, e.g. value exists, government exists etc. but is more enlightened on the practical effects of acting on them.

Edited November 26, 2021 by Locke

[LandOfConfusion]

A lot of people seem to have issues with the idea of value creation, business & society. Put simply does the business create something of value which is at least equal to what it takes in return? Is the business simply repackaging value that was there already; is the net balance of the transaction a negative for society?

To give an example there have been cases where a product has been created and profits generated but there was a net loss to society. The businesses involved had generated often toxic waste but left the clean up to the society in which they operated. If the cost of clean up had been built into the price of the product then there would have been no problem although it's possible that the enterprise wouldn't be profitable, and that should be acceptable. It shouldn't be that society effectively subsidises a private enterprise; society shouldn't exist to serve the interest of business.

[LandOfConfusion]

15 minutes ago, Locke said:

The questions you are asking are the critical ones. Most people reject the answers and even if you have the mental machinery to accept them (very few people do), it is very difficult to.

Edit: I meant to say, these answers are probably going to be quite upsetting for you and I understand if you reject them

Edit2: and they will sound like complete insanity. To use a pop culture reference, most of the people in The Matrix would be completely unable to grasp or accept the fact they are in a simulation and yet even that idea is far less "matrix-ey" than what I am saying below

 

1. Society exists. Society does not exist. Countries do not exist. Governments do not exist. Things which are mental concepts do not exist. To your presumed immediate response: does the fact there are churches, priests and billions of believers whose behaviour is shaped at least in part by religious scripture mean that God exists?
2. Society is like a union of members (citizens) working towards common goals. No. Members of societies can and often do have incompatible goals. A society is a group of people with some subjective criteria applied to membership
3. A fundamental pillar of society is that it treats everyone equally but >implying that societies where people are treated unequally do not exist. Odd.
4. with the possible exception of those who manage society who may hold temporary 'higher' privilege(s) but only and exclusively to enable them to do their society-serving job. Post hoc rationalisation. A government is a group of people who claim the exclusive moral right to initiate violence.
5. Businesses are not citizens. A business is a group of people who work together to deliver goods or services to other people. Businesses do not exist in reality, only the people and capital of which it is composed. A citizen is the fictional character which a government applies to certain people, usually within a geographical region known as a country and says it will provide certain protections to and demands certain duties of. I think you meant "corporation" which is a fictional entity which a government says has rights (which do not exist) comparable to a citizen (which again, do not exist)
6. The role of business is to serve society and/or it's individual members. The role of a business is to implement the division of labour and specialisation in order to reduce the costs involved in delivering the goods and services which it delivers. People work in businesses, because this improves the reward each person can get from their labour compared to creating goods and services by themselves.
7. A key role of society involves protecting both itself and it's members from abuses committed by businesses. There is far too much here to unpack, but no, your statement is an opinion/wish
8. Society's job is not to provide a safety net to nor serve or be subordinate to business. Another opinion/wish
9. Where a conflict of interest arises between those of business and those of society it is society's job to favour itself. Opinion/wish

 

By the way, your Austrian friend likely has almost as many delusions (not meant as an insult) as you do, e.g. value exists, government exists etc. but is more enlightened on the practical effects of acting on them.

That's a very interesting response and you seem to have captured what I mean. Thank you.

Quote

Society exists. Society does not exist. Countries do not exist. Governments do not exist. Things which are mental concepts do not exist. To your presumed immediate response: does the fact there are churches, priests and billions of believers whose behaviour is shaped at least in part by religious scripture mean that God exists?

Religion & therefore God is a false analogy although to some degree you are otherwise right with the rest of your comment.

I'd suggest a mental concept with a concrete implementation is effectively real and that is why for instance fiat money holds value.

Quote

Society is like a union of members (citizens) working towards common goals. No. Members of societies can and often do have incompatible goals. A society is a group of people with some subjective criteria applied to membership

You're right, that wasn't very good. How about "a society is a membership consisting of some common values and ideals coupled with key shared interests and existing for the mutual benefit"?

Quote

A fundamental pillar of society is that it treats everyone equally but >implying that societies where people are treated unequally do not exist. Odd.

I'd suggest hives are not societies. And neither are groups of people herded together against their will.

Quote

with the possible exception of those who manage society who may hold temporary 'higher' privilege(s) but only and exclusively to enable them to do their society-serving job. Post hoc rationalisation. A government is a group of people who claim the exclusive moral right to initiate violence

Well in that situation you either you have a hive, an encapsulated society or a population of slaves.

Quote

The role of business is to serve society and/or it's individual members. The role of a business is to implement the division of labour and specialisation in order to reduce the costs involved in delivering the goods and services which it delivers. People work in businesses, because this improves the reward each person can get from their labour compared to creating goods and services by themselves.

This doesn't change society's view of or relationship to business. Society sees businesses as a provider of goods and/or services; how it is internally structured or why doesn't really matter. That's the problem for business to resolve.

Quote

• A key role of society involves protecting both itself and it's members from abuses committed by businesses. There is far too much here to unpack, but no, your statement is an opinion/wish
• Society's job is not to provide a safety net to nor serve or be subordinate to business. Another opinion/wish
• Where a conflict of interest arises between those of business and those of society it is society's job to favour itself. Opinion/wish

These are the three things I thought you'd have a special issue with, especially given their importance to BTL.

OK, please explain to me if I'm wrong but from your perspective people come together or if you prefer form a fictitious entity in order to be to be exploited and/or abused? Or they form such a (real/fake) entity but are happy for this to happen as a condition or consequence of membership?

[Locke]

4 minutes ago, LandOfConfusion said:

Religion & therefore God is a false analogy

So what you have done is state something without any reasoning or evidence to back it up. This is called a non-sequitur.

How is that analogy logically inconsistent/inapplicable?

6 minutes ago, LandOfConfusion said:

I'd suggest a mental concept with a concrete implementation is effectively real

No, because crazy people commit real world actions based on mental concepts.

Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs clearly met all the requirements for language; internally consistent and communicating ideas to people who could read them. However, if the Rosetta stone had never been found, those hieroglyphs would never, ever have been translated. The meaning would be gone forever. This is an example of where something you believe exists in the real world and has real effects (a language) actually only exists in the heads of human beings and if they die, it ceases to exist.

9 minutes ago, LandOfConfusion said:

that is why for instance fiat money holds value.

Do forged fiat notes hold value?

10 minutes ago, LandOfConfusion said:

How about "a society is a membership consisting of some common values and ideals coupled with key shared interests and existing for the mutual benefit"?

No, the membership criteria are subjective and arbitrary. For any definition of a society, I could give you an example of something which you would agree is a society, but would not fit your definition.

11 minutes ago, LandOfConfusion said:

I'd suggest hives are not societies.

Yes. Insects are not people.

12 minutes ago, LandOfConfusion said:

And neither are groups of people herded together against their will.

You just destroyed your definition of a society. To what degree of being against their will is it permissible to fit your definition of society?

13 minutes ago, LandOfConfusion said:

a population of slaves.

Good. Now define a slave and compare with taxation.

13 minutes ago, LandOfConfusion said:

This doesn't change society's view of or relationship to business.

This is jumping ahead. We need to understand what we are talking about. I disagree that society or businesses even exist, so I won't entertain notions about how those interact until you can adequately define what you mean or alternatively prove to me that they do exist.

16 minutes ago, LandOfConfusion said:

OK, please explain to me if I'm wrong but from your perspective people come together or if you prefer form a fictitious entity in order to be to be exploited and/or abused?

Jumping way ahead again. We need to define "exploited and "abused". Still, people take employment, because they choose to. Working in a group, potentially within a hierarchy, is preferable to them than working by themselves. Usually it's because they can acquire way more resources this way, but it may be that they don't have the drive, courage or will to set out on their own. As long as it is voluntary, I really don't give a shit how they conduct their lives.

20 minutes ago, LandOfConfusion said:

Or they form such a (real/fake) entity but are happy for this to happen as a condition or consequence of membership?

If they weren't, they would leave the job.

[LandOfConfusion]

27 minutes ago, Locke said:

So what you have done is state something without any reasoning or evidence to back it up. This is called a non-sequitur.

How is that analogy logically inconsistent/inapplicable?

No, non-sequitur is when you make a claim which does not follow from the premise.

I'd say that God exist for those people but for everyone else only the religion exists. It's a false analogy or more specifically a black & white fallacy as you're asserting that something could only be regarded to exist if it has a corporeal nature, and that isn't necessarily true. Concepts and ideas are regarded as having substance if they can have effect and so as long as people treat them as real they in effect are.

32 minutes ago, Locke said:

No, because crazy people commit real world actions based on mental concepts.

Like abide by contracts?

33 minutes ago, Locke said:

Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs clearly met all the requirements for language; internally consistent and communicating ideas to people who could read them. However, if the Rosetta stone had never been found, those hieroglyphs would never, ever have been translated. The meaning would be gone forever. This is an example of where something you believe exists in the real world and has real effects (a language) actually only exists in the heads of human beings and if they die, it ceases to exist.

Absolutely; for a fiction to be 'real' it must be instantiated. But once that happens it has material effect and can be treated as such.

36 minutes ago, Locke said:

Do forged fiat notes hold value?

Yes if they're passable. And doing so harms society so #7 applies.

37 minutes ago, Locke said:

No, the membership criteria are subjective and arbitrary. For any definition of a society, I could give you an example of something which you would agree is a society, but would not fit your definition.

But in general they're not. There exists a common set of abstract attributes which when instantiated together constitute a society.

2 hours ago, Locke said:

You just destroyed your definition of a society. To what degree of being against their will is it permissible to fit your definition of society?

I was once told that there are no "illegal people". Well I'd suggest you can operate as an outlaw and if you do so within the area claimed by a group of people who as a collective satisfy the definition of being a society then that group can and will impose it's rules and values on you. And of course you'd be free to vacate should you not be willing to accept that.

I am curious now though; if I own a house and set the rules does that make me a slave owner wrt family and visitors? And isn't the very fact that I 'own' the house an abstract idea and therefore meaningless as per your argument?

2 hours ago, Locke said:

Good. Now define a slave and compare with taxation.

A slave can't leave, have a say in who his leader is or have a say in where the fruits of his productivity goes. To suggest otherwise would be a non sequitur.

2 hours ago, Locke said:

This is jumping ahead. We need to understand what we are talking about. I disagree that society or businesses even exist, so I won't entertain notions about how those interact until you can adequately define what you mean or alternatively prove to me that they do exist.

I've already outlined the parameters for what constitutes a society and you have done an acceptable job in defining what a business is. What appears to be the problem is that you don't seem to be able to accept that abstract ideas can be treated as if they were corporeal. It doesn't matter if they are tangible, all that matters is that they have effect.

2 hours ago, Locke said:

Jumping way ahead again. We need to define "exploited and "abused". Still, people take employment, because they choose to. Working in a group, potentially within a hierarchy, is preferable to them than working by themselves. Usually it's because they can acquire way more resources this way, but it may be that they don't have the drive, courage or will to set out on their own. As long as it is voluntary, I really don't give a shit how they conduct their lives.

I think you might need to define "voluntary". But anyway imagine I put a gun to your head, threaten your family or otherwise impose on you two or more options, none of which are good but where the one in which I benefit is the least bad, is that "voluntary"? How about if I create any other situation where I create any other win-lose situation, even if doing so breaks a prior agreement?

2 hours ago, Locke said:

If they weren't, they would leave the job.

I've heard the argument that monopolies which engage in anticompetitive practices and kill off competition are perfectly acceptable, because you still have a choice. And in an anarchist / no society environment I'd agree with you but if people come together under the parameters of society I've listed above then no, it's not.

The existence of a society implies a social contract borne out of mutual benefit, and as you point out if that didn't work then people would leave. But then should people who have a stake in something, in this case society be forced to accept breaches of that implied contract? Or do you consider that because contracts are abstract and meaningless by themselves it doesn't matter?