Comment: This is great stuff!

(See in situ)


This is great stuff!

I'm sneaking in here to comment at only 22 minutes in. Whether or not, or how Molyneux rebukes Joseph's analysis down the line is not important at this point, as I am inspired to do so myself. At around 17 minutes in Joseph declares that "the market necessity of competition... does not, and would never stop, at the traditionally assumed edge of the market board game". "Referees"... etcetera...

Why am I popping in here before watching the entire debate? I don't know. :D I suppose I merely intend to flag this point as Joseph's initial fallacy. I have hopes for Molyneux, but I've never known anyone to notice and successfully address this simple departure Joseph takes early on. Many people debating Joseph don't catch his fallacy early enough [at its core] and get bogged down in defending concepts like competition and greed as neutral or even good.

Joseph has always seen the market as a game. He is among those who can't separate market fundamentalism from the market. Market intervention is what creates a system, that which can be gamed. A free market is not a system and can't be gamed. Individuals can game other individuals in a free market, but they can't game the market.

Simply using the term "market necessity" implies that the market itself has become an entity, a thing of needs, something with which to negotiate and game in and of itself separate from its individual participants. Until such a fallacy is addressed, Joseph will never develop a justifiable use for the term "equity" but for confusing "inequitable" for "unjust".