[QUOTE=kladner;397180]There you go again. You are presuming agreement by all. But what [U]is[/U]* it that we are all agreeing to, this "freedom?" Are you sure it means the same to all users?
...
[/QUOTE]

I am presuming to be speaking with people who believe in freedom; I wouldn't discuss this
with those who do not put my and their freedom first.

[QUOTE=davar55;397186]I see [B]you all[/B] equate freedom with economic freedom. That's the error.[/QUOTE]
Indeed your first sentence is erroneous*. You spotted that error really fast!

*As nearly every sentence that starts with "all", "you all", "we all" etc and the counterexamples are easily present.

[QUOTE=Batalov;397212]Indeed your first sentence is erroneous*. You spotted that error really fast!
*As nearly every sentence that starts with "all", "you all", "we all" etc and the counterexamples are easily present.[/QUOTE]

No. Universals are frequently perfectly valid.

For an example of my point about economic versus political freedom, the issue of
not being allowed to buy some uranium has nothing to do with economic freedom,
it is a consequence of the fact that one person's rights do not include the "right"
to violate another's rights. That's the foundation of political rights.

[QUOTE=davar55;397213]... about economic versus political freedom, the issue of not being allowed to buy some uranium has nothing to do with economic freedom,
it is a consequence ...[/QUOTE]
:davar55: ...and there goes the perennial "[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman"]No true Scotsman[/URL]" defence to your "rescue"! :missingteeth:

[QUOTE=davar55;397213]No. Universals are frequently perfectly valid.

For an example of my point about economic versus political freedom, the issue of
not being allowed to buy some uranium has nothing to do with economic freedom,
it is a consequence of the fact that one person's rights do not include the "right"
to violate another's rights. That's the foundation of political rights.[/QUOTE]Very well, you concede that you are not free to engage in some economic transactions. By your own argument, you do not live in a truly capitalist society.

Am I right in saying that you think it correct that a society may decide that some economic activity should be prohibited because of its consequential effects on (some members of) that society?

[QUOTE=xilman;397221]Very well, you concede that you are not free to engage in some economic transactions. By your own argument, you do not live in a truly capitalist society.
Am I right in saying that you think it correct that a society may decide that some economic activity should be prohibited because of its consequential effects on (some members of) that society?[/QUOTE]

Buying uranium is NOT an economic activity. Its prohibition is not for economic reasons.

[QUOTE=Batalov;397215]:davar55: ...and there goes the perennial "[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman"]No true Scotsman[/URL]" defence to your "rescue"! :missingteeth:[/QUOTE]

I doubt I can understand this comment.

[QUOTE=davar55;397242]I doubt I can understand this comment.[/QUOTE]

Many agree.

[QUOTE=davar55;397242]Buying uranium is NOT an economic activity. Its prohibition is not for economic reasons.[/QUOTE]In which case, please explain your definition of an economic activity. It has become clear that yet again your definitions differ from those of the majority.

I believe that for the rest of us, an economic activity is the provision of goods and/or services by one entity to another entity in exchange for something, physical or otherwise, of mutual value.

I wish to sell (transfer from me) some U-235 to a buyer (transfer to him) in Iran. I further wish to purchase (transfer something of value to you) from you a service (something you provide me), namely to act as a shipping agent. How does that fail to meet the commonly agreed definition of an economic activity?

Here is [STRIKE]an investigation[/STRIKE] [I]a scandal[/I] involving hypothesized economic activity involving uranium.
[QUOTE][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair"]The Plame affair[/URL] (also known as the CIA leak scandal and Plamegate) was a political scandal that revolved around journalist Robert Novak's public identification of Valerie Plame as a covert Central Intelligence Agency officer in 2003.[1][2][3]

In 2002, Plame wrote a memo to her superiors in which she expressed her hesitance to recommend her husband, former diplomat Joseph C. Wilson, to the CIA for a mission to Niger to investigate claims that Iraq had arranged to purchase and import uranium from the country, but stated that he "may be in a position to assist".[4] After President George W. Bush stated that "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" during the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Wilson published a July 2003 op-ed in The New York Times stating his doubts during the mission that any such transaction had taken place.[5] A Senate intelligence committee report in July 2004, however, found that for most intelligence analysts, Wilson's report had bolstered the case for the purchase of uranium.[6]

A week after Wilson's op-ed was published, Novak published a column which mentioned claims from "two senior administration officials" that Plame had been the one to suggest sending her husband. Novak had learned of Plame's employment, which was classified information, from State Department official Richard Armitage.[2] David Corn and others suggested that Armitage and other officials had leaked the information as political retribution for Wilson's article.

The scandal led to a criminal investigation; no one was charged for the leak itself. Scooter Libby was convicted of lying to investigators. His prison sentence was ultimately commuted by President Bush.[/QUOTE]
Capitalism is very versatile. Here is some economic activity:
[QUOTE]
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Contra_affair"]The Iran–Contra affair[/URL] (Persian: ایران-کنترا‎, Spanish: caso Irán-Contra), also referred to as Irangate,[1] Contragate[2] or the Iran–Contra scandal, was a political scandal in the United States that occurred during the second term of the Reagan Administration. Senior administration officials secretly facilitated the sale of arms to Iran, which was the subject of an arms embargo.[3] They hoped that the arms sales would secure the release of several US hostages and use the money to fund the Contras in Nicaragua. Under the Boland Amendment, further funding of the Contras by the government had been prohibited by Congress.[/QUOTE]
And diamonds are of market interest:
[QUOTE][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Beers#Diamond_monopoly"]Diamond monopoly[/URL]
De Beers carried out monopoloid practices throughout the 20th century, whereby it used its dominant position to manipulate the international diamond market.[12][33] The company used several methods to exercise this control over the market. Firstly, it convinced independent producers to join its single channel monopoly, it flooded the market with diamonds similar to those of producers who refused to join the cartel, and lastly, it purchased and stockpiled diamonds produced by other manufacturers in order to control prices through limiting supply.[34]

In 2000, the De Beers business model changed[34] due to factors such as the decision by producers in Canada and Australia to distribute diamonds outside the De Beers channel,[12][33] as well as rising awareness of blood diamonds that forced De Beers to "avoid the risk of bad publicity" by limiting sales to its own mined products.[35] De Beers' market share of rough diamonds fell from as high as 90% in the 1980s to 33% in 2013,[36][37] having resulted in a more fragmented diamond market with more transparency and greater liquidity.[38]

In November 2011, the Oppenheimer family announced its intention to sell the entirety of its 40% stake in De Beers to Anglo American plc thereby increasing Anglo American's ownership of the company to 85%.[39] The transaction was worth £3.2 billion (US$5.1 billion) in cash and ended the Oppenheimer dynasty's 80-year ownership of De Beers.[40][41][/QUOTE]

Fascinating.

Thanks, Ross.

[QUOTE=xilman;397253]In which case, please explain your definition of an economic activity. It has become clear that yet again your definitions differ from those of the majority.

I believe that for the rest of us, an economic activity is the provision of goods and/or services by one entity to another entity in exchange for something, physical or otherwise, of mutual value.[/QUOTE]

Under his own criterion, Dave clearly believes buying and selling computers is also not an economic activity, because there are export restrictions on those to various countries including Iran, as well.

It seems he has internalized a definition along the lines of "an economic activity is whatever I say it is, which may well contradict what I said yesterday and will almost surely conflict with other similar activities considered by most people to properly be classified as 'economic activities'."

Curious rules, hath this debate.