NationStates Jolt Archive

A post in a current thread suggested that certain basics should be free.

My first though was TANSTAAFL. To avoid a hijack, I'll post my qustion here:

TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

Agree or not.

Please defend your position.

Depends on how you're using it. I think it's an accurate description--nothing's really for free. The question really is "who's going to pay for it and how?" And that's what most arguments of government interference in a national economy are over--who's paying and how much?

i disagree, i had a free lunch on friday. it was great, all i could eat, plus a free drink. so much haggis i could have exploded.

i disagree, i had a free lunch on friday. it was great, all i could eat, plus a free drink. so much haggis i could have exploded.

But it cost you your soul!

i disagree, i had a free lunch on friday. it was great, all i could eat, plus a free drink. so much haggis i could have exploded.

But it cost you your soul!
:p

Also, I disagree with the OP. But then, I've been known to be astonishingly naive when it comes to the general goodness of people and humanity as such.

Everything has a cost, even air. You could argue that the air is there and accessible to everyone, but anyone who has lived in a major urban area knows that there is a cost - heavy industry and a thriving economy creates smog, if you want clean air, you pay a price, you either eliminate industry and the corresponding jobs or you pay extra to have the industries implement measures to prevent pollution.

So, logically, everything has a cost whether in money, labor, inconvenience, health, what have you. The larger the population, the higher the cost.

i disagree, i had a free lunch on friday. it was great, all i could eat, plus a free drink. so much haggis i could have exploded.

Who paid for your free lunch? Someone did.

Ignoring the double negative in the statement, I'd still say it's wrong. Sometimes you actually can get something for nothing. Not often - in fact, quite rarely - but it does happen. I'm not talking about finding £20 in the street, here, I mean where someone will do something for you without wanting anything in return.

Just be grateful when it does happen, and don't expect it to happen again.

Who paid for your free lunch? Someone did.

well it was left overs from a burns' night supper that i was catering at. so really it was payed for by the organisers and/or guests but i did my portion of the work. still a free lunch though, cuz otherwise i'd have had to go across the road to the pub for my lunch.

well it was left overs from a burns' night supper that i was catering at. so really it was payed for by the organisers and/or guests but i did my portion of the work. still a free lunch though, cuz otherwise i'd have had to go across the road to the pub for my lunch.

So, you did pay for it, with your labor. See, it wasn't free, just because money wasn't involved doesn't mean there wasn't a cost.

Ignoring the double negative in the statement, I'd still say it's wrong. Sometimes you actually can get something for nothing. Not often - in fact, quite rarely - but it does happen. I'm not talking about finding £20 in the street, here, I mean where someone will do something for you without wanting anything in return.
Just be grateful when it does happen, and don't expect it to happen again.

Yes, be grateful, because, while it cost you nothing, it cost that generous someone something - it was free to you, but not to that person.

So, you did pay for it, with your labor. See, it wasn't free, just because money wasn't involved doesn't mean there wasn't a cost.

except more often than not i would not have got it even if i had worked harder or longer than i normally do. friday was an eight hour shift and i had a huge lunch that i didn't have to pay for because there was left overs from the dinner. yesterday i did a twelve hour shift where i had to go across the road for a pub lunch because the event we were running was drinks only - no free lunch despite working much harder and longer, plus i got accused of lying and stealing, the 2 'free' bottles of ginger beer i got at the end of the night i certainly paid for though.

Yes, be grateful, because, while it cost you nothing, it cost that generous someone something - it was free to you, but not to that person.
Perhaps, perhaps not. If they just gave you some of their time (for whatver reason), then does it actually cost them anything if all they'd been doing otherwise was sitting on their arse at home, channel-surfing because they've got nothing else to do?

Perhaps, perhaps not. If they just gave you some of their time (for whatver reason), then does it actually cost them anything if all they'd been doing otherwise was sitting on their arse at home, channel-surfing because they've got nothing else to do?

There is the old American saying "time is money." Of course, there is also that person's convenience to consider. Cost cannot always be calculated in terms of money and I think that is what many people don't grasp.

LOL @ automatic lower case in title. :p

I thought this was a thread about something German...

as stated before, nothing is free, it's merely a question as to who pays for it. I believe the United States has an obligation to provide a safety net to allow everyone a basic standard of living.

as stated before, nothing is free, it's merely a question as to who pays for it. I believe the United States has an obligation to provide a safety net to allow everyone a basic standard of living.

Why?

Don't get me wrong. I don't think anyone should be permitted to starve when we have so much, but, please define "basic standard of living." And then tell me who should pay for it and how much they should pay.

"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch" is a double negative, does it mean that there is or is not such a thing as a free lunch?

Clarify this immediately, or else I shall not vote in this obscene poll!!!

as stated before, nothing is free, it's merely a question as to who pays for it. I believe the United States has an obligation to provide a safety net to allow everyone a basic standard of living.

Well at least I hope you're as honest with yorself about the later poart as you are with the first, as obliging others to pay for free lunches equals slavery....

"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch" is a double negative, does it mean that there is or is not such a thing as a free lunch?

Clarify this immediately, or else I shall not vote in this obscene poll!!!

TANSTAAFL is an acronym for the adage "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch," popularized by science fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein in his 1966 novel The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, which discusses the problems caused by not considering the eventual outcome of an unbalanced economy. This phrase and book are popular with libertarians and economics textbooks. In order to avoid a double negative or usage of the the word "ain't", the acronym "TINSTAAFL" is sometimes used instead, meaning "There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch".

The phrase refers to the once-common tradition of saloons in the United States providing a "free" lunch to patrons, who were required to buy at least one drink.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TANSTAAFL

Well at least I hope you're as honest with yorself about the later poart as you are with the first, as obliging others to pay for free lunches equals slavery....

Slavery? Straw Man, much? We're talking about a very small amount of income redistribution at the very worst here.

I got free breakfast at The Best Western and my stay was paid by the airline company. But my flight was cancelled. Does that count as free breakfast, or a quid pro quo for making me miss the first day of classes?

Slavery? Straw Man, much? We're talking about a very small amount of income redistribution at the very worst here.

So you force me to work just a little bit for someone else. Slavery is slavery. Is a small amount of slavery OK?

So you force me to work just a little bit for someone else. Slavery is slavery. Is a small amount of slavery OK?

So what exactly are you advocating? The elimination of all government and interdependent society? Because under your definition of slavery, that's what you're talking about. No thanks. I like stable society, thank you very much. Anarchy is not for me.

So what exactly are you advocating? The elimination of all government and interdependent society? Because under your definition of slavery, that's what you're talking about. No thanks. I like stable society, thank you very much. Anarchy is not for me.

Nope. As I said in the OP, this wa a reaction to a post implying that certain things should be free. Recognising that there's an element of enslavement in even the smallest redistribution is just keeping it honest.

(Although being liberally lubreicated tends to bring out the less reasoning side, so we'll see how much soberer me agrees in the local AM. ;))

No. If basics are free, they will be abused and wasted.

Every single time that there has been a seemingly unlimited supply of anything, it has been utterly raped and devastated by people. I mean, just look at the US; we used to have most of the country covered by forests, but since land was unlimited and almost free, it was all consumed and destroyed within a single century.

Every single time that there has been a seemingly unlimited supply of anything, it has been utterly raped and devastated by people.

yeah, like libraries and the internet!

Agreed, based on common sense. I mean, obviously the lunch cost someone something.

yeah, like libraries and the internet!

Libraries and the internet aren't free by any stretch of the imagination.

Libraries and the internet aren't free by any stretch of the imagination.

but they do offer effectively unlimited supply

but they do offer effectively unlimited supply

Technically, that's correct. Information is effectively the one thing that in and of itself can be considered unlimited.

So, yes, there is one free lunch: Ideas and information.

If basics are free, they will be abused and wasted.

So what? Many of them are hardly scarce.

And it's easy enough to allow people to use them without any monetary expenditure while at the same time limiting their use through other methods.

Technically, that's correct. Information is effectively the one thing that in and of itself can be considered unlimited.

So, yes, there is one free lunch: Ideas and information.
It's still not free. Someone had to invest time and energy into discovering that information and applying. Publishers had to buy paper and ink to put it into books and magazines and all the other media. Companies have to lay down fiber-optics and telephone wires.


We're still charged for using the Internet and for reading. It's not a free lunch.

So what? Many of them are hardly scarce.

They will become scarce if people keep abusing and wasting them. That's exactly what happened in the US with our land and forest resources during the 19th century. Not to mention the buffalo.

And it's easy enough to allow people to use them without any monetary expenditure while at the same time limiting their use through other methods.

Well, yes, but that would still not technically be "free". There would still be limits to use.

So what? Many of them are hardly scarce.

And it's easy enough to allow people to use them without any monetary expenditure while at the same time limiting their use through other methods.
Depends. Do you mean food and water are the basics? Is going to the hospital a basic right? Is permanent shelter a basic right?

It's still not free. Someone had to invest time and energy into discovering that information and applying. Publishers had to buy paper and ink to put it into books and magazines and all the other media. Companies have to lay down fiber-optics and telephone wires.

We're still charged for using the Internet and for reading. It's not a free lunch.

What I mean is that the information itself is free; I can generate an idea with next to no resources. Obviously, it requires resources to build and maintain the systems for distributing and storing ideas, but the ideas themselves are generated free of cost.

It's at that junction between the noosphere and the physical world that the costs associated with ideas comes in to play.

They will become scarce if people keep abusing and wasting them.

It depends on the level of scarcity and the elasticity of demand.

Waste of food would certainly go up if the price for basic food necessities was reduced to zero, but it would not go up astronomically; what point would there be to eating fifty loaves a day?

Well, yes, but that would still not technically be "free". There would still be limits to use.

Some limits need not even be legal; plenty of societies have had social taboos against waste. Indeed, ours is developing one.

What I mean is that the information itself is free; I can generate an idea with next to no resources. Obviously, it requires resources to build and maintain the systems for distributing and storing ideas, but the ideas themselves are generated free of cost.

It's at that junction between the noosphere and the physical world that the costs associated with ideas comes in to play.
The ideas have a huge cost. Our brains require so much energy that we can't devout enough to become strong or fast like other animals. We have to eat more food than most other animals our size to maintain the ability to create ideas. We pay for intelligence by losing nearly every other advantage a creature could have.

It depends on the level of scarcity and the elasticity of demand.

Waste of food would certainly go up if the price for basic food necessities was reduced to zero, but it would not go up astronomically; what point would there be to eating fifty loaves a day?

Yes, it would hinge on the elasticity of demand. However, you would have to consider the fact that farmers would have less incentive to grow food if they could produce something else for more money. That would put pressure on the market and lead to shortages.

You'd also have to consider that farmers would be competing with other groups for the same resources.

Some limits need not even be legal; plenty of societies have had social taboos against waste. Indeed, ours is developing one.

That's true.

Yes, it would hinge on the elasticity of demand. However, you would have to consider the fact that farmers would have less incentive to grow food if they could produce something else for more money. That would put pressure on the market and lead to shortages.

I'm not suggesting price-controlling agricultural products to zero; that would be stupid.

More likely, the government would simply be the major buyer, and sell/give it away to the population.

The ideas have a huge cost. Our brains require so much energy that we can't devout enough to become strong or fast like other animals. We have to eat more food than most other animals our size to maintain the ability to create ideas. We pay for intelligence by losing nearly every other advantage a creature could have.

Yes, but the advantages of intelligence end up being many, many times superior to physical strength or instinct. So, in reality, our return on investment when it comes to intelligence is massively large, possibly even to the point where the cost is negligible.

I'm not suggesting price-controlling agricultural products to zero; that would be stupid.

More likely, the government would simply be the major buyer, and sell/give it away to the population.

This could work, if the government paid market price or higher for the products. Of course, there would still be the inefficiencies of government distribution to deal with.

However, that idea is rather similar to what the US government does now; the only difference is that the government does not directly buy the produce but instead pays farmers a set price for their product that is higher than market equilibrium.

Yes, but the advantages of intelligence end up being many, many times superior to physical strength or instinct. So, in reality, our return on investment when it comes to intelligence is massively large, possibly even to the point where the cost is negligible.
The fact remains that it isn't free, just a good investment.

The fact remains that it isn't free, just a good investment.

True.

I guess if we really wanted to get mathematical, the value of the average cost curve of idea generation approaches zero as the total number of ideas approaches infinity. So, each additional idea reduces the initial cost further and further.

True.

I guess if we really wanted to get mathematical, the value of the average cost curve of idea generation approaches zero as the total number of ideas approaches infinity. So, each additional idea reduces the initial cost further and further.
Too bad we can never reach infinity.

Ah well, let's just be glad we evolved this way.

Too bad we can never reach infinity.

Technically not, although our rate of technological change can continuously accelerate to massively high levels.

Ah well, let's just be glad we evolved this way.

If we didn't, we wouldn't be on here...

Technically not, although our rate of technological change can continuously accelerate to massively high levels.



If we didn't, we wouldn't be on here...
Which is why we should be happy.

Which is why we should be happy.

No complaints from me.:p

In a universe of finite resources, however abundant, there's always going to be some trade-off. Even if it's only time.

A post in a current thread suggested that certain basics should be free.

My first though was TANSTAAFL. To avoid a hijack, I'll post my qustion here:

TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

Agree or not.

Please defend your position.

No certain basics are free, someone else is just picking up the tab.

The most obvious reason would be the cost of labor for providing whatever basic this person wants to provide.

There is a such thing but it would probably make you vomit.

.
So, yes, there is one free lunch: Ideas and information.

that's two then.

that's two then.

Oh, yeah, actually it is. My bad.

Oh, yeah, actually it is. My bad.

:p

Disagree.

Why? Because my school offers free lunches to some students.. they also offer free breakfast for all students.

*nods*

but they do offer effectively unlimited supply

Do we need to point out how abused they are? ;)

It's still not free. Someone had to invest time and energy into discovering that information and applying. Publishers had to buy paper and ink to put it into books and magazines and all the other media. Companies have to lay down fiber-optics and telephone wires.


We're still charged for using the Internet and for reading. It's not a free lunch.

The ideas have a huge cost. Our brains require so much energy that we can't devout enough to become strong or fast like other animals. We have to eat more food than most other animals our size to maintain the ability to create ideas. We pay for intelligence by losing nearly every other advantage a creature could have.

Bingo.

No certain basics are free, someone else is just picking up the tab.

The most obvious reason would be the cost of labor for providing whatever basic this person wants to provide.

If someone's picking up the tab, it isn't free.

that's two then.

It's two, but as was pointed out, neither are free.

Disagree.

Why? Because my school offers free lunches to some students.. they also offer free breakfast for all students.

*nods*

So *NOBODY* pays the price? Not the school district? Not even the tax payer?

Well at least I hope you're as honest with yorself about the later poart as you are with the first, as obliging others to pay for free lunches equals slavery....

No, it equals taxes.

Next time, try to tone down the ludicrusness, k?

So *NOBODY* pays the price? Not the school district? Not even the tax payer?

God damnit! I guess the even the person who gets the free lunch has to pay, because after all, their parents pay the taxes..

You suck. :(

So you force me to work just a little bit for someone else. Slavery is slavery. Is a small amount of slavery OK?

The last time I checked, you aren't forced to work, at all. You chose to. You chose to keep your job, you chose to stay in the country, nobody is going to stop you if you leave your job, nobody is going to stop you if you leave the country. You won't be arrested, you won't be detained, you won't be forced to return to work.

So stop the "taxes are slavery" nonsense, it's pure bullshit.

God damnit! I guess the even the person who gets the free lunch has to pay, because after all, their parents pay the taxes..

You suck. :(

I'm afraid so. According to the law of the conservation of energy, all energy must come from somewhere. You cannot get additional energy without causing an equal displacement of energy somewhere else. And, according to the relationship between energy and matter, energy IS matter, hence the principle of the conservation of matter. And, obviously, lunch is matter, so from these principles we can derive the law of conservation of lunch.

I'm afraid so. According to the law of the conservation of energy, all energy must come from somewhere. You cannot get additional energy without causing an equal displacement of energy somewhere else. And, according to the relationship between energy and matter, energy IS matter, hence the principle of the conservation of matter. And, obviously, lunch is matter, so from these principles we can derive the law of conservation of lunch.

and as matter is converted into energy, lunch is converted into....erm...perhaps I shouldn't continue that thought.

Especially since while matter is converted into energy, energy can likewise be converted back to mass. Applying this principle to the law of conservation of lunch creates a very unsettling proposition.