Objective vetting of political topics

[NightFox]

It is shocking how some of these lefties don't even conceive what objective vetting is. They are posting away in a thread that they do not understand. They don't even know enough to feel ashamed of their ignorance.

Ignorance is quite an obstacle to overcome if one doesn't ever experience any kind of objective reality. Certainly one cannot vet what one observes or hears in any kind of meaningful way if one cannot relate to any kind of objective reality. It's a fundamental fault.

And that's not even considering the fact that so many in the electorate who pass the time by cheerleading for both theoretical sides of the party of one aren't particularly interested in objective reality. Much less vetting it. Everyone loves the circus. The circus is fun. Until it's not. You know?

As I'd mentioned, people tend to just go with the narrative. With whatever they're told is reality. Which, again, is almost always irrelevant to actual reality. But it is convenient. Thinking is hard. Apparently.

Anyway. I have to hit the road. Have to be down in DC in a few hours.

Good topic for discusson, though. If it can be had. Looks like the clown car showed up. And they're piling out. Heh heh.

Good insights Natural Citizen , thought provoking and nothing I can take exception to there. Do you find it ironic that the advent of the Internet, which *could* have been the greatest platform for free expression and the exchange of new ideas and new perspectives is in many ways having the opposite results. In other words, I see it evolving to principally a vehicle for spreading propaganda, feeding confirmation bias and building echo chambers, do you see it that way as well?

I look forward to reading NC's reply to your post, but I like this question about what the internet has become. The internet is an incredibly powerful tool that covers every corner of the globe. I have noticed that wherever I see power, I also see corruption.

Why the Worst Get on Top - FEE

There are strong reasons for believing that what to us appear the worst features of the existing totalitarian systems are not accidental byproducts, but phenomena which totalitarianism is certain sooner or later to produce.

fee.org

Good article Oddball , thanks for sharing! Are you a fan of Hayek? If so , have you read the works of his Co-Austrian School economist Von Mises? Both are among my favorites.

The Road to Serfdom was one of the first libertarian treatises I read....Found it tremendously insightful and accurate...Even back in the mid-90s, the people Hayek described could be torn straight from the newspapers.

Shortly afterward, I read a lot of Hayek's and von Mises' economic writings....Though I found Human Action to be the nonfiction version of Atlas Shrugged....Far too needlessly wordy and into the weeds.....The one thing that has always stuck with me learned from the Austrian school, is that economics is a far easier to understand science than the "economists" make it out to be.

Yes! The Road To Serfdom was one of the works that opened my eyes to a completely new perspective when I was young and a set me on the path to libertarianism, Human Action was another, I found both works enlightening an infectious, but you called it, Von Mises was a wordy and overly descriptive fellow at times.

Atlas Shrugged offered a lot of insights as well, however I will have to say that Rands writing style made it a slough to get to her points at times, still very good though.

.. and then came Rothbard, don’t even get me started.

The one EXCELLENT book that I think reinforces your point that “economics is a far easier to understand science than economists make it out to be” would IMHO be :

Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt, makes the science very clear and easy to understand, of course he wasn’t an economist, he was a journalist.

Good post oddball, makes me want to run out and read Hayek again.

 

[Oddball]

It is shocking how some of these lefties don't even conceive what objective vetting is. They are posting away in a thread that they do not understand. They don't even know enough to feel ashamed of their ignorance.

Ignorance is quite an obstacle to overcome if one doesn't ever experience any kind of objective reality. Certainly one cannot vet what one observes or hears in any kind of meaningful way if one cannot relate to any kind of objective reality. It's a fundamental fault.

And that's not even considering the fact that so many in the electorate who pass the time by cheerleading for both theoretical sides of the party of one aren't particularly interested in objective reality. Much less vetting it. Everyone loves the circus. The circus is fun. Until it's not. You know?

As I'd mentioned, people tend to just go with the narrative. With whatever they're told is reality. Which, again, is almost always irrelevant to actual reality. But it is convenient. Thinking is hard. Apparently.

Anyway. I have to hit the road. Have to be down in DC in a few hours.

Good topic for discusson, though. If it can be had. Looks like the clown car showed up. And they're piling out. Heh heh.

Good insights Natural Citizen , thought provoking and nothing I can take exception to there. Do you find it ironic that the advent of the Internet, which *could* have been the greatest platform for free expression and the exchange of new ideas and new perspectives is in many ways having the opposite results. In other words, I see it evolving to principally a vehicle for spreading propaganda, feeding confirmation bias and building echo chambers, do you see it that way as well?

I look forward to reading NC's reply to your post, but I like this question about what the internet has become. The internet is an incredibly powerful tool that covers every corner of the globe. I have noticed that wherever I see power, I also see corruption.

Why the Worst Get on Top - FEE

There are strong reasons for believing that what to us appear the worst features of the existing totalitarian systems are not accidental byproducts, but phenomena which totalitarianism is certain sooner or later to produce.

fee.org

That article made some excellent points that plot a plausible reason that our country is why it is. I liked the point about how the majority end up having lower standards when the range of education becomes broader.

The general thrust of that chapter is that -generally speaking- the greater power that you allow to be concentrated in one place, the people attracted to the power will be of a progressively lower moral character, as they are the ones who seek that power as an end unto itself.

 

[Oddball]

It is shocking how some of these lefties don't even conceive what objective vetting is. They are posting away in a thread that they do not understand. They don't even know enough to feel ashamed of their ignorance.

Ignorance is quite an obstacle to overcome if one doesn't ever experience any kind of objective reality. Certainly one cannot vet what one observes or hears in any kind of meaningful way if one cannot relate to any kind of objective reality. It's a fundamental fault.

And that's not even considering the fact that so many in the electorate who pass the time by cheerleading for both theoretical sides of the party of one aren't particularly interested in objective reality. Much less vetting it. Everyone loves the circus. The circus is fun. Until it's not. You know?

As I'd mentioned, people tend to just go with the narrative. With whatever they're told is reality. Which, again, is almost always irrelevant to actual reality. But it is convenient. Thinking is hard. Apparently.

Anyway. I have to hit the road. Have to be down in DC in a few hours.

Good topic for discusson, though. If it can be had. Looks like the clown car showed up. And they're piling out. Heh heh.

Good insights Natural Citizen , thought provoking and nothing I can take exception to there. Do you find it ironic that the advent of the Internet, which *could* have been the greatest platform for free expression and the exchange of new ideas and new perspectives is in many ways having the opposite results. In other words, I see it evolving to principally a vehicle for spreading propaganda, feeding confirmation bias and building echo chambers, do you see it that way as well?

I look forward to reading NC's reply to your post, but I like this question about what the internet has become. The internet is an incredibly powerful tool that covers every corner of the globe. I have noticed that wherever I see power, I also see corruption.

Why the Worst Get on Top - FEE

There are strong reasons for believing that what to us appear the worst features of the existing totalitarian systems are not accidental byproducts, but phenomena which totalitarianism is certain sooner or later to produce.

fee.org

Good article Oddball , thanks for sharing! Are you a fan of Hayek? If so , have you read the works of his Co-Austrian School economist Von Mises? Both are among my favorites.

The Road to Serfdom was one of the first libertarian treatises I read....Found it tremendously insightful and accurate...Even back in the mid-90s, the people Hayek described could be torn straight from the newspapers.

Shortly afterward, I read a lot of Hayek's and von Mises' economic writings....Though I found Human Action to be the nonfiction version of Atlas Shrugged....Far too needlessly wordy and into the weeds.....The one thing that has always stuck with me learned from the Austrian school, is that economics is a far easier to understand science than the "economists" make it out to be.

Yes! The Road To Serfdom was one of the works that opened my eyes to a completely new perspective when I was young and a set me on the path to libertarianism, Human Action was another, I found both works enlightening an infectious, but you called it, Von Mises was a wordy and overly descriptive fellow at times.

Atlas Shrugged offered a lot of insights as well, however I will have to say that Rands writing style made it a slough to get to her points at times, still very good though.

.. and then came Rothbard, don’t even get me started.

The one EXCELLENT book that I think reinforces your point that “economics is a far easier to understand science than economists make it out to be” would IMHO be :

Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt, makes the science very clear and easy to understand, of course he wasn’t an economist, he was a journalist.

Good post oddball, makes me want to run out and read Hayek again.

Yup....I also highly recommend Anarchy, Utopia, and State, by the grossly underrated -IMO- philosopher Robert Nozick.

Anarchy, State And Utopia : Robert Nozick : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

In this brilliant and widely acclaimed book, winner of the 1975 National Book Award, Robert Nozick challenges the most commonly held political and social...

archive.org

 

[NightFox]

It is shocking how some of these lefties don't even conceive what objective vetting is. They are posting away in a thread that they do not understand. They don't even know enough to feel ashamed of their ignorance.

Ignorance is quite an obstacle to overcome if one doesn't ever experience any kind of objective reality. Certainly one cannot vet what one observes or hears in any kind of meaningful way if one cannot relate to any kind of objective reality. It's a fundamental fault.

And that's not even considering the fact that so many in the electorate who pass the time by cheerleading for both theoretical sides of the party of one aren't particularly interested in objective reality. Much less vetting it. Everyone loves the circus. The circus is fun. Until it's not. You know?

As I'd mentioned, people tend to just go with the narrative. With whatever they're told is reality. Which, again, is almost always irrelevant to actual reality. But it is convenient. Thinking is hard. Apparently.

Anyway. I have to hit the road. Have to be down in DC in a few hours.

Good topic for discusson, though. If it can be had. Looks like the clown car showed up. And they're piling out. Heh heh.

Good insights Natural Citizen , thought provoking and nothing I can take exception to there. Do you find it ironic that the advent of the Internet, which *could* have been the greatest platform for free expression and the exchange of new ideas and new perspectives is in many ways having the opposite results. In other words, I see it evolving to principally a vehicle for spreading propaganda, feeding confirmation bias and building echo chambers, do you see it that way as well?

I look forward to reading NC's reply to your post, but I like this question about what the internet has become. The internet is an incredibly powerful tool that covers every corner of the globe. I have noticed that wherever I see power, I also see corruption.

Why the Worst Get on Top - FEE

There are strong reasons for believing that what to us appear the worst features of the existing totalitarian systems are not accidental byproducts, but phenomena which totalitarianism is certain sooner or later to produce.

fee.org

Good article Oddball , thanks for sharing! Are you a fan of Hayek? If so , have you read the works of his Co-Austrian School economist Von Mises? Both are among my favorites.

The Road to Serfdom was one of the first libertarian treatises I read....Found it tremendously insightful and accurate...Even back in the mid-90s, the people Hayek described could be torn straight from the newspapers.

Shortly afterward, I read a lot of Hayek's and von Mises' economic writings....Though I found Human Action to be the nonfiction version of Atlas Shrugged....Far too needlessly wordy and into the weeds.....The one thing that has always stuck with me learned from the Austrian school, is that economics is a far easier to understand science than the "economists" make it out to be.

Yes! The Road To Serfdom was one of the works that opened my eyes to a completely new perspective when I was young and a set me on the path to libertarianism, Human Action was another, I found both works enlightening an infectious, but you called it, Von Mises was a wordy and overly descriptive fellow at times.

Atlas Shrugged offered a lot of insights as well, however I will have to say that Rands writing style made it a slough to get to her points at times, still very good though.

.. and then came Rothbard, don’t even get me started.

The one EXCELLENT book that I think reinforces your point that “economics is a far easier to understand science than economists make it out to be” would IMHO be :

Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt, makes the science very clear and easy to understand, of course he wasn’t an economist, he was a journalist.

Good post oddball, makes me want to run out and read Hayek again.

Yup....I also highly recommend Anarchy, Utopia, and State, by the grossly underrated -IMO- philosopher Robert Nozick.

Anarchy, State And Utopia : Robert Nozick : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

In this brilliant and widely acclaimed book, winner of the 1975 National Book Award, Robert Nozick challenges the most commonly held political and social...

archive.org

Cool, thanks for the tip, I’ll look it over and let you know what I think when I’m finished.

 

[ClaireH]

It is shocking how some of these lefties don't even conceive what objective vetting is. They are posting away in a thread that they do not understand. They don't even know enough to feel ashamed of their ignorance.

Ignorance is quite an obstacle to overcome if one doesn't ever experience any kind of objective reality. Certainly one cannot vet what one observes or hears in any kind of meaningful way if one cannot relate to any kind of objective reality. It's a fundamental fault.

And that's not even considering the fact that so many in the electorate who pass the time by cheerleading for both theoretical sides of the party of one aren't particularly interested in objective reality. Much less vetting it. Everyone loves the circus. The circus is fun. Until it's not. You know?

As I'd mentioned, people tend to just go with the narrative. With whatever they're told is reality. Which, again, is almost always irrelevant to actual reality. But it is convenient. Thinking is hard. Apparently.

Anyway. I have to hit the road. Have to be down in DC in a few hours.

Good topic for discusson, though. If it can be had. Looks like the clown car showed up. And they're piling out. Heh heh.

Good insights Natural Citizen , thought provoking and nothing I can take exception to there. Do you find it ironic that the advent of the Internet, which *could* have been the greatest platform for free expression and the exchange of new ideas and new perspectives is in many ways having the opposite results. In other words, I see it evolving to principally a vehicle for spreading propaganda, feeding confirmation bias and building echo chambers, do you see it that way as well?

I look forward to reading NC's reply to your post, but I like this question about what the internet has become. The internet is an incredibly powerful tool that covers every corner of the globe. I have noticed that wherever I see power, I also see corruption.

Why the Worst Get on Top - FEE

There are strong reasons for believing that what to us appear the worst features of the existing totalitarian systems are not accidental byproducts, but phenomena which totalitarianism is certain sooner or later to produce.

fee.org

Such a powerful article OB! Just reading it as boosted my energy, for whatever reason, and found the following observations to be a true eye-opener in many ways.
1. The connection between bigotry and sentiments of anti-capitalism (I can imagine more than one pro-socialist ruffling here, but allow me to provide evidence, just ask) and how using a specific group of people to hate, by promoting them to be "others" bonds people with primal fears and hate about that specific group. Readers of course know this last part, but worth a mention since it describes the extreme levels of hatred acting out daily in the US.

Hayek wrote: "The interaction between morals and institutions may well have the effect that the ethics produced by collectivism will be altogether different from the moral ideals that lead to the demand for collectivism". The old adage about something looking good on paper or in theory fails when attempted in the real world.

How could a collective society fail when a charismatic leader, appearing to be smart, mostly just, and has a plan to boost those who are currently failing by choice? The odds have it that the next guy will be different (as better stated by Hayek). The next leader could be very different. All humans are flawed, leaders are flawed, countries are flawed. An effective society tackles one negative at a time, not some grand plan to rule over the masses. There is never a case when it's a good idea to have humans at the helm of determining the collective worth of people to provide the ends.

Taking it a step farther, when good people want all people to have an equal distribution of goods, how will the lazy people who do just enough to get by in life fare? How will those who word hard as a rule fare when they see many others moving slower by choice? How can a collective society not reward those who take advantage of this particular system under these conditions?

Whoops...accidentally hit the post button...maybe it's a sign as I am long-winded..alas for the reader who prefers preciseness without excess! Yet, I had so many other things to mention! My #2 and #3 points were pretty good ones darn it! lol

 

[bripat9643]

I can't wait to read what lefties think objective vetting is. Do you guys just switch from msdnc over to abc?

AP and NPR. They have a track record of high journalistic standards. Of course you guys will point out the times they failed. Why do you know they failed? They retracted or corrected a story and admitted they failed. You won't see the right wing kook sites ever admit their nonsense stories were completely false. Like the story about the shreds ballots in Maricopa County....

Moreover, when I see Washington times or Gateway pundit or any of the other kook sites like breitbart, downhill, restate, etc...I just assume the story is false.

Anyone who contacts them with a "bombshell" can contact legitimate news sources with the same story.

Then, of course, the conspiracy theories start---"they are suppressing the story".... Which is silly.

Really? AP is a know Hamas propaganda organ, end NPR is just an extension of the DNC.

Clearly you don't listen to NPR....

Clearly I do.

 

[NightFox]

It is shocking how some of these lefties don't even conceive what objective vetting is. They are posting away in a thread that they do not understand. They don't even know enough to feel ashamed of their ignorance.

Ignorance is quite an obstacle to overcome if one doesn't ever experience any kind of objective reality. Certainly one cannot vet what one observes or hears in any kind of meaningful way if one cannot relate to any kind of objective reality. It's a fundamental fault.

And that's not even considering the fact that so many in the electorate who pass the time by cheerleading for both theoretical sides of the party of one aren't particularly interested in objective reality. Much less vetting it. Everyone loves the circus. The circus is fun. Until it's not. You know?

As I'd mentioned, people tend to just go with the narrative. With whatever they're told is reality. Which, again, is almost always irrelevant to actual reality. But it is convenient. Thinking is hard. Apparently.

Anyway. I have to hit the road. Have to be down in DC in a few hours.

Good topic for discusson, though. If it can be had. Looks like the clown car showed up. And they're piling out. Heh heh.

Good insights Natural Citizen , thought provoking and nothing I can take exception to there. Do you find it ironic that the advent of the Internet, which *could* have been the greatest platform for free expression and the exchange of new ideas and new perspectives is in many ways having the opposite results. In other words, I see it evolving to principally a vehicle for spreading propaganda, feeding confirmation bias and building echo chambers, do you see it that way as well?

I look forward to reading NC's reply to your post, but I like this question about what the internet has become. The internet is an incredibly powerful tool that covers every corner of the globe. I have noticed that wherever I see power, I also see corruption.

Why the Worst Get on Top - FEE

There are strong reasons for believing that what to us appear the worst features of the existing totalitarian systems are not accidental byproducts, but phenomena which totalitarianism is certain sooner or later to produce.

fee.org

Taking it a step farther, when good people want all people to have an equal distribution of goods, how will the lazy people who do just enough to get by in life fare? How will those who word hard as a rule fare when they see many others moving slower by choice? How can a collective society not reward those who take advantage of this particular system under these conditions?

Consider another way to look at your point.

What is the primary mechanism we use for the distribution of goods? Prices, right? What are prices? They're information that describes the relationship between the wants and needs of economic actors (demand) to scarcity (supply), translating into action (by economic actors) that tends to result in an equilibrium between demand and supply. So what is the likely outcome when authority (could be government, could be a cartel, whatever) acts to directly manipulate prices? Wouldn't it be to disconnect that relationship resulting in either artificially induced scarcity or artificially induced oversupply (aka "waste")?

Followed to it's logical conclusion the line demonstrates why central planning (collectivism) inevitably fails since no one person (or a small group of people) no matter how smart can possibly predict the wants & needs of millions of individual actors with any degree of certainty, far too many variables.

Exhibit A: Soviet Collectivism, couldn't feed the people but could insure that were 22 wrist watches for every one of them.

 

[ClaireH]

It is shocking how some of these lefties don't even conceive what objective vetting is. They are posting away in a thread that they do not understand. They don't even know enough to feel ashamed of their ignorance.

Ignorance is quite an obstacle to overcome if one doesn't ever experience any kind of objective reality. Certainly one cannot vet what one observes or hears in any kind of meaningful way if one cannot relate to any kind of objective reality. It's a fundamental fault.

And that's not even considering the fact that so many in the electorate who pass the time by cheerleading for both theoretical sides of the party of one aren't particularly interested in objective reality. Much less vetting it. Everyone loves the circus. The circus is fun. Until it's not. You know?

As I'd mentioned, people tend to just go with the narrative. With whatever they're told is reality. Which, again, is almost always irrelevant to actual reality. But it is convenient. Thinking is hard. Apparently.

Anyway. I have to hit the road. Have to be down in DC in a few hours.

Good topic for discusson, though. If it can be had. Looks like the clown car showed up. And they're piling out. Heh heh.

Good insights Natural Citizen , thought provoking and nothing I can take exception to there. Do you find it ironic that the advent of the Internet, which *could* have been the greatest platform for free expression and the exchange of new ideas and new perspectives is in many ways having the opposite results. In other words, I see it evolving to principally a vehicle for spreading propaganda, feeding confirmation bias and building echo chambers, do you see it that way as well?

I look forward to reading NC's reply to your post, but I like this question about what the internet has become. The internet is an incredibly powerful tool that covers every corner of the globe. I have noticed that wherever I see power, I also see corruption.

Why the Worst Get on Top - FEE

There are strong reasons for believing that what to us appear the worst features of the existing totalitarian systems are not accidental byproducts, but phenomena which totalitarianism is certain sooner or later to produce.

fee.org

Taking it a step farther, when good people want all people to have an equal distribution of goods, how will the lazy people who do just enough to get by in life fare? How will those who word hard as a rule fare when they see many others moving slower by choice? How can a collective society not reward those who take advantage of this particular system under these conditions?

Consider another way to look at your point.

What is the primary mechanism we use for the distribution of goods? Prices, right? What are prices? They're information that describes the relationship between the wants and needs of economic actors (demand) to scarcity (supply), translating into action (by economic actors) that tends to result in an equilibrium between demand and supply. So what is the likely outcome when authority (could be government, could be a cartel, whatever) acts to directly manipulate prices? Wouldn't it be to disconnect that relationship resulting in either artificially induced scarcity or artificially induced oversupply (aka "waste")?

Followed to it's logical conclusion the line demonstrates why central planning (collectivism) inevitably fails since no one person (or a small group of people) no matter how smart can possibly predict the wants & needs of millions of individual actors with any degree of certainty, far too many variables.

Exhibit A: Soviet Collectivism, couldn't feed the people but could insure that were 22 wrist watches for every one of them.

NF- excellent points and you've helped bring it full circle for me.

Building on your statements about prices being the primary mechanism for distribution of goods, and how prices are intentionally manipulated to continue high demand whenever possible, are people also determined to have a "price" under collectivism? Yet, isn't that something many pro-socialists say about capitalism...that people are worth more than their occupational label or what skill set they can provide to society and all should be the same? This is some mind-altering stuff now as it appears it's calling the kettle black!

Even though many socialists use nice phrases such as "for the good of all", how can this be true when it involves taking any measure to achieve the end result, even when that includes using unscrupulous measures to get there? How does the "good for the whole" concept measure up when it intentionally uses/accepts illicit measures to achieve results? This is something so unsettling and wrong on so many levels, but continues to play out across the board in politics.

Living under a social system where individual efforts are discarded as something "bad" and the only option is to be one of the collective, it would follow that those who care nothing about striving to do anything will be happy because they can feel better about doing nothing. Humans excel under fair competition, freedom of choice, freedom of expression. I would be embarrassed to support any political position that denies these things.

 

[Oddball]

It is shocking how some of these lefties don't even conceive what objective vetting is. They are posting away in a thread that they do not understand. They don't even know enough to feel ashamed of their ignorance.

Ignorance is quite an obstacle to overcome if one doesn't ever experience any kind of objective reality. Certainly one cannot vet what one observes or hears in any kind of meaningful way if one cannot relate to any kind of objective reality. It's a fundamental fault.

And that's not even considering the fact that so many in the electorate who pass the time by cheerleading for both theoretical sides of the party of one aren't particularly interested in objective reality. Much less vetting it. Everyone loves the circus. The circus is fun. Until it's not. You know?

As I'd mentioned, people tend to just go with the narrative. With whatever they're told is reality. Which, again, is almost always irrelevant to actual reality. But it is convenient. Thinking is hard. Apparently.

Anyway. I have to hit the road. Have to be down in DC in a few hours.

Good topic for discusson, though. If it can be had. Looks like the clown car showed up. And they're piling out. Heh heh.

Good insights Natural Citizen , thought provoking and nothing I can take exception to there. Do you find it ironic that the advent of the Internet, which *could* have been the greatest platform for free expression and the exchange of new ideas and new perspectives is in many ways having the opposite results. In other words, I see it evolving to principally a vehicle for spreading propaganda, feeding confirmation bias and building echo chambers, do you see it that way as well?

I look forward to reading NC's reply to your post, but I like this question about what the internet has become. The internet is an incredibly powerful tool that covers every corner of the globe. I have noticed that wherever I see power, I also see corruption.

Why the Worst Get on Top - FEE

There are strong reasons for believing that what to us appear the worst features of the existing totalitarian systems are not accidental byproducts, but phenomena which totalitarianism is certain sooner or later to produce.

fee.org

Taking it a step farther, when good people want all people to have an equal distribution of goods, how will the lazy people who do just enough to get by in life fare? How will those who word hard as a rule fare when they see many others moving slower by choice? How can a collective society not reward those who take advantage of this particular system under these conditions?

Consider another way to look at your point.

What is the primary mechanism we use for the distribution of goods? Prices, right? What are prices? They're information that describes the relationship between the wants and needs of economic actors (demand) to scarcity (supply), translating into action (by economic actors) that tends to result in an equilibrium between demand and supply. So what is the likely outcome when authority (could be government, could be a cartel, whatever) acts to directly manipulate prices? Wouldn't it be to disconnect that relationship resulting in either artificially induced scarcity or artificially induced oversupply (aka "waste")?

Followed to it's logical conclusion the line demonstrates why central planning (collectivism) inevitably fails since no one person (or a small group of people) no matter how smart can possibly predict the wants & needs of millions of individual actors with any degree of certainty, far too many variables.

Exhibit A: Soviet Collectivism, couldn't feed the people but could insure that were 22 wrist watches for every one of them.

NF- excellent points and you've helped bring it full circle for me.

Building on your statements about prices being the primary mechanism for distribution of goods, and how prices are intentionally manipulated to continue high demand whenever possible, are people also determined to have a "price" under collectivism? Yet, isn't that something many pro-socialists say about capitalism...that people are worth more than their occupational label or what skill set they can provide to society and all should be the same? This is some mind-altering stuff now as it appears it's calling the kettle black!

Even though many socialists use nice phrases such as "for the good of all", how can this be true when it involves taking any measure to achieve the end result, even when that includes using unscrupulous measures to get there? How does the "good for the whole" concept measure up when it intentionally uses/accepts illicit measures to achieve results? This is something so unsettling and wrong on so many levels, but continues to play out across the board in politics.

Living under a social system where individual efforts are discarded as something "bad" and the only option is to be one of the collective, it would follow that those who care nothing about striving to do anything will be happy because they can feel better about doing nothing. Humans excel under fair competition, freedom of choice, freedom of expression. I would be embarrassed to support any political position that denies these things.

Even though many socialists use nice phrases such as "for the good of all", how can this be true when it involves taking any measure to achieve the end result, even when that includes using unscrupulous measures to get there? How does the "good for the whole" concept measure up when it intentionally uses/accepts illicit measures to achieve results? This is something so unsettling and wrong on so many levels, but continues to play out across the board in politics.

This brings us back to my post about moral relativists.

It's not looting if their intent is allegedly pure...Failure of their aggression is only evidence that more of what failed is called for....."The right people" weren't in charge of the aggression, otherwise it would have worked!

 

[candycorn]

I can't wait to read what lefties think objective vetting is. Do you guys just switch from msdnc over to abc?

AP and NPR. They have a track record of high journalistic standards. Of course you guys will point out the times they failed. Why do you know they failed? They retracted or corrected a story and admitted they failed. You won't see the right wing kook sites ever admit their nonsense stories were completely false. Like the story about the shreds ballots in Maricopa County....

Moreover, when I see Washington times or Gateway pundit or any of the other kook sites like breitbart, downhill, restate, etc...I just assume the story is false.

Anyone who contacts them with a "bombshell" can contact legitimate news sources with the same story.

Then, of course, the conspiracy theories start---"they are suppressing the story".... Which is silly.

Really? AP is a know Hamas propaganda organ, end NPR is just an extension of the DNC.

Clearly you don't listen to NPR....

Clearly I do.

Sure you do....were the FBI agents who visited your house listening to it too?

 

[Dadoalex]

You're right.
I'm not sorry you have a me problem.
Actually, I think it's pretty damned funny.
But
You just keep on keepin on with the incredibly stupid
and I'll be here to shake your tree.

.

It's okay you think it is funny and find some entertainment.
You sitting there playing in your shit doesn't bother me.

Damn ... We don't even need to worry about putting a new diaper on you until you get through.

.​

Let's see...
You call shaking your tree "playing in shit."
Not a very high opinion of yourself I'd say.
But
"when someone shows you who they are, believe them"
I believe you.