The Forward Party

[Votto]

The Forward Party​

Oh goody, another prog. nightmare.

Notice the word psychology they continue to use, "Progressives" and "Forward"

When it should be "Wacky doodle" and "Still wacky doodled"

 

[JWBooth]

The NY Post now has a story that GOPer has been and never was types (the kind recruited to the LP under the former GOP lite leadership) are going to be part of the make up of this outfit in addition to fifth tier Dems. This will give a place for the former looser brigades in the LP to feel at home.

 

[Oddball]

Except it's not a force of nature....I really don't know how to have a conversation with someone who insists in living in an alternate reality.

You don't know how to have a conversation with someone who understands economics...That much is obvious.

I'm trying to explain to you that barter of one good for another is possible without government but coinage absolutely requires some sort of government, you don't even understand that the market is a social construct, you think it's like the wind, so this might be beyond your simple understanding.

The Franklin Mint makes all sorts of coins....Does the gubmint run them?

Why don't you focus on trying to discern the difference between natural forces and social constructs.

The State is a social construct...The market happens and operates whether any gubmint wants it to or not...Ever heard of black markets?

 

[Oddball]

The NY Post now has a story that GOPer has been and never was types (the kind recruited to the LP under the former GOP lite leadership) are going to be part of the make up of this outfit in addition to fifth tier Dems. This will give a place for the former looser brigades in the LP to feel at home.

I'm sure we'll have milquetoast wanker hacks like John Huntsman and Russ Feingold crawling out of the woodwork any time now.

 

[Curried Goats]

I think we're talking past each other with regard to "rights". It's a common equivocation that plagues these arguments. When modern liberals discuss rights, they tend to mean, exclusively, "those rights protected by government", and see any discussion of a right that isn't already protected by government as meaningless. I don't. There are plenty of rights I'd like to see government do a better job of protecting - mostly by not violating them in the first place.

What "rights" are you talking about then if not legal rights?

Maybe? It just seems irrelevant. Why is it important, for you, to make that point, in this argument? What does it establish in your view? You seem to be arguing against the value of free markets, or maybe freedom in general, but I'm not sure how this applies.

I'm arguing that there is no such thing as a "free" market. You can't manufacture something (the market) and then pretend it's outcomes are natural. That's illogical on its face.

Take another manufactured thing. The game of basketball. It's rules are made up but known and you can play a game and have different outcomes (winners and loser) and say the game is fair, but the rules themselves make some people more valuable than others. The height of the basket for instance makes it a game where smaller people have inherently less value.

Not necessarily. Given the amount of corruption and economic power tied up in government, I'd concede that a lot of wealth concentration isn't actually a function of the market - and is instead acquired through political influence. But, to the extent that a market is free, it is an accurate assessment of the values of its participants. If consumers and investors decide to give the bulk of their money to one person, or a few, why is that inherently bad?

I don't think it's inherently bad, I just don't think it's inherently objective. The market doesnt accurately judge value, it exploits necessity. You can see it from its two extremes, monopoly and monopsony, where there is only one seller or buyer.

Money is just economic power - the power to utilize labor and resources. Society benefits when that power is assigned to those who will use it in ways we value. If that turns out to be a relatively few people, I don't see why it's necessarily a problem.

You don't see a problem with leaving large segments or humanity, powerless?

See above. The concept of "inalienable rights" is merely an observation about the nature of volition. Such rights are infinite.

Explain that. What is the nature of volition? What are inalienable rights and where do they come from?

 

[Curried Goats]

You don't know how to have a conversation with someone who understands economics...That much is obvious.

The Franklin Mint makes all sorts of coins....Does the gubmint run them?

The State is a social construct...The market happens and operates whether any gubmint wants it to or not...Ever heard of black markets?

When you figure out the market isn't a natural force.... get back to me.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I have the ability to breathe. Do you have to ability to stop me from breathing?

I have the ability to.

Fuck no. I also don't believe in Santa Claus.

You're a moron

 

[Curried Goats]

You're a moron

How about you try using your logic words to express evidence of natural or inalienable rights instead of getting your feelings hurt that I question their existence.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

How about you try using your logic words to express evidence of natural or inalienable rights instead of getting your feelings hurt that I question their existence.

You're a waste of time

 

[JWBooth]

You're a waste of time

Intentionally so.

 

[Curried Goats]

You're a waste of time

Or you simply can't.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You can minimize it - primarily by limiting government's power to control wealth in the first place.

Yep. That's why we need government.

That just seems a gratuitous slur. Logic and reason support sane property laws.

I think we're talking past each other with regard to "rights". It's a common equivocation that plagues these arguments. When modern liberals discuss rights, they tend to mean, exclusively, "those rights protected by government", and see any discussion of a right that isn't already protected by government as meaningless. I don't. There are plenty of rights I'd like to see government do a better job of protecting - mostly by not violating them in the first place.

Maybe? It just seems irrelevant. Why is it important, for you, to make that point, in this argument? What does it establish in your view? You seem to be arguing against the value of free markets, or maybe freedom in general, but I'm not sure how this applies.

Not necessarily. Given the amount of corruption and economic power tied up in government, I'd concede that a lot of wealth concentration isn't actually a function of the market - and is instead acquired through political influence. But, to the extent that a market is free, it is an accurate assessment of the values of its participants. If consumers and investors decide to give the bulk of their money to one person, or a few, why is that inherently bad?

Money is just economic power - the power to utilize labor and resources. Society benefits when that power is assigned to those who will use it in ways we value. If that turns out to be a relatively few people, I don't see why it's necessarily a problem.

See above. The concept of "inalienable rights" is merely an observation about the nature of volition. Such rights are infinite.

This was a very solid effort, dblack. Very sound reasoning.


I am afraid that an actual goat has a better chance of comprehending it than Goat Curry. Total lost cause. So, your effort was fruitless to that end, but maybe someone else, with a brain, will read it and be persuaded.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Or you simply can't.

It is you who can't. You're pretty stupid. Can't fix stupid.

Bye

 

[Curried Goats]

It is you who can't. You're pretty stupid. Can't fix stupid.

Bye

It's me who can't what? You're the one claiming something exists, it's up to you to prove that it does. It's okay to admit that you can't.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It's me who can't what? You're the one claiming something exists, it's up to you to prove that it does. It's okay to admit that you can't.

I decidedly cannot prove that your brain exists.

 

[Curried Goats]

I decidedly cannot prove that your brain exists.

Insults don't mask your inability.

 

[Oddball]

When you figure out the market isn't a natural force.... get back to me.

When you figure out that you know less than nothing about economics, get back to me.

 

[Oddball]

Insults don't mask your inability.

Insults are more than a illiterate sub-imbecile like you is worth.

 

[Curried Goats]

When you figure out that you know less than nothing about economics, get back to me.

This coming from the guy who thinks the market grew out of the Earth like a tree.

Insults are more than a illiterate sub-imbecile like you is worth.

And yet you still sling them, defensively, because you certainly can't reach for rationality.

 

[Oddball]

And yet you still sling them, defensively, because you certainly can't reach for rationality.

The first time you reach rationality will be the first time.