The Forward Party

[Curried Goats]

Deliberate aggression doesn't obviate the core concept.

WTF?

Thank you, Captain Obvious.


Never heard of Cicero, Thomas Aquinas, Hobbes, Locke?

As I suspected.....You've read one short book, and now consider yourself an expert on all facets of the ethos.

Using force to repel aggressors is a natural right.

Those people aren't here to argue their philosophies, if you want to take a stab at it by all means....

Using force to repel aggressors is something we're capable of as humans with varying degrees of skill and success. That is an observation of nature. When you say this natural ability to use force is your right, what does that actually mean?

 

[dblack]

Some people have more to trade than others because of actions by the State.

Well, we should put a stop to that. State policy will inevitably impact some more than others, but we should do our best to prevent the use of government as as tool to acquire wealth.

This market economy is merely a reinvention of a formerly colonial one. I understand you don't want to talk about freedom, but Freedom and Property are at the heart of the idea of the Free Market.

I love talking about freedom. I just don't like arm wrestling over definitions. In the context of free markets, it just means we can trade without government interference. The only time government should come into play is if and when there are disputes.

Absent of government or laws, why would one stranger concede "ownership" of say an apple tree to another stranger?

Well, first of all - to clarify - libertarians aren't anarchists. We're not suggesting that markets should operate without government or laws. But the concept of property is a natural extrapolation of humanity, starting with self-ownership. The fact that some people will respect a claim on property, and some won't, is why we have government and laws.

This is a really common argument. Liberals like to cite the primacy of government, claiming that property and rights (indeed, everything good in society!) wouldn't exist without the state. I've talked about my view that those rights actually predate government, but I wonder: why does it matter? What are you trying to establish and what does it imply? Are you saying that, because we need government, we have no business questioning it, or placing limits on its power?

At the heart this idea of property is that you have a right to claim resources to yourself. It's a colonial mentality.

It's a human mentality. It's utterly necessary for survival.

Where does this right come from?

The same "place" all rights come from.

Bastiat was clear, he thought it came from God. Why should I accept God as a sound reasoning any more than the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus or Buddha?

I've not read much Bastiat, but my understanding is that - for most authors who used the phrase "god-given rights" - it merely means innate. A condition of birth, based on our inherent capacity for volition. Citing "god-given", aka "inalienable", rights is not a religious claim.

I'm saying morality is subjective rather than objective.

Well, at least we agree on that much.

 

[Votto]

Those people aren't here to argue their philosophies, if you want to take a stab at it by all means....

Using force to repel aggressors is something we're capable of as humans with varying degrees of skill and success. That is an observation of nature. When you say this natural ability to use force is your right, what does that actually mean?

Force and manipulation is the bread and butter of collectivism.

The Left are masters at mob rule and forcing their opponents to lick their boots.

That is how they assemble world conquering armies, like the former Nazi and Soviet armies.

How then do you fight them without becoming like them, which is what happened to the US I think?

Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun Mao Zedong.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Those people aren't here to argue their philosophies, if you want to take a stab at it by all means....

Using force to repel aggressors is something we're capable of as humans with varying degrees of skill and success. That is an observation of nature. When you say this natural ability to use force is your right, what does that actually mean?

Maybe we are unclear on where you're confused.

Do you have a right to breathe?

Do you have a right to seek that which is necessary to sustain your life?

Do you believe you have the right to protect your self, and the resources procure to sustain your life?

Do you believe in the concept of unalienable rights?

 

[Votto]

Maybe we are unclear on where you're confused.

Do you have a right to breathe?

Do you have a right to seek that which is necessary to sustain your life?

Do you believe you have the right to protect your self, and the resources procure to sustain your life?

Do you believe in the concept of unalienable rights?

All they care about is power and not freedom, and which is why most world leaders seem to be sociopaths.

 

[Oddball]

I've not read much Bastiat, but my understanding is that - for most authors who used the phrase "god-given rights" - it merely means innate. A condition of birth, based on our inherent capacity for volition. Citing "god-given", aka "inalienable", rights is not a religious claim.

"The Law" is what he keeps referring back to....It covers the most bare building blocks of the philosophy, takes about an hour to read, and is easy to digest....It's obviously he only books/pamphlets (or one of the extremely few) he had read on the topic, as evidenced by the puerile and economically illiterate conclusions he draws.

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

 

[Curried Goats]

Well, we should put a stop to that. State policy will inevitably impact some more than others, but we should do our best to prevent the use of government as as tool to acquire wealth.

You can't prevent government from being a tool to aquire wealth when at its very nature it exists to protect wealth.

I love talking about freedom. I just don't like arm wrestling over definitions. In the context of free markets, it just means we can trade without government interference. The only time government should come into play is if and when there are disputes.

It came into play when it was established to protect property through force. That is one of the main purposes of governments existence.

Well, first of all - to clarify - libertarians aren't anarchists. We're not suggesting that markets should operate without government or laws.

Understood.

But the concept of property is a natural extrapolation of humanity, starting with self-ownership.

What does this mean exactly? Do you mean that if you climb up a tree and retrieve an apple then that apple is now your property? Because that's a philosophical point, not an objective observation. An objective observation would be that you climbed a tree and retrieved an apple and now it is in your possession. But if I take it from you then now it's in my possession. That's also an objective observation. The idea that the apple belongs to you and its wrong for me to take it from you is not objective, it's subjective.

The fact that some people will respect a claim on property, and some won't, is why we have government and laws.

In other words you use force to keep others away from your claims on natural resources. Same as everyone. None of this hubris is particular to libertarians, I'm just often amused by them because they often think their beliefs are based on logic and reason rather than desire.

This is a really common argument. Liberals like to cite the primacy of government, claiming that property and rights (indeed, everything good in society!) wouldn't exist without the state.

Not at all. Lots of good exists outside of government or in spite of government. I don't think government is inherently good or bad, I don't even think those concepts objectively exist, I think government is a tool. Whether the use of that tool is good or bad to you is dependent on your own subjective perspective.

I've talked about my view that those rights actually predate government, but I wonder: why does it matter?

It doesn't matter, I was just wondering if you had a rational argument for rights predating government. What about African slaves in early America? How did their rights predate the 13th Amendment? Do you mean in your heart you believed them to be free?

What are you trying to establish and what does it imply? Are you saying that, because we need government, we have no business questioning it, or placing limits on its power?

No, I'm establishing that the market relies on government and both the government and the market are not naturally occuring phenomenon, they are social constructs, and as such the outcomes of a "free" market aren't natural forces but in a fundamental way, are manufactured ones. That's a logical conclusion isn't it?

It's a human mentality. It's utterly necessary for survival.

Resources are a necessity for survival not legal rights to property. That is supposed to be a means by which to obtain survival. Legal property is the means, survival the ends. When the means are no longer able to provide the ends for people, what good is it? Property is finite, it has a limit. When the top 5% can own 99% of the Earth's resources than that isn't just a market force, that's a fundamental flaw in your system.

The same "place" all rights come from.

Which is where?

I've not read much Bastiat, but my understanding is that - for most authors who used the phrase "god-given rights" - it merely means innate. A condition of birth, based on our inherent capacity for volition. Citing "god-given", aka "inalienable", rights is not a religious claim.

What kind of claim is it? Why should I accept as a premise, something you insist exists but whose existence you can't rationally explain to me?

Well, at least we agree on that much.

I don't have an issue with disagreement.

 

[Curried Goats]

Force and manipulation is the bread and butter of collectivism.

So you don't believe in force? You're a pacifist are you?

 

[sartre play]

Maybe the dims and rethugs are incapable of running good candidates. More people are arriving at that fact.

This may be true, yet most will vote for one of the major party's. No one has come up with a person that both party's respect & believe will work for the betterment of our country as a whole. The requirements are just to vast.

 

[Curried Goats]

Maybe we are unclear on where you're confused.

Do you have a right to breathe?

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

Do you have a right to seek that which is necessary to sustain your life?

I have the ability to.

Do you believe you have the right to protect your self, and the resources procure to sustain your life?

Do you believe in the concept of unalienable rights?

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

 

[Oddball]

No, I'm establishing that the market relies on government and both the government and the market are not naturally occuring phenomenon, they are social constructs, and as such the outcomes of a "free" market aren't natural forces but in a fundamental way, a manufactured ones.

100% economic illiteracy..."The market" is a force of nature, like the weather....With the exception that "The Market" has subjective and sometimes highly irrational people driving it, instead of planetary motion, circulating air currents and so on....It takes no gubmint whatsoever for rme to trade my bag of apples for a few silver coins with my neighbor.

Resources are a necessity for survival not legal rights to property. That is supposed to be a means by which to obtain survival. Legal property is the means, survival the ends. When the means are no longer able to provide the ends for people, what good is it? Property is finite, it has a limit. When the top 5% can own 99% of the Earth's resources than that isn't just a market force, that's a fundamental flaw in your system.

No, that's a few seizing the machinations of lawmaking to their benefit.....A clear indication that The Stare is fart to big and has far too much power to choose winners and losers.....That's no fault of the free market.

 

[TNHarley]

The Forward Party doesnt stand a chance. They cant even survive their own threads

 

[Curried Goats]

100% economic illiteracy..."The market" is a force of nature, like the weather....With the exception that "The Market" has subjective and sometimes highly irrational people driving it, instead of planetary motion, circulating air currents and so on....

Soooo..... not like the weather at all.

It takes no gubmint whatsoever for rme to trade my bag of apples for a few silver coins with my neighbor.

You're confusing two different systems. A barter system for example, means you exchange apples for shoes. The introduction of coins is a monetary system. It requires a government to enforce the value of the coins. Otherwise you trade apples for coins and go to buy shoes and shoemaker tells you piss off, he only accepts trade in diamonds.

No, that's a few seizing the machinations of lawmaking to their benefit.....A clear indication that The Stare is fart to big and has far too much power to choose winners and losers.....That's no fault of the free market.

Explain to me how property even comes about naturally. Two men are walking in the woods one decides he owns all that he sees, now what? The other guy just agrees?

 

[Oddball]

Soooo..... not like the weather at all.

Similar in the fact that it's a force of nature that nobody can control.

You're confusing two different systems. A barter system for example, means you exchange apples for shoes. The introduction of coins is a monetary system. It requires a government to enforce the value of the coins. Otherwise you trade apples for coins and go to buy shoes and shoemaker tells you piss off, he only accepts trade in diamonds.

I'm confusing nothing....The free exchange of goods is the cornerstone of the market....Your economic illiteracy is rearing its pointy head again.

Explain to me how property even comes about naturally. Two men are walking in the woods one decides he owns all that he sees, now what? The other guy just agrees?

They could....They'd then have to deal with thousands of other people who might have something else to say on the matter.....WTF does this have to do with anything?

 

[JWBooth]

Right....For libertarians whith their heads screwed on straight (which excludes most LP members) that's in the context of an abolished welfare state.

Micaucs rule.

 

[dblack]

You can't prevent government from being a tool to aquire wealth when at its very nature it exists to protect wealth.

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

What does this mean exactly? Do you mean that if you climb up a tree and retrieve an apple then that apple is now your property? Because that's a philosophical point, not an objective observation. An objective observation would be that you climbed a tree and retrieved an apple and now it is in your possession. But if I take it from you then now it's in my possession. That's also an objective observation. The idea that the apple belongs to you and its wrong for me to take it from you is not objective, it's subjective.

Yep. That's why we need government.

In other words you use force to keep others away from your claims on natural resources. Same as everyone. None of this hubris is particular to libertarians, I'm just often amused by them because they often think their beliefs are based on logic and reason rather than desire.

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

It doesn't matter, I was just wondering if you had a rational argument for rights predating government. What about African slaves in early America? How did their rights predate the 13th Amendment? Do you mean in your heart you believed them to be free?

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.

No, I'm establishing that the market relies on government and both the government and the market are not naturally occuring phenomenon, they are social constructs, and as such the outcomes of a "free" market aren't natural forces but in a fundamental way, are manufactured ones. That's a logical conclusion isn't it?

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.

Property is finite, it has a limit. When the top 5% can own 99% of the Earth's resources than that isn't just a market force, that's a fundamental flaw in your system.

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.

Which is where?

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

 

[JWBooth]

The Forward Party​

Oh goody, another prog. nightmare.

 

[Curried Goats]

Similar in the fact that it's a focer of nature that nobody can control.

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.

I'm confusing nothing....The free exchage of goods is the cornerstone of the market....Your economic illiteracy is rearing its pointy head again.

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.

They cold....They'd then have to deal with thousands of other people who might have something else to say on the matter.....WTF does this have to do with anything?

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

 

[Votto]

So you don't believe in force? You're a pacifist are you?

I never said that.

What I do believe is that force is necessary to ward off aggressors. Don't have a problem with that at all.

 

[g5000]

Some people have more to trade than others because of actions by the State. This market economy is merely a reinvention of a formerly colonial one. I understand you don't want to talk about freedom, but Freedom and Property are at the heart of the idea of the Free Market.

Absent of government or laws, why would one stranger concede "ownership" of say a apple tree to another stranger? At the heart this idea of property is that your have a right to claim resources to yourself. It's a colonial mentality. Where does this right come from? Bastiat was clear, he thought it came from God. Why should I accept God as a sound reasoning any more than the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus or Buddha?

That's not a right. That's just force.

I'm saying morality is subjective rather than objective.

Thomas Jefferson considered the concentration of wealth in a few hands to be a crime against Nature. He felt that our government could not do enough to mitigate it.

In a state of Nature, no one owns property. Therefore, the ownership of property needed to be compensated by a progressive tax.