The Forward Party

[Oddball]

Its not supposed to. You really dont have any idea what you are talking about, do you?

I think that he skimmed over "The Law", then overlapped onto it his stereotypes, economic illiteracy, and confirmation biases, and now believes himself to be an expert in libertarian ethos.

 

[Oddball]

I'll say again, jobs are not a finite resource.

Nor is the job market malleable enough to absorb the millions streaming into the nation during an economic crash.

 

[Curried Goats]

What do mean by "mean"? Not interested in sophistry.

It's not sophistry, it's a genuine question from someone who's actually read libertarian philosophy and understands it better than any of these clowns.

What does "free" actually mean to you because to me calling it a "free" market is the sophistry. It's like saying you believe everyone should have equal rights. Does that mean you think children should have the right to drink and vote? It's a slogan, not a real description of the nuance that exists in actual policy.

Property is, in fact, a naturally occurring phenomenon. We create laws to codify property rights and avoid unnecessary conflict, but the idea of owning and trading property predates government.

Property isn't naturally occuring, land and resources are, your ability to manipulate them into things that are useful to you is, your right to have your claims on those resources legally protected does not predate government. In fact it can't exist without government. Now maybe you can fend these claimed resources off from others for a while, but that isn't really the same thing. In that light, the lion owns the tree he's currently catching shade under.

 

[dblack]

Here you are, assuming the motives of those who wish to secure the Texas border. (Me)

I'm not assuming. I'm going by what I read, here and elsewhere, from the build-the-wall contingent. Obviously, there are different motivations for different people, but the "took-er-jerbs" refrain is very common.

If only that were the case that these illegals are "yearning to breathe free."

They are yearning to earn some money and send it back home or drop an anchor and take advantage of our welfare state.

If the welfare state is the excuse, we can resolve that without building a fucking wall. It's stupid to let bad policy dictate more bad policy to compensate for it.

Not to mention the whole five people chasing one job problem, driving down the entire labor market.

I'll say again, jobs are not a finite resource.

Allowing employers to avoid taxation at our expense.

Well, undermining oppressive taxation is always a bonus.

This is all a big money shift that burdens median household.

??? Is this another conspiracy theory?

It has nothing to do with liberty. At all.

It has everything to do with it.

The populist zeal to close the borders is driven, primarily, by the demand that government protect us from unwanted competition.

 

[Curried Goats]

UH.... libertarianism advocates for liberty. Religious liberty is just one variety. There are plenty of atheist libertarians.

Out of curiosity, do you think religious liberty is a bad idea?

I don't think laws or morals are bad ideas, I just recognize them as ultimately subjective.

 

[dblack]

It's not sophistry, it's a genuine question from someone who's actually read libertarian philosophy and understands it better than any of these clowns.

Fine. Free, in this context, means unencumbered by government control. It means people are free to trade without asking the state for permission. Beyond that, I'm not interested in a philosophical debate on the nature of "freedom".

Property isn't naturally occuring, land and resources are, your ability to manipulate them into things that are useful to you is, your right to have your claims on those resources legally protected does not predate government.

Yes. Without government you have to protect that right yourself, but it's still there. And yes, predates government.

 

[dblack]

I don't think laws or morals are bad ideas, I just recognize them as ultimately subjective.

Huh? Seems like a non-sequitur.

 

[Oddball]

It's not sophistry, it's a genuine question from someone who's actually read libertarian philosophy and understands it better than any of these clowns.

You "understand" it through the filters of a committed Marxist, who will twist its vagaries and grey areas, to project your own worst outcomes upon it.....That doesn't mean you know anything.

What does "free" actually mean to you because to me calling it a "free" market is the sophistry. It's like saying you think you believe everyone should have equal rights. Does that mean you think children should have the right to drink and vote? It's a slogan, not a real description of the nuance that exists in actual policy.

False analogies are sophistry.

Property isn't naturally occuring, land and resources are, your ability to manipulate them into things that are useful to you is....

Strawman argument....Nobody said that property naturally occurs.

In fact it can't exist without government.

Your lack of imagination is your problem.

 

[Oddball]

I don't think laws or morals are bad ideas, I just recognize them as ultimately subjective.

The non-aggression proinciple (NAP) isn't subjective, uncle Karl.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If the welfare state is the excuse, we can resolve that without building a fucking wall. It's stupid to let bad policy dictate more bad policy to compensate for it.

That's one of the few differences between you and I. You have faith that we can get rid of the welfare state. I don't. Not without a war. Thus, the only solution I can see is a wall.

Not a big long 2000+ mile wall.

Just here:

 

[Oddball]

That's one of the few differences between you and I. You have faith that we can get rid of the welfare state. I don't. Not without a war. Thus, the only solution I can see is a wall.

Not a big long 2000+ mile wall.

Just here:

View attachment 675603View attachment 675602

Then bring on the fucking war.

Piling a bad idea on top of other bad ideas just leads to more bad idea "fixes" for the previous bad ideas.

IOW, you cannot polish turds.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Then bring on the fucking war.

Piling a bad idea on top of other bad ideas just leads to more bad idea "fixes" for the previous bad ideas.

I don't disagree. I would prefer that millions don't get killed, but it appears inevitable, sadly.

IOW, you cannot polish turds.

Actually:

 

[Vrenn]

Exclusive-Former Republicans and Democrats form new third U.S. political party

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) -Dozens of former Republican and Democratic officials announced on Wednesday a new national political third party to appeal to millions of voters they say are dismayed with what they see as America's dysfunctional two-party system. The new party, called Forward and whose...

www.yahoo.com

Democrats have formed a new party to try and hide their stink.

What an embarassment they have become.

Once again, you put on those blinders. It's just not Dems but it also has prominent Reps onboard. Remember, the Republican Party was originally a 3rd party. The Democrats and Whigs were the dominant parties until Lincoln was presented for President.

 

[dblack]

That's one of the few differences between you and I. You have faith that we can get rid of the welfare state.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying we shouldn't indulge more bad policy to cover up for it, even if we can't get rid of it. We shouldn't cover up its negative consequences with bandaids. The more it "hurts", the more likely we'll summon the will to get rid of it.

I don't. Not without a war. Thus, the only solution I can see is a wall.

The "solution" to bad government isn't more bad government.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying we shouldn't indulge more bad policy to cover up for it, even if we can't get rid of it. We shouldn't cover up its negative consequences with bandaids. The more it "hurts", the more likely we'll summon the will to get rid of it.


The "solution" to bad government isn't more bad government.

I agree.

You are more level-headed about this than I am, admittedly.

We have too many people willing to accept SHIT policy than not, even when everybody agrees it is shit.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Open borders in exchange for no welfare and no employment taxation.

What else can we do?

 

[Curried Goats]

Fine. Free, in this context, means unencumbered by government control. It means people are free to trade without asking the state for permission. Beyond that, I'm not interested in a philosophical debate on the nature of "freedom".

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?

Yes. Without government you have to protect that right yourself, but it's still there. And yes, predates government.

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

Huh? Seems like a non-sequitur.

I'm saying morality is subjective rather than objective.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Are the Libertarians really all that crazy?

YES!
The Democrat-Lite Party hates our Declaration Of Independence, our sovereignty…for that they’ll never win good, real, core Americans.

 

[Oddball]

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

Deliberate aggression doesn't obviate the core concept.

This market economy is merely a reinvention of a formerly colonial one.

WTF?

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.

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

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?

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.

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

Using force to repel aggressors is a natural right.

 

[Oddball]

YES!
The Democrat-Lite Party hates our Declaration Of Independence, our sovereignty…for that they’ll never win good, real, core Americans.
View attachment 675621

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