Free Republic

I really hate to rain on your parade here, because the ideas are, in essence, solid, but these are not very good refutations. Now, I don't support the labour theory of value, nor would I defend it - but these are just going to get eaten alive by Marxists, or so-called "heterodox" economics:

Refutation 1 is correct, but misapplied - "value" is only related to socially necessary labor; that is, a kind of "average" labor that society uses to produce a good. This is not a situation in which we are talking about a good, on the whole, and it does not apply here. What is extremely vexing about the LTV is that is hideously muddles micro and macroeconomic explanations for terms. This is one area where the traditional micro/macro distinction leads you to the wrong conclusions.

Refutations 2 and 3 is simply incorrect, once again because of the "socially necessary" caveat. If it takes "society", on average, one hour to, say, weave a bolt of cloth then that is the value of a bolt of cloth. If it takes ME two hours to weave that same bolt, that means nothing. Likewise, if I spend hours doing pointless work, that does not give the work value - since it is not socially necessary work.


Refutation 4 is also good - but, again, it misses the "socially necessary" aspect. Tied up in the concept is that of zero arbitrage; social necessity is a matter of classical equillibrium, and in equilibrium there can be no arbitrage.

Refutation 5 is incorrect for the same reasons 2 and 3 are - in addition the "value" of a product produced need not be tied to the wages paid. For instance, it is perfectly consistent with the LTV to have wage-differentiated workplaces.

Refutation 6 is good, but both ignores the fact that it could be applied equally to classical treatments, and that it ignores the marginality of work. For instance, we are only talking about value - this allows a kind of "equation" of goods based on value. For instance, lets talk about that bolt again. Say, because I am skilled, I can produced one bolt in a half hour. Thus, in an hour, I produce two units of value - and can then exchange them for other goods I desire. If I had to go make those goods myself, I would not be able to - or it would take much, much more time. The LTV is consistent with specialization, and the marginality of labor.

Refutation 7 and 8 try to use two different concepts of "value" in the same notion. You either get utility, or value - you can't have both.

Perhaps a better way to put it is that "value" is a kind of definition - like one foot, or one meter. What people like Smith, Ricardo, or Marx were saying is that goods have this property which they called "value" that was equal to the amount of socially necessary labor embodied in them. They weren't making an observation, or stating a theory - rather, they were saying that value IS that embodied labor, and then used it to try and explain the economy. The problem is that "value" has connotations, and means different things in different contexts. For instance, many of your criticisms implicitly assumed that you could use utility as another measure of value - well, you can't, because value is a definition. Maybe it was a bad thing to call it - say, call it "praxis" or "puisse" or something.

In the end, however, it's really just a different definition they've tried to apply, in order to explain how the economy works. We all know how their project turned out, but trying to refute it in such a way is not productive.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go wash my hands. I feel dirty for having to say that.

They aren't even "liberal" any longer...just left wing.

I mean, it's not "liberal" to ban smoking in restaurants. It's not liberal to ban praying on **public** sidewalks in front of abortion clinics. It's not liberal to want to ban our firearms. It's not liberal to want to ban hunting. It's not liberal to want to ban new home construction (you know, that so-called "urban sprawl"). It's not liberal to ban our military from recruiting on a college campus. It's not liberal to label all non-pro-gay utterances as "hate speech" and then ban it. It's not liberal to ban individuals from driving in special highway lanes (HOV).

Right on. In an earlier, less definition-confused generation everyone on this board would have been called liberals - the Republican party itself was built on solid, classical liberal foundations.

It was the Democrats who developed into a party of socialism, then (noting how unpopular 'ol Uncle Joe was following WWII) hijacked the term. Modern "liberals" are nothing of the sort - they support government meddling, socialist policies and a legislated morality. It churns my stomach everytime the media introduces one of them as "liberal".

On the plus side, the new Conservative government pledged during the campaign to arm the border guards. Frankly, it's about time - the majority of Canuck guards are ill-trained college students working a summer job. The defense of your nation should mean more than a part-time job at Burger King.

You can order the one picture online, here:

http://www.emmsaid.com/malta_decimal_sets.htm

Not that expensive, either - especially if you'r a fan of either coins or Christian iconography.

Precisely - you have an unlimited right to publish offensive speech, but no right to not be offended by published speech.

The State Department should be ashamed.

You've been rude and insulting (out of the gate). That's miles from posting "I disagree."

I call them like I see them.

Ummm.... It's the production and distribution companies which make Hollywood, well, Hollywood. The two are inseparable. So, if the production and distribution companies *need* the revenue income from the movies theatres to survive, then the rest of Hollywood does as well...

You clearly have no idea how the market operates- the two are by no means inseperable. In fact, there's recently been much concern in the community about foreign distribution companies trying to edge into the American market; notably those from so-called "Bollywood" in India. The two are very different, and very distinct entities in the film industry, and if you'd bother to read the economic literature on this, you'd see that any cogent analysis identifies and addresses this distinction.

What do you mean "now?" You just showed up. In fact, you joined tomorrow. It's always best to post respectfully for awhile before launching into "admonish" mode. Otherwise people will think you're a stupid, rude, arrogant twerp.

And apparently registration date supremacy trumps all, as well? I've been reading this forums regularly since the Terri Schiavo fiasco, and read them off-and-on before then but was never able to do much more than read because my only access was from work, and so couldn't commit to any actual discussion. But apparently you would have just rather had me spend a year or so posting "I agree".

Nonsense. What you're espousing is doublespeak. Give in to their demands so they don't get angry and demand more. Total, unadulterated appeasement and support of the "gay" agenda.

You're right, it is doublespeak - the kind of doublespeak that won the Cold War, the kind of doublespeak that kept Communism contained behind the Iron Curtain. You do nothing explicitly that would give them something to point at and go "look, they're attacking us!" but you block them at every possibly opportunity that matters. That's why we let the USSR onto the security council, that's why we let Soviet leaders come to the United States - we extended a crushing handshake to the communists, while blocking their every political move. And it worked.

And that's what we've got to do here. I can understand if you're too principled to do it - great men, like Patton, were too - but sometimes we need an Eisenhower as well as a McCarthy.

You told me my comments were off topic. Now you're agreeing with me that they weren't off topic. Please, do a FR search using the keywords "homosexual agenda", read for at least two hours, and get back to the thread in the morning.

They were off-topic within the scope of the original discussion - however, since we've decided to expand that scope I'm comfortable with dicussing them here too.

I wasn't thinking as broadly as you were when I posted that, and I apologize.

I agree with your sentiment, but it's not appeasement - it's a feint, a deflection. As you well know, the gay lobby has sizeable funds and a kennel of media lapdogs to broadcast any hint of indiscretion on our part. It's called spin, and they've become very good at it - our job is to minimize whats availible to be spun into propaganda for them. Appeasement would require a real concession on our part - this is not one. It's more of a way to minimize spin while still preventing them from gaining any real ground.

I can appreciate that you have a more idealistic view of how we should handle this, but I think more in terms of a kind of realpolitik - sometimes, the inconsequential loses out when you're dealing with a foe as underhanded as these people can be.

BTW, it's not off topic. Hollyweird is trying to shove "gay" agenda promoting movies down our throats.

Won't argue with that statement. It's hard to see anyone deny it with a straight face when there are 20-ft screens with two cowboys sodomizing one another in almost every major American city:

"No, there's no gay agenda...that's just...uh...what cowboys do! It gets lonely on the range and...uh...it's an accurate depiction"

/liberal

They deserve a hearing because the UN has previously admitted groups supporting homosexuality before - it's inconsistent to allow some groups consideration (and actual entry) while not others.

We require consistency because refusing it creates a ridiculous level of indignation in the gay community, which further militarizes it - giving them more funds and more supporters. We could accomplish exactly the same outcome by allowing them a hearing, then shooting them down - there would still be no new homosexual lobbyists at the UN, and better still the homosexual community wouldn't be in a tizzy.

Make no mistake - we are in a war with these people for the social and ethical mores of our society. Winning that war means winning battles like denying them access to bodies like the UN, as Dr Rice has done here. However, winning the war will take more than simply winning battles - we also have to be sure not to create more enemies on our way. My argument is that we could have won this battle while not inflaming the homosexual activists, which strengthens them and makes them more dangerous. It's like our fight in Iraq - people opposed to the war are so obsessed with "getting the troops home" that they don't see that doing so will only breed more terrorists and make us less safe overall; the same thing is true here, by analogy.

Okay, so you're a conservative who enjoys sneering and lambasting other conservatives while promoting the "gay" identity lie. Happy now?

Happier - but when did I ever promote gay "identity" of any sort? I said they should get a hearing, and then be smacked down for their twisted views on sexuality. All that denying them a hearing does is create another martyr for the gay agenda, as the article clearly shows has happened.

In any case, this is totally off-topic and doesn't need to be discussed any further. I have been abundantly clear about what my stance is, both in my original post and in my clairifications here. The only way you could possibly paint me as any kind of apologist for homosexuals is by selectively reading what I've said - so, I'll reiterate; I don't support their membership, I don't support their cause, and I don't support their lifestyle.

Why should anyone with sexual and psychological dysfunctions be allowed a special platform from which to spew lies? So you're on Barney Franks' team. Surprise, suprise.

You didn't even read my comment, or the article, did you? The motion was not to allow them entry - it was to allow them to be granted a hearing on application for entry. Personally, I would relish watching an organization which has already been removed from the UN for associating with the paedophiles at NAMBLA get sent home without a sob-story about being "oppressed" by Dr Rice and further fueling the idiotic liberal echo-chamber that surrounds so-called "gay persecution".

I read all your comments - or at least scanned them - since your signup date. You're just posing as a conservative (and doing a lousy job of it). Might as well quit now and go back to whatever leftist forum you're a member of and admit defeat.

I've been "posing as a conservative" ever since I got thrown out of high school debate class for badgering an opposition member who decided to take a swipe at then-President Nixon. I've been "posing as a conservative" ever since I ran for treasurer of my local College Republicans. I've been "posing as a conservative" ever since I volunteered for Bush Sr's election campaign. So, and again, with all due respect crap.

1) If you think your writing style in any way compares to Lincoln, then you are a delusional freak. 2) Jefferson was a Republican.

First Republican, as in - first Republican President.

And I was just making that point that attacking my conservatism based on my writing style is fundamentally ridiculous - as you can see, you'd be calling Lincoln out.

Haemo is supporting the "gay identity" propaganda. I think it may be a re-tread.

That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard. I support them being heard, so that they and their homosexual agenda can be laughed out of the UN and back to Berkley. Personally, I believe conservatism is strong enough to hear opposing viewpoints and the proceed to destory them.

Mostly because the answers to all your questions are so blatantly displayed before you, they become irrelevant or circular at best.

Hmmm, well, perhaps you would mind enlightening us, as opposed to spouting off content-less one-liners, no? If it's so blatantly obvious, then it's remarkable no one has posted anything to back up her claims in light of my criticism.

Besides, you attacked the author of this article before you attacked hollyweird. What happened to all that? Did you realize your position and hers followed the same path, or is it the conversation itself that entices you?

I stand by my original attack on her poorly reasoned and pointless piece of writing, and for the reasons I have repeatedly argued. It just so happens that most of my reasons behind my opinion of her happen to be related to the deplorable state of Hollywood - I attacked Hollywood in an effort to clairify why she's so wrongheaded in her argument.

You have quite an effete know-it-all writing style to pass as a conservative. I'm guessing that your not. You can always tell a lefty.... But you can't tell them much...

Tell that to the first Republican:

"A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half-slave and half-free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved - I do not expect the house to fall - but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other."

End of story? But then how do you explain how they have been able to keep making movies? Why do you ignore all of the monied interests at play in Hollywood? Moreover, why is Hollywood at odds with America? They didn't used to be - Ronald Reagan was a Hollywood actor, after all.

The "end" of your story leaves some of the most important questions unanswered.