His horse remains dead.
Obviously, this horse needs some more beating.
yes, because Hale cannot seem to make it say what he wants it to say. And all those people are agreeing with Og! How dare they! And only obvious morons agree with Hale!
This is Og’s business model. He sees all transactions as voluntary and having fixed roles as employee and employer.
of course this is as usual a massive misunderstanding of the facts. At no point have I ever suggested all transactions were voluntary and at no point did I ever suggest they had fixed roles. if hale would just listen to the words I say, instead of the voices in his head, we might get somewhere.
Thus his model looks like the Bi-nodal diagram. If one sees the world of commercial transactions as only including these, then Og is without a doubt right in everything he has argued thus far.
Let me fix that sentence for you. “Og is without a doubt right in everything he has argued thus far.” There, that’s better. Not quite accurate, though, because it isn’t me, it’s jut the way things are. I am just an observer.
But a simpler model still that boils down all commercial transactions into their simplest form is the Homogeneous model where every actor in the transaction is both boss and server in every transaction. Juan the yard man is selling his labor, but he is also BUYing money from Smith who needs yard services. Thus, there is no distinction in the vast Libertopia of voluntary transactions.
ORLY? A model that includes more things is simpler. Riiiight. What color is the sky there in bizarro world?
But even Og will admit (if you force him) that there are Non-voluntary transactions.
I don’t have to admit a fact, it is merely a fact. Your mischaracterization of me “dmitting” something is typical of the liberal mindset. I wish you would grow up. I have explained over and over again, though you have not yet listened: Voluntary transactions are commerce. Involuntary transactions are theft. You may see it some other way, but of course, you’re wrong.
He himself will tell you that he has participated in a few.
Every time I get paid, I participate in an involuntary transaction, wherin the local, state and federal government take money from me without my specific consent.
Thus, the more useful model of the heterogeneous multi-node where not every actor is either employer or employee.
here, let me fix that for you. “Thus, the more comforting model of lies I tell myself so I don’t have to ever be concerned about being accountable for my actions to the people whose money is stolen from them to pay me” that’s much better.
There are also thieves, politicians, mendicants, charities, gifts, hobbies, and labors of love. We can even expand our model to show wastage due to decay (resource sinks).
No, we cannot, because it is no more pertinent to the discussion than the temperature of Alpha Centauri. But if you have to have the why of that explained to you you are beyond reach.
The whole point of using any model is to assist you in examining the important behaviors of the process so that you can learn important elements of the process and gain insight.
No, the whole point of making models such as you have made is to pretend that the facts are false so you can adhere to the more comforting lies.
The simpler your model is, the easier it will be to gain those insights.
On this we agree. So the simplest model- you know, that Ockham’s Razor that you must hate, hate hate because it demands that you do it my way- is the best one. My model. Which is the only one that doesn’t needlessly multiply entities.
All of the above models are true and correct models for describing commercial transfers and relationships.
is this something you have on a motivational poster? because that guy is a moron.
It is perfectly reasonable for any intelligent person to select the one that works best to model the processes that are of most interest and contains the least amount of fluff.
No, it is human nature for people to select the ‘Model” that makes them feel good. Especially if it explains away facts they are uncomfortable with.
Og’s previous problem, the the point of our disagreement is his insistence on using the first model, and also insisting on forcing non-voluntary transactions into it.
That’s barely even English. I have no problem. I have facts. You are uncomfortable with those facts, so you choose to disagree. It doesn’t make you correct, because you are only entitled to your opinions, not your own facts.