From: Dick.Gray@bull.com
Date: Tue Dec 15 1998 - 09:22:09 MST
I wrote:
>So, every method of organizing is silly? Then we're doomed, aren't we?
Samael replied:
>Equally silly. Doesn't mean they don't all work. Just that faithfully
>adhering to one of anto3rh seems equally silly, as I don't believe any
>system works perfectly.
Ok, now I understand. You really should work on clarity of expression,
Samael. Saying "every method is silly" is vastly different from saying
"faithfully adhering to one method is silly".
That aside, I don't believe there's a "perfect" system either. That's a red
herring.
The question is not "which system is perfect", but "which system works".
This is the contention on the table: by overwhelming evidence as well as
theory, market freedom works (best), and no alternative works (nearly as
well).
Studying basic economics is enough to convince me on theoretical grounds;
looking around at the world and reading history convinces me on empirical
grounds.
This is what you need to argue against. Instead you throw up a strawman
("libertarians claim to have a perfect system") which is all too easy to
knock down.
You wrote:
>>I care about people and I believe that in certain situations that people
>>ought to be helped.
To which I responded:
>If you really cared about people you wouldn't advocate forcing them, at
>gunpoint, to comply with your idea of "help".
You haven't addressed this. Where is your "compassion" if you believe in
coercing others to implement your opinions?
I wrote:
>Those hundreds of thousands are starving due to governmental strangulation
>of markets under the guise of crackbrained socialist and interventionist
>theories.
You offered:
>So droughts, earthquakes and incursions from neighbouring states are all
the
>fault fo their governments?
Of course "natural" disasters are nobody's fault. The question is how well
people are prepared to respond to them. Governmentalism stifles the ability
to recover, by subverting market allocation processes.
As to incursions from neighboring states, *of course* that's the fault of
"government" (probably including their "own"). Almost all wars are quarrels
between states, no?
I wrote (not very diplomatically, I fear):
>You're betraying your ignorance of economics again.
You replied:
>No, I just disagree with your interpretation of it.
I'm going to be blunt: please study economics starting at the beginning.
I'm afraid you've missed something important.
In response to my observing your seeming support of short-term over
long-term gain, you wrote:
>Nope, because educating those people will get them to the same stage, in a
>shorter time, that the company would in a longer time.
Gee, I thought people were too stupid to be educated...? [wicked grin]
You're not scoring high on the consistency meter today. I don't understand
what point you're trying to make here. Please clarify.
Dick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:50:01 MST