From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Sat Jul 21 2001 - 00:23:18 MDT
On Friday, July 20, 2001 12:47 AM Miriam English miriam@werple.net.au
wrote:
> >I actually think "religion" in this debate is being used to smear
anyone
who
> >argues in favor of a free market.
>
> No. This is completely wrong. :-( [sigh]
Well, then what can it mean but that? The insinuation here is that,
though
I've refuted your examples and arguments, that somehow I'm religiously
clinging to the free market, while you are above such attachments.
> This is why I keep repeating over and over that I am not against
> capitalism; to avoid exactly this kind of misreading of my intentions.
I'm not saying you are against capitalism. I'm only saying that your
calling people who actually believe it's a better system than all others
tried and proposed to do are somehow fervent religious believers. I
suppose
those who think QED is a good theory, better than all its past and
current
rivals, are equally religious about physics!?!
> I used the description of capitalism as religion to describe the way
some
> people use the concept as a faith that doesn't allow contrary points
to be
> heard. When used that way capitalism becomes as dangerous as any
religion,
> because it blinds you to any errors in your assumptions. (I kept
repeating
> this too.)
Who here has prevented you or anyone from being heard? Who here has
stopped
you from bringing up your -- flawed, in my humble opinion:) -- arguments
and
horror stories? Has anyone threatened you here?
> I hoped such a reference would be useful in defusing that religious
> standpoint. I figured, wrongly it turns out, that because the people
on
> this list are generally opposed to religious acceptance of dogma that
it
> might give them pause. Unfortunately it often produced a kneejerk
response
> of "to arms! she is attacking our dogma!" :-(
I did not counter your arguments with such. Who has? Name names! I've
presented not only arguments and examples, but citations of where to
find
out more data -- as I attempt to do in a lot of these discussions.
> >Now, I've actually presented arguments and evidence of why a free
market
> >works in various cases Mariam English and others have given us as
examples
> >of free market failure. Instead of actually answering me on this,
Mariam
> >has just piled up more examples. In other words, she can't reply to
my
> >specific arguments, so she moves on to other ones.
>
> The reason I kept showing problems that can arise from capitalism is
*not*
> because I hate it or want to destroy it. It is because all I needed to
show
> was that problems can arise -- it is not The Answer. In telling me
that it
> mostly does work you are preaching to the converted. I already know
that
it
> mostly works. Your BIG mistake was in continually thinking that I was
> opposed to capitalism. I am not. How many ways can I say this??
This is not the point either. Did you read the paragraph you are
reacting
to? Since you like to repeat yourself, let me repeat myself:
"Now, I've actually presented arguments and evidence of why a free
market
works in various cases Mariam English and others have given us as
examples
of free market failure. Instead of actually answering me on this,
Mariam
has just piled up more examples. In other words, she can't reply to my
specific arguments, so she moves on to other ones."
Where is the part you say is in there about me claiming you "hate" "or
want
to destroy" capitalism?
You brought up many cases, for example healthcare, where it seems pretty
obvious that the biggest problem is not the market but government
intrusion
into it. You've disregarded this. I've never argued free markets are
perfect. They are not. However, saying that does mean the alternatives
--
government interference a la the welfare state or complete socialism --
are
far worse, as history and economic theory show.
In fact, the _verifiable_ examples you've brought to date have been
examples
not of free markets screwing up, but of governments screwing up.
> The reason I stopped replying in detail to many responses is:
> - they completely missed my point: that I am not against capitalism
or
> trying to smear free market ideas, but am worried by fanatical
adoption of
> those as articles of faith
But you brought up specific examples, to bolster your case. If you
bring up
examples and these are wrong, is everyone supposed to agree with you?
Also,
if people are able to refute your arguments and show where your examples
are
flawed, does this mean they are "adopt[ing]" "free market ideas" "as
articles of faith"?
Is anyone who argues for anything promulgating dogma? What is it that
you
would want here? For everyone to clap and say, "Well done, Miriam! We
are
released from our false beliefs by your faulty arguments and
misrepresented
examples!"
> - I want to get back to my VR project -- I don't have limitless time
to
> devote to ineffective debate
No problem. We all have lives outside this list.:)
> - it is not really a major point worth pursuing over days and days
of
> email -- how hard can it be to understand that elevating capitalism to
> religion status is dangerous?
This is beside the point. I agree with the point that religion is wrong
and
faith is wrong. They're bad epistemology. I'm sure many people on this
list agree with that too.
That said, NOT everyone who think free markets are better than the
alternatives -- whether they support them or not -- is religious about
it.
One can, after all, look at the logic and the facts and come to that
conclusion. Or is that forbidden?
To automatically assume anyone who is for laissez faire capitalism or
who
takes any other principled stance is religious is faulty in the extreme.
It
disregards why someone would hold a position and just says any such
position
must be religious.
Also, it's not an escape to remain agnostic here. That does not mean
your
thinking is not religious. One can have just as much faith in that
position
as any other.
> I did respond where:
> - I felt people were honestly trying to make logical arguments
I was and these were cavelierly avoided by you. I would present my
counterargument and instead of answering it, you moved on to arguing
about
another case. I would then present my counterargument for that case and
you
would do the same. Is it strange how you started with healthcare and
finally arrived at some conspiracy view of baby formula distribution in
Africa? (I'm not dismissing your claim. I just very little way of
verifying it, which is why I've stuck to areas where I have done a
little
studying.)
> - the misrepresentation of what I said made me take the bait :-(
Misrepresentation? I thought the misrepresentation was to base your
position about free markets failing on cases where they had not actually
been free. If someone took one aspirin and then jumped off a cliff and
died, would you use this as evidence that the aspirin did him in?
> >To me this sounds a lot like when I debate with Creationists. They
will
> >tell me evolution is disproven by some case A. When I show them that
they
> >are wrong about A, they ignore this and bring up case B. When I show
them
> >that they are wrong about B, they ignore this and bring up case C.
And
so
> >on. I think you get where I'm going.
>
> This is just plain wrong, and a little insulting.
It's insulting to be dismissed and ignored and also to be labeled
religious
from the start. The whole presumption of the subject header in this
thread
has been that anyone who argues free markets work better than anything
else
can't possibly be rational. To start out by calling your opponents
religious, to me, is to begin with an insult. It's no different than
calling someone a racist in this context.
It's hardly appropriate to cry that you are now insulted. (And my point
was
not so much to insult you as to get your attention.:)
> I have tried to sound a note of caution -- that free market
capitalism,
> efficient though it is, and probably the best economic model to date,
is a
> flawed model. Being blinded to those flaws by faith is just asking for
trouble.
Where do I do that? Please do show me! I want to be enlightened.:)
> You are defending something which is only under attack if it dogma.
> If it is a reasoned point of view then there is nothing to defend from
what
> I have said.
Then why have you not answered my reasoned position on these various
issues?
You've only ignored my counterarguments and repeated that you are not
against capitalism. In fact, the thing about your not being against
capitalism reminds of Marc Antony's funeral oration in Shakespeare's
"Julius
Caesar." "And Brutus is an honorable man."
Unabashedly,
Daniel Ust
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
See me utterly refute pancritical rationalism at:
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/PCR.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:09:06 MST