tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post5162889841890948352..comments2024-03-27T05:47:21.295-07:00Comments on Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: Objectivism & Economics, Part 19Daniel Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-47502447567611491702009-04-05T16:28:00.000-07:002009-04-05T16:28:00.000-07:00___________________________________Do you think we...___________________________________<BR/><BR/>Do you think <BR/><BR/>we<BR/><BR/>should give all US land back to current Native American tribes?<BR/><BR/><BR/>If not, why not, and what should <BR/><BR/>we<BR/><BR/>do instead according to whatever philosophy you hold? - <BR/><BR/>Jay on 3/11/2009 11:42:00 AM<BR/>===================================<BR/><BR/>Who are this 'we'? - Red Grant<BR/>===================================<BR/>"We" is everyone currently living on US soil. - Jay<BR/>===================================<BR/><BR/>Okay, so does this mean then you believe I have the authority and/or right to tell<BR/><BR/>everyone currently living on U.S. soil <BR/><BR/>to give all U.S. land back to the Native Americans or not? - Red Grant<BR/>===================================<BR/><BR/>Red,<BR/><BR/>Of course I don't believe you have the authority to do that. That's not the point. - Jay<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Then why even ask me whether everyone currently living on U.S. soil should give all U.S. land back to the Natives?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>You are always asking whether<BR/><BR/> we have a right to live on land that was stolen,... - Jay<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>...and who decides the rights of 'we'(as you used the term)?<BR/><BR/>including a right to live on land that was stolen?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Have you answered the question(which I have asked in many variations) to its ultimate logical conclusion?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>...so if you don't believe we do[have a right to live on land that was stolen],.... - Jay on 4/05/2009 07:37:00 AM<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Again, your statement above begs the question,<BR/><BR/>"Who decides 'our' "rights", including a right to live on land that was stolen?"<BR/><BR/><BR/>If you don't think I have the right to decide whether 'we' do or not,<BR/><BR/>then<BR/><BR/>why even ask the question?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>...so if you don't believe we do, wouldn't it logically follow that you think we should give it back? - Jay<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>But I never said it.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>You will have to answer the question, <BR/><BR/>"Who decides 'our' rights, including a right to live on land that stolen?"<BR/><BR/> to its ultimate logical conclusion.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Then you may find out whether 'we' have a right to live on land that was stolen.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>...and whether it's compatible with capitalism(whatever you define 'capitalism' to be)<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>Red,<BR/><BR/>If the people who did the stealing were still here then of course, they should not be allowed to keep the land just because they killed all the original owners.<BR/><BR/>But here's the problem. You asked:<BR/><BR/>one has the right to keep the land one has stolen from so long as one kills all the original victims?<BR/><BR/>The "one" (actually "ones") who stole that land are gone. So are the "ones" it was stolen from. All of us living today have done nothing but be born on land that was stolen from dead Natives by dead ancestors. <BR/><BR/>- Jay on 3/11/2009 11:42:00 AM <BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Does this mean then you believe the children/descendants of the original robbers/murderers have the right to inherit/benefit from<BR/><BR/>the killing/robberies done by their parents/ancestors?<BR/><BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/>is this compatible with capitalism?Red Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-79442941100017561142009-04-05T07:37:00.000-07:002009-04-05T07:37:00.000-07:00Red,Of course I don't believe you have the authori...Red,<BR/><BR/>Of course I don't believe you have the authority to do that. That's not the point. You are always asking whether we have a right to live on land that was stolen, so if you don't believe we do, wouldn't it logically follow that you think we should give it back?JayCrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15565955869872328326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-58451834434571863152009-04-04T17:04:00.000-07:002009-04-04T17:04:00.000-07:00___________________________________Do you think we...___________________________________<BR/><BR/>Do you think <BR/><BR/>we<BR/><BR/>should give all US land back to current Native American tribes?<BR/><BR/><BR/>If not, why not, and what should <BR/><BR/>we<BR/><BR/> do instead according to whatever philosophy you hold? - <BR/><BR/>Jay on 3/11/2009 11:42:00 AM<BR/>===================================<BR/><BR/>Who are this 'we'? - Red Grant<BR/>===================================<BR/>"We" is everyone currently living on US soil. - Jay<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Okay, so does this mean then you believe I have the authority and/or right to tell<BR/><BR/>everyone currently living on U.S. soil <BR/><BR/>to give all U.S. land back to the Native Americans or not?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>Red,<BR/><BR/>If the people who did the stealing were still here then of course, they should not be allowed to keep the land just because they killed all the original owners.<BR/><BR/>But here's the problem. You asked:<BR/><BR/>one has the right to keep the land one has stolen from so long as one kills all the original victims?<BR/><BR/>The "one" (actually "ones") who stole that land are gone. So are the "ones" it was stolen from. All of us living today have done nothing but be born on land that was stolen from dead Natives by dead ancestors. <BR/><BR/>- Jay on 3/11/2009 11:42:00 AM <BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Does this mean then you believe the children/descendants of the original robbers/murderers have the right to inherit/benefit from<BR/><BR/>the killing/robberies done by their parents/ancestors?<BR/><BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/>is this compatible with capitalism?Red Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-53321455817477421362009-04-03T20:09:00.000-07:002009-04-03T20:09:00.000-07:00"We" is everyone currently living on US soil."We" is everyone currently living on US soil.JayCrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15565955869872328326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-2711665185842397442009-04-03T18:07:00.000-07:002009-04-03T18:07:00.000-07:00___________________________________Red,If the peop...___________________________________<BR/><BR/>Red,<BR/><BR/>If the people who did the stealing were still here then of course, they should not be allowed to keep the land just because they killed all the original owners.<BR/><BR/>But here's the problem. You asked:<BR/><BR/>one has the right to keep the land one has stolen from so long as one kills all the original victims?<BR/><BR/>The "one" (actually "ones") who stole that land are gone. So are the "ones" it was stolen from. All of us living today have done nothing but be born on land that was stolen from dead Natives by dead ancestors. <BR/><BR/>- Jay on 3/11/2009 11:42:00 AM <BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Does this mean then you believe the children/descendants of the original robbers/murderers have the right to inherit/benefit from<BR/><BR/>the killing/robberies done by their parents/ancestors?<BR/><BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/>is this compatible with capitalism?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>Do you think <BR/><BR/>we<BR/><BR/>should give all US land back to current Native American tribes?<BR/><BR/><BR/>If not, why not, and what should we do instead according to whatever philosophy you hold? - Jay<BR/><BR/>- Jay on 3/11/2009 11:42:00 AM<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Who are this 'we'?<BR/><BR/>3/11/2009 01:43:00 PM <BR/>Post a Comment<BR/><BR/>4/01/2009 01:41:00 PMRed Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-45972392977403752122009-04-01T13:41:00.000-07:002009-04-01T13:41:00.000-07:00___________________________________Red,If the peop...___________________________________<BR/><BR/>Red,<BR/><BR/>If the people who did the stealing were still here then of course, they should not be allowed to keep the land just because they killed all the original owners.<BR/><BR/>But here's the problem. You asked:<BR/><BR/>one has the right to keep the land one has stolen from so long as one kills all the original victims?<BR/><BR/>The "one" (actually "ones") who stole that land are gone. So are the "ones" it was stolen from. All of us living today have done nothing but be born on land that was stolen from dead Natives by dead ancestors. <BR/><BR/>- Jay on 3/11/2009 11:42:00 AM <BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Does this mean then you believe the children/descendants of the original robbers/murderers have the right to inherit/benefit from<BR/><BR/>the killing/robberies done by their parents/ancestors?<BR/><BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/>is this compatible with capitalism?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>Do you think <BR/><BR/>we<BR/><BR/>should give all US land back to current Native American tribes?<BR/><BR/><BR/>If not, why not, and what should we do instead according to whatever philosophy you hold? - Jay<BR/><BR/>- Jay on 3/11/2009 11:42:00 AM<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Who are this 'we'?<BR/><BR/>3/11/2009 01:43:00 PM <BR/>Post a CommentRed Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-78787851382351200362009-03-11T13:43:00.000-07:002009-03-11T13:43:00.000-07:00___________________________________Red,If the peop...___________________________________<BR/><BR/>Red,<BR/><BR/>If the people who did the stealing were still here then of course, they should not be allowed to keep the land just because they killed all the original owners.<BR/><BR/>But here's the problem. You asked:<BR/><BR/>one has the right to keep the land one has stolen from so long as one kills all the original victims?<BR/><BR/>The "one" (actually "ones") who stole that land are gone. So are the "ones" it was stolen from. All of us living today have done nothing but be born on land that was stolen from dead Natives by dead ancestors. <BR/><BR/> - Jay on 3/11/2009 11:42:00 AM <BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Does this mean then you believe the children/descendants of the original robbers/murderers have the right to inherit/benefit from<BR/><BR/>the killing/robberies done by their parents/ancestors?<BR/><BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/>is this compatible with capitalism?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>Do you think <BR/><BR/>we<BR/><BR/> should give all US land back to current Native American tribes?<BR/><BR/><BR/>If not, why not, and what should we do instead according to whatever philosophy you hold? - Jay<BR/><BR/> - Jay on 3/11/2009 11:42:00 AM<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Who are this 'we'?Red Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-73871413838217194112009-03-11T11:42:00.000-07:002009-03-11T11:42:00.000-07:00Red,If the people who did the stealing were still ...Red,<BR/><BR/>If the people who did the stealing were still here then of course, they should not be allowed to keep the land just because they killed all the original owners.<BR/><BR/>But here's the problem. You asked:<BR/><BR/><I>one has the right to keep the land one has stolen from so long as one kills all the original victims?</I><BR/><BR/>The "one" (actually "ones") who stole that land are gone. So are the "ones" it was stolen from. All of us living today have done nothing but be born on land that was stolen from dead Natives by dead ancestors. <BR/><BR/>Do you think we should give all US land back to current Native American tribes? If not, why not, and what should we do instead according to whatever philosophy you hold?JayCrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15565955869872328326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-1999195981993994262009-03-11T06:12:00.000-07:002009-03-11T06:12:00.000-07:00___________________________________Red,Yes, the lo...___________________________________<BR/><BR/>Red,<BR/><BR/>Yes, the logic does seem to suggest that. However, who are we going to pay reparations to? The tragic but inarguable fact is that no living Native had anything to do with land that was stolen hundreds of years ago. - JaY<BR/><BR/>3/10/2009 03:49:00 PM<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>So does this mean then you believe <BR/><BR/>one has the right to keep the land one has stolen from so long as one kills all the original victims?<BR/><BR/><BR/>and if so,<BR/><BR/>then<BR/><BR/><BR/>is such a philosophy compatible with capitalism?Red Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-51555146398822777872009-03-10T15:49:00.000-07:002009-03-10T15:49:00.000-07:00Red,Yes, the logic does seem to suggest that. Howe...Red,<BR/><BR/>Yes, the logic does seem to suggest that. However, who are we going to pay reparations to? The tragic but inarguable fact is that no living Native had anything to do with land that was stolen hundreds of years ago.JayCrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15565955869872328326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-45088062416104981672009-03-10T14:52:00.000-07:002009-03-10T14:52:00.000-07:00___________________________________... and if you ...___________________________________<BR/><BR/>... and if you believe that Europeans didn't have the right to slaughter Natives, then<BR/><BR/>should the land that was taken by force/treachery/violation of treaties<BR/><BR/>be given back to the Natives? - Red Grant<BR/>===================================<BR/><BR/><BR/>No, because the Natives who were wronged are gone now. Current Natives have no connection to them other than bloodline which is irrelevant. - Jay<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Does this mean then one has the right to keep the land without paying reparations so long as all the original victims are dead?<BR/><BR/><BR/>If so, does this mean then one has the right to keep the land belongining to others withour paying reparations to the original victims <BR/><BR/>if<BR/><BR/>one manages to kill all the original victims?<BR/><BR/>Of course, under such a logic, <BR/><BR/>it would be one's best interest to kill all the original victims instead of sparing some of them?Red Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-52915238082739867702009-03-10T08:51:00.000-07:002009-03-10T08:51:00.000-07:00Red,You asked:How come?Just don't think it's right...Red,<BR/><BR/>You asked:<BR/><BR/><I>How come?</I><BR/><BR/>Just don't think it's right to come in and slaughter people who were already living on the land. Seems cruel and inhumane.<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>and if you believe that Europeans didn't have the right to slaughter Natives, then<BR/><BR/>should the land that was taken by force/treachery/violation of treaties<BR/><BR/>be given back to the Natives?<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>No, because the Natives who were wronged are gone now. Current Natives have no connection to them other than bloodline which is irrelevant. <BR/><BR/>(This, btw, is the same reason I oppose reparations for slavery.)<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>and why do you think Ayn Rand believe that white men had the right to kill and rob the Natives?</I><BR/><BR/>Probably because it fit her romanticized view of conquering heroes coming to civilize new land and raise it to its highest potential. Pretty similar to Manifest Destiny, actually.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06208862186154964498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-37648732795650575842009-03-09T23:00:00.000-07:002009-03-09T23:00:00.000-07:00___________________________________Mind you, I sti...___________________________________<BR/><BR/>Mind you, I still don't agree that Europeans had the right to slaughter Natives,... - Jay<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>How come?<BR/><BR/>and if you believe that Europeans didn't have the right to slaughter Natives, then<BR/><BR/>should the land that was taken by force/treachery/violation of treaties <BR/><BR/>be given back to the Natives?<BR/><BR/><BR/>If not, then<BR/><BR/>why not?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>and why do you think Ayn Rand believe that white men had the right to kill and rob the Natives?Red Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-79132005413951831722009-03-04T00:41:00.000-08:002009-03-04T00:41:00.000-08:00___________________________________There was no ex...___________________________________<BR/><BR/>There was no excuse, I plainly stated that Rand disagreed with Aristotle on several issues and that <BR/><BR/>OPAR<BR/><BR/> contains those disagreements. - Jay on 3/03/2009 10:13:00 PM <BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>But it was an excuse for your not being able to show how Ayn Rand disagreed with Aristotle on slavery employing her philosophy.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Please remember, I'm not merely looking for whether Ayn Rand disagreed with Aristotle on slavery or not.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I'm looking for how she disagreed with Aristotle on slavery, employing her philosophy.Red Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-31736862324809710072009-03-03T22:13:00.000-08:002009-03-03T22:13:00.000-08:00There was no excuse, I plainly stated that Rand di...There was no excuse, I plainly stated that Rand disagreed with Aristotle on several issues and that OPAR contains those disagreements.<BR/><BR/>I also wasn't whining for help the way your mocking "Jay needs HELP" blurb portrayed. Just putting it out there that if someone knew offhand what I was talking about they could feel free to jump in.JayCrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15565955869872328326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-39183584141883645872009-03-03T22:05:00.000-08:002009-03-03T22:05:00.000-08:00I would have made those questions you consider as ...I would have made those questions you consider as false accusations.<BR/><BR/>3/03/2009 09:48:00 PM<BR/><BR/>Edit:<BR/><BR/>should have said:<BR/><BR/>I would not have madeRed Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-47018869706006609732009-03-03T22:03:00.000-08:002009-03-03T22:03:00.000-08:00___________________________________Red,You said:"S...___________________________________<BR/><BR/>Red,<BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/><BR/>"Second of all, I believe I stated at one time I'm working on my ideal economic system."<BR/><BR/>I wonder: if I said that, would you accuse me of using a "dog ate my homework" excuse?" - Jay on3/03/2009 09:39:00 PM<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Here's a differnce, though.<BR/><BR/>My "second of all" statement was not an excuse like yours for not being able to defend an assertion.<BR/><BR/>It's simply a reminder of a blue print of what I have been planning on, not an excuse like your was.Red Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-6123840766516372152009-03-03T21:48:00.000-08:002009-03-03T21:48:00.000-08:00___________________________________I repeatedly sa...___________________________________<BR/><BR/>I repeatedly said I felt you were filibustering by asking for definitions of laissez-faire. Whether this is, in fact, what you were doing is a separate issue. - Jay on 3/03/2009 09:32:00 PM<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>You felt?<BR/><BR/>but you didn't prove it, did you?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>My rebuttals for your accusing me of false accusation is based on <BR/><BR/>the explicit statement you had made.<BR/><BR/>Not based on "feeling".<BR/><BR/><BR/>My questions you consider as false accusations were based on your statement that I had quoted just above in my response.<BR/><BR/>Not based on your "feelings".<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>I'll recap below:<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>If people were seriously struggling to define what it meant it would be a different story, but I saw no evidence of that struggle <BR/><BR/>other than your asking me. - Jay<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Does this mean then I'm not one of the people?<BR/><BR/>or<BR/><BR/>you think a question is only worthy of being answered to when asked by at least everyone here minus one person?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Since when was a question worthy of being answered to when only asked by at least everyone here minus one person?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Is this the kind of philosophy you espouse to?<BR/><BR/>A philosophy that only values questions asked simply by the virtue of being asked by most people or majority?<BR/><BR/>A philosophy that would not value questions just because it was asked by minority<BR/><BR/>or <BR/><BR/>one person? - Red Grant<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>My questions above were in reply to the statement you had made.<BR/><BR/>Not just any statement,<BR/><BR/>but a conditional statement.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>The reason you had given in your conditional statement for not willing to give the universally objectively valid definition of laissez-faire was simply based on your "fact" that<BR/><BR/>no one else had been struggling to ask for the definition except me.<BR/><BR/>Not because you could prove my question was invalid,<BR/><BR/>but simply based on your "fact" that no one else had been struggling to ask for it.<BR/><BR/><BR/>So my question/accusation of your premise was throughly valid.<BR/><BR/>If I asked the questions that I had asked without you providing that conditional statement, <BR/><BR/>then<BR/><BR/>your complaint would have been valid. (at least by my standard).<BR/><BR/><BR/>But you had given me a reason that made my questions/accusations valid. - Red Grant on 3/03/2009 09:17:00 PM<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>A hint, Jay, if you had not provided that conditional statement, your accusation of my questions would have been valid. (at least by my standard).<BR/><BR/>But, if you had not made that conditional statement,<BR/><BR/>then <BR/><BR/>I would have made those questions you consider as false accusations.Red Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-51587763745990681932009-03-03T21:39:00.000-08:002009-03-03T21:39:00.000-08:00Red,You said:"Second of all, I believe I stated at...Red,<BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/><BR/><I>"Second of all, I believe I stated at one time I'm working on my ideal economic system."</I><BR/><BR/>I wonder: if I said that, would you accuse me of using a "dog ate my homework" excuse?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-19844758493835159402009-03-03T21:34:00.000-08:002009-03-03T21:34:00.000-08:00___________________________________why had you eng...___________________________________<BR/><BR/>why had you engaged in what you called meaningless activity?<BR/><BR/>Good question. I did not think it would last so long. I thought you would eventually:<BR/><BR/>A) State your criticisms of free markets (if you have any), and<BR/>B) If you have criticisms, propose a better alternative<BR/><BR/> - Jay on 3/03/2009 08:30:00 PM<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Isn't that why I'm asking people who are pro-free market to give the universally objectively valid definition of free market?<BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/>furthermore asking in detail?<BR/><BR/>simply to see what it really is?<BR/><BR/>instead of what its proponents like it to be portrayed as such.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>Your relentless questioning of free markets without suggesting a better alternative reminds of a quote:<BR/><BR/>"Nothing is easier than to prove that something human has imperfections. I am amazed at how many people devote themselves to that task."<BR/>- Thomas Sowell as quoted by Jay on<BR/>3/03/2009 08:30:00 PM<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>First of all, what is Sowell's definition of free market?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Second of all, I believe I stated at one time I'm working on my ideal economic system:<BR/><BR/><BR/>a hint:<BR/><BR/>It was inspired by the example of South Korean Economy from mid 60's till mid 80's.<BR/><BR/>It is also partially inspired by Howard Roark from "The Fountainhead".<BR/><BR/>A question that I asked before, and I will ask again,<BR/><BR/><BR/>Which should be the relevant question in terms of microeconomics?<BR/><BR/>1. Whether a factor is owned by private or public?<BR/><BR/>or<BR/><BR/>2. Whether a factory is as profitable as it can be on a sustainable basis (for the foreseeable future)?Red Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-27110085727509973572009-03-03T21:32:00.000-08:002009-03-03T21:32:00.000-08:00Red,You may have provided support for your accusat...Red,<BR/><BR/>You may have provided support for your accusation, but you ignored previous statements of mine contrary to that support.<BR/><BR/>I repeatedly said I felt you were filibustering by asking for definitions of laissez-faire. Whether this is, in fact, what you were doing is a separate issue. The point is this is the reason I gave for downplaying you asking for a universally valid definition. And I was quite clear about it.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, it is false to attribute my downplaying your question to a philosophy that questions from minorities don't matter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-46100573013393476022009-03-03T21:17:00.000-08:002009-03-03T21:17:00.000-08:00___________________________________Red,I'm aware -...___________________________________<BR/><BR/>Red,<BR/><BR/>I'm aware - I falsely accused you of saying I called the thread meaningless. This is not what you said. You're right. I was wrong to accuse you of it.<BR/><BR/>However, you then proceeded, tonight, to falsely accuse me in almost exactly this same way. By asking if I had a philosophy that questions asked by minorities don't matter, when I never said that. - Jay on 3/03/2009 08:17:00 PM<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Jay, there is a profound difference between what I accused you of false accusation<BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/>what you accused of me of false accusation in your post above.<BR/><BR/><BR/>In my example:<BR/><BR/>I had asked you a specific question.<BR/><BR/>To which, you replied, and in turn asked me a question and made a statement, falsely (implying/accusing me of) I asked you a question that I never did.<BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/>I posted all the statements you had made to back up my assertions as well at the same time I asked you the question.<BR/><BR/>So there could not have been any misunderstanding on your part, had you read them. (and I posted those statements more than once, just to make sure)<BR/><BR/>Here's a recap:<BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>Whether we call that ["predominantly free from government control" ideal]<BR/><BR/>"laissez-faire"<BR/><BR/>or not is meaningless to me. - Jay on 2/19/2009 05:44:00 PM<BR/>===================================<BR/><BR/>Then why did you engage in what you consider as meaningless activity within this thread? - Red Grant on 2/24/2009 01:56:00 AM<BR/><BR/>===================================<BR/><BR/>Did I say the activity within this thread was meaningless? No - I said whether we referred to the general idea of a free society with the term "laissez-faire" was meaningless to me. - Jay on 3/02/2009 06:12:00 PM<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>and here are the statements you had made:<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>However, if we are using history and the actual consequences of different ways of organizing society as our guide, it's tough to find a better model than <BR/><BR/>laissez-faire. - Jay<BR/><BR/>2/18/2009 05:04:00 PM<BR/>-----------------------------------<BR/>There has never been a completely <BR/><BR/>laissez-faire <BR/><BR/>society... - Jay on 2/18/2009 06:29:00 PM<BR/>-----------------------------------<BR/>The United States exemplifies what most people think of as <BR/><BR/>"laissez-faire" <BR/><BR/>better than probably any society in history. - Jay on 2/18/2009 06:29:00 PM<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>and now, here's a recap of what you accused me of false accusation:<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>If people were seriously struggling to define what it meant it would be a different story, but I saw no evidence of that struggle <BR/><BR/>other than your asking me. - Jay<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Does this mean then I'm not one of the people?<BR/><BR/>or<BR/><BR/>you think a question is only worthy of being answered to when asked by at least everyone here minus one person?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Since when was a question worthy of being answered to when only asked by at least everyone here minus one person?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Is this the kind of philosophy you espouse to?<BR/><BR/>A philosophy that only values questions asked simply by the virtue of being asked by most people or majority?<BR/><BR/>A philosophy that would not value questions just because it was asked by minority<BR/><BR/>or <BR/><BR/>one person? - Red Grant<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>My questions above were in reply to the statement you had made.<BR/><BR/>Not just any statement,<BR/><BR/>but a conditional statement.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>The reason you had given in your conditional statement for not willing to give the universally objectively valid definition of laissez-faire was simply based on your "fact" that<BR/><BR/>no one else had been struggling to ask for the definition except me.<BR/><BR/>Not because you could prove my question was invalid,<BR/><BR/>but simply based on your "fact" that no one else had been struggling to ask for it.<BR/><BR/><BR/>So my question/accusation of your premise was throughly valid.<BR/><BR/>If I asked the questions that I had asked without you providing that conditional statement, <BR/><BR/>then<BR/><BR/>your complaint would have been valid. (at least by my standard).<BR/><BR/><BR/>But you had given me a reason that made my questions/accusations valid.Red Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-77123378882103380272009-03-03T20:30:00.000-08:002009-03-03T20:30:00.000-08:00why had you engaged in what you called meaningless...<I>why had you engaged in what you called meaningless activity?</I><BR/><BR/>Good question. I did not think it would last so long. I thought you would eventually:<BR/><BR/>A) State your criticisms of free markets (if you have any), and<BR/>B) If you have criticisms, propose a better alternative<BR/><BR/>Your relentless questioning of free markets without suggesting a better alternative reminds of a quote:<BR/><BR/>"Nothing is easier than to prove that something human has imperfections. I am amazed at how many people devote themselves to that task."<BR/>- Thomas SowellAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-75555976134356081212009-03-03T20:17:00.000-08:002009-03-03T20:17:00.000-08:00Red,I'm aware - I falsely accused you of saying I ...Red,<BR/><BR/>I'm aware - I falsely accused you of saying I called the thread meaningless. This is not what you said. You're right. I was wrong to accuse you of it.<BR/><BR/>However, you then proceeded, tonight, to falsely accuse <B>me</B> in almost exactly this same way. By asking if I had a philosophy that questions asked by minorities don't matter, when I never said that.<BR/><BR/>Will you admit you were wrong to accuse me of holding that philosophy?<BR/><BR/>Or, will you continue to insult me, laugh at me, etc. while doing one of the very things you are insulting and laughing at me for?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-86401479660535021482009-03-03T20:01:00.000-08:002009-03-03T20:01:00.000-08:00___________________________________Let's see:Did I...___________________________________<BR/><BR/>Let's see:<BR/><BR/><BR/>Did I say the activity within this thread was meaningless? No - I said whether we referred to the general idea of a free society with the term "laissez-faire" was meaningless to me. - Jay on 3/02/2009 06:12:00 PM<BR/>===================================<BR/><BR/>Another false accusation from Jay! - Red Grant<BR/>===================================<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>I asked a question assuming something you never actually said. I am slammed for making a false accusation.<BR/><BR/>You asked a question:<BR/><BR/>"Is this the kind of philosophy you espouse to?<BR/><BR/>A philosophy that only values questions asked simply by the virtue of being asked by most people or majority?"<BR/><BR/>...assuming something I never actually said. Does that mean you are making a false accusation?<BR/><BR/>Looks like it.<BR/><BR/>Get off your high horse.<BR/><BR/>3/03/2009 07:26:00 PM<BR/>===================================<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Was that a nice try? <BR/><BR/>or<BR/><BR/>pathethic one?<BR/><BR/><BR/>I'll recap the entire episode below how it began and what was it about:<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>Whether we call that ["predominantly free from government control" ideal]<BR/><BR/>"laissez-faire"<BR/><BR/>or not is meaningless to me. - Jay on 2/19/2009 05:44:00 PM<BR/>===================================<BR/><BR/>Then why did you engage in what you consider as meaningless activity within this thread? - Red Grant on 2/24/2009 01:56:00 AM<BR/><BR/>===================================<BR/><BR/>Did I say the activity within this thread was meaningless? No - I said whether we referred to the general idea of a free society with the term "laissez-faire" was meaningless to me. - Jay on 3/02/2009 06:12:00 PM<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Another false accusation from Jay!<BR/><BR/><BR/>Jay, my question was about <BR/><BR/>why you engaged in an <BR/><BR/>activity you consider as meaningless,<BR/><BR/>not<BR/><BR/>whether the activity you engaged within this thread was meaningless!<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>I'll recap below how this began:<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>Whether we call that ["predominantly free from government control" ideal]<BR/><BR/>"laissez-faire"<BR/><BR/>or not is meaningless to me. - Jay on 2/19/2009 05:44:00 PM<BR/>===================================<BR/><BR/>Then why did you engage in what you consider as meaningless activity within this thread? - Red Grant on 2/24/2009 01:56:00 AM<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>However, if we are using history and the actual consequences of different ways of organizing society as our guide, it's tough to find a better model than <BR/><BR/>laissez-faire. - Jay<BR/><BR/>2/18/2009 05:04:00 PM<BR/>-----------------------------------<BR/>There has never been a completely <BR/><BR/>laissez-faire <BR/><BR/>society... - Jay on 2/18/2009 06:29:00 PM<BR/>-----------------------------------<BR/>The United States exemplifies what most people think of as <BR/><BR/>"laissez-faire" <BR/><BR/>better than probably any society in history. - Jay on 2/18/2009 06:29:00 PM<BR/>-----------------------------------<BR/>Whether we call that ["predominantly free from government control" ideal]<BR/><BR/>"laissez-faire" <BR/><BR/>or not is <BR/><BR/>meaningless to me. - Jay on 2/19/2009 05:44:00 PM<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Indeed, Jay, if you believed whether you call that ["predominantly free from government control" ideal]<BR/><BR/>"laissez-faire" <BR/><BR/>or not is <BR/><BR/>meaningless to you, <BR/><BR/>then<BR/><BR/>why had you engaged in what you called meaningless activity?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>3/03/2009 01:34:00 PMRed Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.com