http://www.thedailybell.com/1630/Anthony-Wile-The-Rise-of-Brownianism.html
@Carl Herman (LA County Nonpartisan Examiner)
Where do I begin...?
Let’s count the strikes, shall we? A quick check of all of my questions that you have thus far ignored:
1) How do you believe this proposal would accomplish accountability and full transparency in government?
2) You seem quite skeptical about government power. Why are you such a proponent of it in this case?
3) Could you please provide examples of political integrity in government that would give you confidence in this occasion?
4) Please identify instances where government regulation has worked. Explain this in the context of the last decade in finance and real estate – two of the most regulated industries in the country.
5) If we just change the owner of the printing press, all economic woes will disappear. We can eliminate need from the vocabulary of man. Really, you believe this?
6) I know the reason government actors, and those above them pulling the strings of government actors, have for monopolizing money. What are your reasons?
7) Only competition, proven via profit and loss in a free marketplace has demonstrated the ability to consistently raise man's standard of living. It does so for every other good, why not for money?
8) Then let those 3/5 to 2/3 pay for it. By what right do they have claim on me in order to fulfill their fantasies?
There are at least 8 strikes. So now, I can count higher than you can. Does this qualify me for the position of Federal Reserve Chairman?
Now to your latest post:
Streets and sidewalks? Try this by Walter Block, also an economics professor. I would put him in the 2% camp. Don’t let the length scare you. Also, I don’t believe this will change your opinion one bit, but then again, I am not writing this for your sake. http://mises.org/books/roads_web.pdf
CH: “You make an a priori argument against "central planning" and refuse to provide resources you say make your case?”
This is two strikes? The easiest softball of the day and your challenge rides on this? Are you really an economics professor? Given all the examples in the history of the 20th century, this burden does not sit on me. Ok, I’m game. Maybe the Soviet Union would be a good start? What about North Korea? East Germany? If you haven't heard of these, or cannot use Google, I can get some links for you.
CH: “…do I understand you correctly that you'll let the poor die on the streets rather than provide them with health care?”
I never said what I would personally do, so I don’t know how you could understand me correctly or incorrectly. But I know I wouldn’t use force to steal from someone else and then call it charity. Your attitude is typical of those who confuse theft with generosity and compassion. It is easy to be generous with someone else’s money. It is fallacious to say that one defending his property from a thief is somehow not being charitable.
Yes, you do ignore my questions, again listed above for your ease and comfort. Below is my entire comment on the subject of slavery:
BM: “Underlying your view is a philosophy that believes slavery is a legitimate way to order society. Try to defend your statements without relying on this fact. It cannot be done. Once you admit that you advocate slavery, try to define with some philosophical consistency those parts of your private life that should be protected from the slaveholder. There is no line other than zero that can be legitimately defended. Now compare the evil that is slavery (your ideal society) with my lack of concern about where I might find a public sidewalk. I will risk the possible lack of a sidewalk.”
What I gave you was a problem in logic and deductive reasoning. I made one error in my conclusion. There is another logical conclusion I could have reached about your underlying philosophy besides slavery. It could also be theft. Now, use logic and reason to refute this. You cannot. This was the problem I presented to you in the first place. This should be obvious for an economics professor. You failed gloriously.
CH: “I count two questions to this point: addressing the "slippery slope" fallacy was one and the other is the paradox of having a structure of government that's transparent when we don't have that today and most cannot imagine it. I addressed both.”
No not two questions, and you have addressed neither. I have listed eight above. And this wasn’t all of them, and it does not include questions asked by others on this thread.
CH: “And answer #2 above, please. This is a reality check of your economic philosphy.”
Have I even described in any sufficient detail my economic philosophy? Certainly, my economic philosophy does not justify slavery or theft. Does yours?
Your grade is F for this course. Merry Christmas.
No comments:
Post a Comment