Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site topaz.RUTGERS.EDU
Path: utzoo!decvax!bellcore!petrus!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!dual!lll-crg!seismo!columbia!topaz!josh
From: josh@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (J Storrs Hall)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: (micromotives & macrobehavior)
Message-ID: <3635@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Thu, 12-Sep-85 16:04:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: topaz.3635
Posted: Thu Sep 12 16:04:15 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 15-Sep-85 09:33:59 EDT
Reply-To: josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall)
Distribution: na
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 82


In article <745@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes:
>In article <3552@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall) writes:
>> In article <727@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes:
>> >By this analogy, you'd have to remove yourself pretty far from the rest of
>> >us atoms to maintain your vacuum.  Feel welcome to.  :-)  The fact is, when
>> >the atoms get close together, there is an emergent phenominon: [political]
>> >pressure.
>> 
>> Originally, the analogy was vacuum = lack of political system.  You've
>> changed it to vacuum = lack of people, and then just assumed your
>> conclusion, that presence of people implies a political system.
>> Pretty shoddy thinking.
>
>I made the analogy into a more accurate and complete explanation of my
>thinking.  Just because you don't like it doesn't make it shoddy.

You began, "By this analogy" as if you were using the same one.  Then
you changed the analogy, as noted above, without any indication you
intended to, to make a childish insult.  Then, again as noted, you
assumed your conclusion.  This is shoddy thinking, whether I like it
or not, and is pretty underhanded debating tactics.

>> No, AT&T valiantly struggled TO be made a monopoly by those SELF-
>> INTERESTED legislators.
>
>Exactly.  A free market organization attempting to make the market less free
>to maximize its own benefit.  This is exactly the reason why the free market
>is unstable, and libertaria will quickly degenerate into feudalism.

A "free market organization"????  Please go back and read Adam Smith again.

>> >  It would happen without
>> >the politics: look at all the mergers and aquisitions forming megalithic
>> >companies in the past two or three decades.
>> 
>> --Which haven't formed any monopolies...
>
>Because there are laws specifically designed to prevent monopolies.  

A remarkably naive belief.  Posner's "Economic Analysis of Law" (a hefty
text, currently in use) provides a good analysis of what really happens.

>> >> >Fair?  Only by redefinition of the word to meet libertarian standards.
>> >> Oh, forgive me, of course in common usage a voluntary exchange is
>> >> considered a heinous crime whereas extortion at gunpoint is ... "fair".
>> >I'd say quotation out of context is a pretty heinous crime.  
>> Funny, you do it all the time.
>I deny that: you can provide examples.  In any case, you're not excused
>because anyone else does it.

You've come close in the same breath.  I never claimed your pecadillos
excused mine.  I claimed it was funny--indeed, it's aisle-rolling hilarious--
that you get upset (think it a "heinous crime") over the idea that
someone is using a debating trick on you, considering that your entire
argument is based on straw men, assuming the conclusion, and representing
your crazy interpretations as the other person's views.

>> >> >How would the market make preventing starvation or disease in the poor
>> >> >economic?
>> >> Look again, it is the totalitarian dictatorships that are starving their
>> >> people.  
>> >The fact is that the wealth of a nation does not feed the poor.  It is the
>> >distribution of the wealth that does.
> [glass of water "distribution" joke]
>Ho ho.  Now how about an answer?

OK, if you must have everything spelled out at a third grade level:
The wealth of a nation *does* feed its poor.  The so-called poverty
line in the USA is above the median line in the USSR, and a "poor"
American would be considered rich in most African nations.  Distribution
of nothing, no matter how even, feeds no one.

>>... Go peddle your ideology to dead Kulaks.
>
>Believe it or not, even in a severe socialism people are provided with
>some approximation of their needs almost as if they were paid for their
>labors.

Can you read?

--JoSH