> 5. People who have never read Adam Smith are probably not qualified to > discuss what he said. And almost nobody has ever read Adam Smith. Even > most economists have never gotten around to it.
They especially never seem to read the bits about the neccesity of regulation. > 6. Most people who have never studied physics would be unlikely to > pontificate on the subject. Most people who have never studied economics > not only will pontificate on the subject, but will explain to you in > terms that suggest you are an idiot, why they are right and you are > wrong. That they are unqualified will never occur to them. Requiring qualifications to express an opinion is demanding the acceptance of argument from authority, a poor place to situate foundations. One hopes a qualified opinion will express good arguments but often depresingly doesn't because qualifications are often won by assumming appropriate, authority accepted, permissions the echoing of which can win reward. Besides which it is an error to claim someone who doesn't study at certified tertiary school is unqualified to opine of things they've experienced their entire life. Furthermore qualified does not equate with competent, honest and/or unbiased. I'm perfectly happy to read, hear and judge the opinion of the wholly unqualified and it turns out that this neat medium of the Internet allows us ample opotunity to press for detail and explore the competence of the opinion giver. Screw argument from authority. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
