> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of John Williams > Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 12:24 PM > To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion > Subject: Re: Financial institution fallout > > On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 8:13 AM, Dan M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Here is where you differ with 96% of people. Most people don't worry > about > > the purity of the economic system. They worry about their lives and the > > lives of the other people in the nation and the world. > > I am not worried about the "purity of the economic system". > > > For example, when you put > > forth a libertarian understanding of the Great Depression, I wanted to > > discuss historical numbers, techniques, etc....the sort of thing any > > experimentalist would want to discuss in evaluating the theory. You > > considered this changing the subject. > > If you are referring to Higg's paper that I referenced, then you were > the one who changed the subject and started your usual ramblings. And > you never addressed a single one of Higg's points.
No, I was asking simple questions about techniques. Discussions between people on a paper, results, etc. depend on agreement on techniques for evaluation. I asked whether you agreed on a few essential techniques of empirical investigation. > > You also have stated that the burden of proof does not fall equally on > every > > viewpoint, but falls solely on those that differ with you. > > Again with making up views and attributing them to me. Is making up > things about people the only way you can justify pretending you know > better how to spend other people's money? That's not the point being argued. You see, all but a few people understand that money is a placeholder; it is a social construct. Numbers in a computer or pieces of paper with dead presidents on them have meaning only within a society. Thus, if you are a member of this society, you play by its rules. As Rob said, we haven't drunk the Kool-Aid of radical individualism. We can argue what rules are good or bad for society and the inhabitants of that society. But, your arguments for radical individualism are about as sensible as someone arguing that people are just a construct, all that exist are quarks, leptons, and all the particles that transmit the forces. BTW, when you quote phrases almost word for word, do you think it is mere coincidence that you do so? I'd argue it means that you've heard an idea you like and repeated it. If you're ignorant of where your ideas came from, that's OK, but it's not changing the subject for me to recognize where your ideas originated. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
