On 1/10/14, 6:28 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
(2) Second, given that understanding of what I agreed to, there ARE
examples where the rich are not as dominant as the rich are in our
current society. In fact, not long ago, we were such a society.
For example
(http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2012/03/27/outside-groups-spending-through-roof)
" Outside groups, including super PACs and nonprofit organizations, have
spent almost four times more on the 2012 presidential campaign than
comparable organizations spent at the same point in the 2008 cycle, an
analysis of Federal Election Commission filings show."
Your relativist argument (and evidence like above to support it), and
also historical observations made on this list have falsified "He who
has the gold rules." as literal proposition. Given that it is
falsified, pop the stack to go back to the discussion of how to have an
individual from the left and an individual from the right reconcile
their views `rationally'. Why ought he who has the gold rule? Why
should property rights be respected in all situations or even in any?
Why should those that have resources influence legislation? Why should
the law be considered anything more than a factor in risk and reward
decisions? I'm happy to go down the merry road of nihilism with you.
Bring your favorite things. I'll wear my cargo pants with lots of
pockets. Oh, never mind that wrench I'm carrying. I heard someone was
having car trouble over the horizon.
Marcus
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
