Harry Pollard wrote: > You denied that "privileged" should be applied to the poor. > > It makes all the sense in the world if you place the term "privilege" on > the defined concept of a "private law" (privi-lege) which is "legislation > which benefits one at the expense of another."
...at the expense of whom ? You seem to suggest that the poor's "privileges" are at the expense of rich folks, but that's not the way it is -- the poor's "privileges" (if any) are at the expense of other (relatively) poor, which do the actual work on the ground. Btw, the laws are being introduced by the rich, so guess who will benefit from those laws ? > > As long as privileges exist, they should be distributed fairly. > > Do you really mean that Chris? > > Wouldn't it be better to remove all privilege from the political scene? If you'd care to read what I wrote: I wrote "as long as privileges exist," -- it doesn't mean that I want them to exist, but it means that IF they exist (and they do exist now, whether we like it or not), THEN they should be distributed fairly. > You continue: > > > What you advocate, however, is unfair distribution (and even increasing) > > of privileges for the *fattest* cats -- by advocating WTO, GATS, > > multi-million salaries for CEOs and "sportsmen", etc. > > I'm a devil, aren't I? I have consistently opposed all privilege for > years. How then can I be for any privilege. See, that's the contradiction I caught you in. You're advocating WTO etc. but you deny that these things contradict your alleged goals. Your denial became most obvious in your false claims about GATS Article I(3) which were even belied by the WTO Secretariat itself (see my posting of 16-Dec-01). > The WTO's job is to get nations to drop the tariffs, quotas, and other > barriers to interdependence with other nations. Do you not believe that > communication between people and peoples are good things? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ For *communication*, we don't need the WTO -- we can use the Internet just fine -- the WTO is about *physical* exchange of products and raw materials, to maximize profits of already "fat cats". If you think that the "anti-globalizers" oppose *communication*, then you have swallowed the NYT PR whole and don't know what you're talking about. > Here is a quote that refers to Erhart: > > "Mises predicted the inevitable breakdown of the Soviet Union's Communist > party� controlled"economy" in 1920 and his teaching at Universities in > Vienna, Geneva and New York, and his lecturing around the world have > produced a stream of students who became eminent economists in their own > right: (F.A. Hayek, Nobel Laureate, Wilhelm Roepke, who showed Ludwig > Erhart how to produce the "German Economic Miracle" after world War II), > and many other free market teachers in a growing number of universities." > > I got this through Google. I can't be bothered to search further to improve > your historical understanding. Absurd -- you get your historical "understanding" from an irrelevant Google quote, but then you think you can lecture me about German history. FYI: I get my historical understanding from experts who lived in Germany during the Erhart era. > You say: > > >Here you're misrepresenting my case again. What do my statements have to > >do with "rich *against* poor" ? > > You also say: > > "The goal is not to hand out gifts for nothing, but quite the opposite: To > prevent the rich from being handed out gifts for nothing! > > Doesn't this single out the rich as against the poor? Well, if you think > you can single out the "rich" and then say you are not singling out the > rich, so be it. Hair-fetching word games again. It is one thing to advocate fair conditions for society (and to oppose treaties that aim at the opposite); it is quite another thing to incite "class hate" for the sake of it (or even for the sake of personal profit, as some apparatchiks do). I'm doing the former, but you accuse me of the latter. Chris
