At 02:58 PM 12/22/98 EST, you wrote: >No, unlike Bill's, my apology is sincere and as for close to Bill's, well you >know the rest..."close but no cigar". > >But you know, reductio ad absurdum/nauseum as a instrument of rhetoric and >reasoning does not so much suggest analogy as to expore the inner and perhaps >hidden nature and consequences of a thing by extrapolating the inexorable or >likely consequences if given "principles", "axioms" and "concepts" are >consistently and universally applied. That is the spirit in which it is used >rather than to suggest that the nazis were holding seminars and praticums on >Walras, Pareto or even Hayek to construct marginalist calculations and general >"equilibria" schemes and orders. slippery-slope stories only go so far. >But I really did like Wotjek's comments and about the illusions of "choice". I too thought that his historical analysis was useful. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html
