On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Carrol Cox <[email protected]> wrote: > raghu: This may all be true but beside the point for David Shemano's > argument. > > I don't read David S's arguments. Replying to them is like arguing that the > mountain shouldn't be so steep. Ignore him. >
I find that David sometimes highlights issues that is otherwise easy to lose sight of. In this case for instance, David's argument helps highlight one basic asymmetry between progressives and rightwingers. You may not may not agree with someone like Paul Krugman. You may be a convinced libertarian who thinks that Krugman's ideas have bad consequences etc. But no one with any intellectual honesty can seriously claim that Krugman's policy goals are *intended* to cause more people to lose their jobs. On the other hand, I think it is entirely reasonable to think that someone like David Koch has policy goals that are directly intended to cause people to lose jobs. It is possible to make the argument that David Koch benefits when people lose jobs, but no similar remotely plausible argument can be made for Krugman. -raghu.
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
