Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site ratex.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!ratex!mck
From: mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Libertarian Arguments -- (Reply to)**5 Baba
Message-ID: <1100@ratex.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 28-Apr-85 22:34:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: ratex.1100
Posted: Sun Apr 28 22:34:03 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 29-Apr-85 04:37:36 EDT
Organization: Squids R Us
Lines: 89
Keywords: gompers


Lines marked with an odd number of '>' are those of Baba; the rest are mine.

>>>>>I seem to recall that one of the examples of ludicrous straw men given 
>>>>>by DKMcK was in fact a proposition put forward by a self-proclaimed 
>>>>>libertarian several weeks earlier.
>>>>
>>>>  1) Rather than seeming to recall, why doesn't Baba give us a concrete
>>>>example?
>>>
>>>Quite simply, spar doesn't have enough disk space to archive more than a
>>>couple of weeks worth of news.  Both your article and the one it put
>>>me in mind of are lost under the rainbow.  If you would care to mail
>>>me a copy of your article, I'll be happy to tell you which example 
>>>I was referring to.
>>
>>Wonderful!  Baba makes an assertion which he cannot substantiate, and the
>>truth of which I question, and then asks him that I send him the proof.  If
>>I knew of an article which proved his accusation, I wouldn't have challenged
>>it in the first place.  I find his request extremely bizarre!
>
>If you would take the time to read my postings before replying, you might
>notice a few little things that seem to escape your attention.  Like the
>fact that I was requesting a copy of *YOUR* article.  

If you would take the time to think before making your demands, you might
see how bizarre they are.  I KNOW that you were requesting one of MY
articles, but let's examine your request.
       1. You claim that I attacked an argument as straw-man when it had been
          used by someone calling himself 'libertarian'.
       2. I doubt it, and ask for a concrete example.
       3. You ask me to send an example.
If I don't know anything about the alleged example, other than that it is
alleged as an example, HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO KNOW WHICH ARTICLE YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT?!?  Let alone where to find it!  As I said: BIZARRE!!!

>(In the referenced article, I caught Dan'l in yet another attempt at libel.)

Baba, I NEVER attempt libel.  I may wrongly accuse someone of something, but
only because, in the context of the knowledge that I have, they appear to
have done what I accuse them of.  When I am reasonably shown to be wrong
(about persons or otherwise), I publicly admit error (and, where called for,
apologize).  You have (deliberately or otherwise) libelled me.

>>Well, since I appear to have screwed up badly here, I apologize.  Of course,
>>the alternative would be to stoop to your level, and simply drop-out of
>>the argument rather than concede error.
>
>Which argument do you claim I dropped out of "rather than concede error"?

Case in point: You asserted that free market conditions could be such that
economic growth was necessary to attain full employment.  I pointed out that
demand for labor and supply of labor were both functions of wage rates, and
that in a Free Economy workers and employers would bid wages up or down until
full employment was attained, without there necessarily being any growth in
the economy.
In our arguments over inflation and unemployment, you pointed out ONE
genuine flaw in what I said; specifically, you noted that a general rise in
prices could be brought about by a major supply-shock, AND I PUBLICLY
ADMITTED THAT YOU WERE RIGHT.  At every other point you simply dropped out of
the argument.

>How many people do you think you are going to move to anything but contempt
>with your cheap innuendoes?

Again you libel me.  I never engage in ennuendo (cheap or otherwise); I state
my points (insulting or otherwise) OPENLY, so they are readily subject to
examination.  You're the one who uses innuendo (YES, I CAN supply EXAMPLES),
altho you also insult openly.

>                             You had 'em snowed with your economic jargon
>for a while, Dan'l, but you are now making a fool of yourself.

I've repeatedly offered to explain ANY jargon that I use, and (in fact) have
actually done so at times (case in point: explaining that 'full employment'
refers to a state where there is no frictional unemployment (I have also, by
implication, explained what frictional unemployment is)).  I use economic
jargon in discussing economics for the same reason that you might use
computer jargon in a discussion of computers or mathematical jargon in a
discussion of mathematics or electronic jargon in a discussion of electronics
et cetera. 
If I made some absurd pronouncements about combinatorics (in net.math),
chances are that I wouldn't understand the jargon used in the responses; if
opponents offerred to explain their jargon, I'd have no basis for complaint.
People writing in net.politics(|.theory) have made some absurd pronouncements
about economics; I have offerred to explain my jargon.

                               Back later,
                               DKMcK