From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 08:33:46 GMT

In article <parvin1.718646643@husc11> parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin) writes:
}
}>}>Bullshit.  You don't know anything about what you're talking about.  Who
}
}You don't take this to be a rude, caustic personal attack?

On second thought, I do.  'Twas hasty, ill-considered, and regrettable.  I'm
sorry.

}>Your referral to "This classical approach" which I've retained above seemed
}>to be painting us as classicists in economics in this regard.
}
}I should have said neo-classical.  It was the neo-classical economists who 
}coined supply and demand, etc. in the late 19th century.
}The classical economists, such as Smith and Ricardo, believed in
}a labor theory of value.  So first I'd like to make a correction.
}I don't think a labor theory of value would be very good for process-
}oriented libertarians ;-).  But it doesn't really matter what you are; it's
}the arguments you make.

That's consistent with what I know.  When you said "classical," I thought:
Labor value-theorists?  That's what made me think you were ignorant.

}>"Relic" has negative connotations which beg the question.  Beyond a few
}>hypotheticals assuming unrealistic conditions, you've failed to disprove
}>the claim that contractual exchanges necessarily leave both parties better
}>off afterwards than before.
}
}You're absolutely right, given your very narrow view of "better off".  I
}haven't "disproved" it, because I think it's a hollow justification for
}the market system.  I regret calling Perry's remark "simplistic".  A
}better word would have been "incomplete", i.e., not comprehensive enough
}to support his rebuttal of the original poster some 2000 posts back.
}You're free to disagree.

It wasn't this comprehensive, but it seemed to me to recast the terms of the
debate, which I seem to recall justifiable.  So many usenet discussions
degenerate into trivia that reiterating essentials is usually valuable.

}>If you have any argument which follows towards your conclusion, I've yet to
}>notice it.
}
}Pleas see my other posts.  The subject drifted somewhat from Perry's point,
}but I think you'll find plenty lying around.
}
}Let's be a bit nicer, OK?  If you think an argument is ill-founded or
}misses the point, say so.  But give a poster the benefit of the doubt that
}maybe he could actually be well-read in libertarian thought, and still
}not buy it (*gasp*).

You seemed to be saying that we adhered to the labor theory of value.  If that
had actually been the case, you couldn't have been literate in libertarian
economics at all.  Please understand my position.

}>Perry claimed that consensual transactions are always mutually beneficial.
}>All you did was claim that this was simplistic because it could possibly
}>include an end-state that most would find unacceptable, given empirical
}>assuptions, some false, some highly improbable.  You failed to show how this
}>improbable occurrence refuted the proferred justification for libertarianism.
}
}All I claimed was that this somewhat limited notion of "mutually beneficial"
}seemed too weak to morally justify a free market.  You're free to disagree.
}One can certainly argue a point well without "disproving" the opposition,
}if one believes that what's being "proved" is not the salient of the issue.
}As for the assumptions, I believe we do find them to lesser or greater
}degrees in the market.  But those arguments shouldn't even concern
}pure "process" libertarians.

Weak on what grounds?  You didn't specify any, leaving us to draw our own
conclusions.

How would being a "pure process" libertarian preclude concern with market
failures?

}>Am I being uncivil if I say that this is a cheap, illogical debating tactic,
}>and unworthy of anyone of informed opinion?  I value civility highly.  I'm
}>sorry if I appeared uncivil.
}
}I didn't mean to be sophistical, and I'm sorry if I appeared so.  Perhaps
}I was reading more into Perry's post than was intended.
}
}As for your rhetorical style, I think just staying away from scatology and
}references to the posters rather than the posts would be a big improvement.

It's not my usual style.  It's a somewhat reflexive habit of dealing with
perceived ignorance of ignorance.  One of my favorite pagan sayings is that
to know that one's ignorant is the beginning of wisdom.  When I run into
someone who appears not to have begun be wise and claims knowledge not
possessed, I get impatient and probably rude.  With people who actually are
ignorant, it seems to work pretty well.  You can now testify to its
effectiveness with those who may appear ignorant temporarily, but actually
do know what they're talking about :-(.

}>But do you honestly think that you've pointed out a flaw in the moral
}>justification of libertarianism?  If so, you've kept it secret from me, at
}>least, if not others.  Care to de-mystify?
}
}I didn't know there was only one justification for libertarianism. 
}I take much better to the "corrupt, inefficient, lazy, unaccountable"
}government arguments.  But even on the categorical side, the justification
}for libertarianism involves much more than the slice of it I was commenting on.

Perhaps.  Whether there's one justification for libertarianism depends upon
philosophical underpinnings.  Certainly libertarian conclusions can be drawn
from many foundations.

However, you first seemed to be saying that there was some sin committed by
Perry in making that argument.  Now you're saying that the sin was by
omission.  Quite a different thing altogether.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou