From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Views? :
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 06:25:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.111935.16715@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>Charles -
>	I've got to agree were getting no where, so I'll drop out. 

no, *you* are getting nowhere. i am getting somewhere.

>However something you should think about.  Unless you are an expert it is
>very difficult to tell the difference between an argument that sounds
>true, and one that is true.  I could give you mathematical arguments to
>prove absolute nonsense with very minor flaws in them, that you wouldn't
>pick up.  An economist could do the same to me.

if you read the book, you can decide how much you believe it. if you
don't, you don't know anything about it. your argument above is a lame
excuse to ignore the facts.

>	That's to a great extent why I'm not even going to consider
>reading this sort of book.  I'll realy on the experts to analyze the data,
>I'm humble enough to realize that I do not have the capacity to tell the
>difference between these two types of arguments.

it's your funeral.

and if you don't have the capacity to tell these two types of arguments
apart, why do you expect that i should believe you when you tell me
that everything is hunky dory and the government knows exactly what
it is doing?

>	As for argument that truth is not determined by majority vote,
>this is a nice statement but probably leads to very incorrect statements
>standing unchallenged.  Generally if you want to convince the majority
>that they are wrong the burdon of proff lies almost entirely on yourself,
>to prove that there is a contradiction between two of their held views. 
>To simply shrug off the opinion of the majority leads very quickly to
>philospohical sceptism.

i don't understand what you mean by this. i *do* know that just taking
a poll does not lead to truth. i prefer to make up my mind, whenever
possible, based on evidence and arguments, not overwhelmingly supported
conjecture.

>	Now I am neither dense not being stuborn nor for that matter
>trying to wear you out.

i only said that when you re-introduced your conjecture that "gold
is a fiat currency", which has been ably refuted many times. i apologize
if i was overly harsh, but i didn't want to keep re-explaining the
same thing so many times.


>But your claim that the most people consider gold
>more stable than dollars is nonsense.

again, why?

>I don't have any evidence to back
>this up, other than that most people "stuff their mattress" before they
>"buy gold".  

depends on the crisis, doesn't it? what were they doing in the early 80's?

if you don't have evidence, why should i believe you?

>	Unlike yourself, I could care less about what sort of currency we
>have for a disaster, I want a currency that is stable 99% of the time. 
>Disasters are disasters,  I don't expect to walk away from them, if they
>happen I deal with it then.

that's silly. a disaster *means* instability. what are you going to do
when your dollar starts depreciating monthly, then weekly and hourly?
it's not like it hasn't happened to many other countries in the last
20 years... why do you have to go down with the ship with a blindfold on?

>I unlike yourself don't see the govt. as some
>evil orginization out to rob me, but a slightly misguided group of good
>hearted people.

i don't care what they are. i am going to do everything in my power
to protect my self interests, to the extent that i do not violate
those of other individuals. whether negligence or malice, dead is dead.

>So basically portability might be crucial to you and to
>John Haas, but to most people the full faith of the US govt. is enough of
>a guarentee.

what has the government done to justify this faith? don't wave flags,
back it up! i can write 10 pages for you showing why they *don't*
deserve it...

>If it isn't enough for you, then switch to the barter
>system, or issue your own currency backed in gold.

i can't, see? the government has this little monopoly...

>	As for me "not knowing what the hell I'm talking about" that may
>be true.

c'mon, don't quote me out of context!
the only time i said that was when you took my statement that
"the government can't renege on its promises without serious
consequences" and concluded from it that i didn't think the
financial collapse would destabilize the government enough to
renege.

>However what your describing is something way outside the
>main stream of thought.

many important and correct ideas are. they wanted to kill Galileo (i think
it was him) when he suggested that the earth was not the center of the
solar system. people thought that maggots just grew out of raw meat
before Pasteur proved them wrong. many thought that Goddard was nuts.
need i go on?

>A conspiricy of economists to hide the truth in
>your Banckrupcy 1995 book (and yes you did say this "they have no reason
>to tell the truth").

there is evidence to support this supposition, although i will admit
it may not be as solid as some of the other evidence.

>The govt. activly supporting this conspiracy.

now *that* there is plenty of evidence to support.

>The
>eminant collapse of the economy.

ditto.

>People fleeing the country, and mass
>riots.

we'll see.

>But no one steals Charles' gold for some reason.

duh.
of course they do -- that's why i *might* want to leave the country.
oops, then i'm being a traitor. i should just hand it over to my
brother Americans while they loot my house. how patriotic.

>Your living in a paranoid fantasy WAKE UP!

i have evidence and arguments. you have faith and bluster.
i'll take my chances.

--
charles