From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 09:26:39 GMT

In article <parvin1.718293858@husc11> parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin) writes:
}starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
}
}>In article <parvin1.718214048@husc11> parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin) writes:
}>}
}>}This classical approach is based on the assumption that utility is static.
}>}That is, if I make a transaction my utility may change, but if I don't it
}>}will remain the same.  Tell that to someone deciding whether to buy heat,
}>}food, electricity, etc.
}
}>Bullshit.  You don't know anything about what you're talking about.  Who
}>says we're economic classicists?  You're far mor likely to find adherents of
}>the Austrian school of economics than (neo)classicists among libertarians.
}>Acknowledging that marginal utility changes with time is one of the main
}>parts of Austrian or market-process theory.  In case you don't know, the
}>school of thought I'm talking about originated the theory of marginal utility.
}
}I didn't claim that libertarians "are classical economists".  I'm simply
}stating that this "all transactions are good for all" mentality is a relic
}of that age. Also, I didn't say a thing about marginal utilities changing
}with time. It's not the change in marginal utilities, but the marginal
}utilities themselves that I was refering to.  (You can be screwed the exact
}same way a thousand times ;-) )

Your referral to "This classical approach" which I've retained above seemed
to be painting us as classicists in economics in this regard.

"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.

If you have any argument which follows towards your conclusion, I've yet to
notice it.

}Why don't you read what I was responding
}to before jumping all over a straw horse?  I was attacking a moral
}JUSTIFICATION for a free market, not the notion of its workings.  If, as
}you claim, libertarians are not neo-classicists, then such a justification
}is hypocritical, not simplistic. If that makes you feel better, fine.

But you were attacking it by means of a highly unrealistic hypothetical 
example of how it would work, one of the cliche attacks upon libertarianism
in greatest surplus.  You've begged the question and attacked a claim no one
that I observed (and certainly not Perry, the subject of your original
attack) made, that free markets were perfectly efficient.

}>You're certainly not going to win any points or debates without doing your
}>homework.
}
}For your information, I'm currently researching a thesis in the history of
}of economic thought, and last year took a five person seminar course with
}Robert Nozick on theories of rationality.  Now I hate ad hominem arguments
}as much as the next guy, so why don't you tone down your personal attacks
}so we can get on with the debate at hand.  Show some civility, and get off
}your non-existant high horse.

Then you should know better than to have taken the line of argument you did!
If I'm right about your argument, then it's quite possible to study under
great thinkers such as Nozick and fail to learn such basics of their thought
as the distinction between end-state and process views of justice.

I'm not on any high horse, nor was I being intentionally malicious.  You
weren't the subject of my criticism, the method of argument you employed was.

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.

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.

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?


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