From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Andre Marrou on Larry King
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 06:14:08 GMT

In article <168328E48.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com writes:
}In article <1992Jul28.083814.5081@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
}starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
} 
}>In article <168318A82.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com writes:
}>}>
}>}Right....just allow slumlords to build uninspected firetraps, and all
}>}will be well.  The Libertarians in action.
}>
}>Pay attention.  We've been arguing why the free market will provide affordable
}>quality housing if permitted.
}>
}So far you have only argued the housing would be cheaper, and that
}homeless people should have the opportunity to live in unsafe housing
}if they so desire.  I have yet to see the word "quality" until this
}post.  Where exactly is the incentive for the builder to spend money on
}quality?  Remember, you have been talking about housing for the
}extremely poor.  Also, your lack of standards would presumably apply to
}your house and mine as well.  I would rather my kids did not live in a
}firetrap.

I'm sorry if I was wrong that we've argued that the free market would provide
quality housing in this thread.  I argue this sort of thing so much that I
may have gotten confused.

However, the quality of housing has been at least implicit in the comparisons
we've made between living outside and living in cheap housing, if not
fully explicit.  You should be able to draw some conclusions for yourself,
you know.

}>Pfaw!  We have a hard time with economics?!?  We've got 5 Nobel Prize winning
}>economists in our camp.  How many are in yours?  We've got Ludwig Von Mises,
}>who was the only one who predicted the Great Depression, Friedrich Hayek,
}>who went head to head with Keynes in the London School, and won him over to
}>the argument of "The Road To Serfdom"...
}>
}So you have two economists....big deal.  It just proves that economists
}can be found to support any position.  It proves nothing.

I'm losing patience with your inattention.  That's not two economists, it's
five, and not just any kind of economists, but Nobel Laureates.  While
that's no guarantee, it's reasonable to think that this means that their
views are significant.

Besides which, I didn't just cite authorities, I cited actual accomplishments,
such as Ludwig von Mises predicting the Great Depression.  Two libertarian
economists also predicted the fall of the Soviet Union.

It does too prove something, it proves that there is a substantial body of
thought underlying our positions, and that you are apparently wholly ignorant
of this absolute fact, and that you are even ignorant of your own ignorance!
To know that one is ignorant is the beginning of wisdom.  You've apparently
yet to begin to be wise about libertarian economics.

}Good for you.  What do you know about the problem of the commons?  And
}how do Libertarians believe in treating it?  Just because the majority
}of people are ignorant of economics does not mean you have all the
}answers.

That's "The Tragedy of the Commons," by Garret Hardin, retired professor of
Environmental Studies at the University of California at Santa Barbara,
which I attended for a while, unfortunately after he stopped teaching.

If you were familiar with Hardin's work, you'd know that he reccomends the
establishment of private property rights for the resolution of this problem,
which is the general libertarian prescription.  There is a lot of literature
on this subject to which you would do well to refer firsthand if you have
any more specific curiosity.

}>You have no idea of what you're talking about.  That's quite clear.
}>
}Your opinion...and I care very little what you think.

Yes, but I'm finding it very easy to support my opinion with logic, theory,
fact, and references, and you've been getting your arguments refuted soundly
by us, without doing so much as giving one fact in support of your opinions.
What's more, we've been very polite and patient with you, a courtesy you
seem to be neglecting to extend to us in return.  Apparently you don't want
to inform your opinions, but you merely want to let your fingers do the
thinking, and admire your own rhetoric.  If this is correct, I certainly
hope you get more utility from it than I do.

}No...because there is no point.  Your justifications of your premises
}is necessarily based on those premises.  You would reject any attempt
}to discredit your premises.  The result is not worth the effort.

This conveniently excuses you from having to make any positive assertions
of your own.  Could it be that this is because you have none of sound and
valid logic?  I'm not so naive to claim that there are none whose libertarian
mindset is as you describe, but most of the libertarians I know aren't like
this.

Personally, I think you're merely too lazy to admit that you'd have to
think too hard in order to counter-argue.

}Oh, you have wounded me!  I have very few prejudices, actually.  The
}biggest problem is that I am intolerant of fools.  That is why I have
}such a low tolerance level for Libertarians.

Wounding you wasn't my intention.  I was honestly advising you of an apparent
flaw in your character which you may wish to redress.

Intolerance is another vice.  However, you seem too narrow-mindedly interested
in being insulting than in informing us or being informed.  You seem exclusively
interested in being argumentative, which is a waste of my precious time.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly

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