From: jwales@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Empty Philosophies
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 03:00:18 GMT

This grows more amusing with each passing day!

Frank Ferguson writes:
>Mr. Wales huffs and preens and
>bellows and mounts a number of personal attacks, but fails to
>make a single, substantive point.

Substantive point 1:  The modern case for libertarian capitalism is
not dependent upon the classical economic assumptions of purely rational
and benevolent actors.  Nor is it necessary to assume that the market
somehow magically reaches an optimal solution.  Nor is it necessary to
assume that people are cold-hearted and calculating.

>  I am accused of attacking a "straw man"--of attacking something
>other than the Libertarianism I claim I'm attacking.  This may be true, but
>Mr. Wales surely fails to demonstrate such.  Indeed, all he does demonstrate
>is a tendency to pompus proclaimations.

Is is a 'pompus proclaimation' to note that the bulk of modern libertarian
thought is nothing at all like Ferguson's depiction?  

>In response to my pointing out the obviously "atomistic" nature of the 
>individual in Libertarian (indeed even Lockean) thought, and the irony
>in the fact that such a thinker would fail to understand the fundamental
>Christian worry about the danger of wealth to the immortal soul; Mr.
>Wales comes forth with some irrelevant nonsense about "Capitalism" and
>"Liberty" and the kind of men these "social gifts" work for: men who
>are somewhat interconnected and prone to logical error. Fact is, all
>this totally misses my point. 

Now this is fun.  He claims that libertarian thought obviously assumes
an "atomistic" nature of the individual.  I respond, quite coherently,
that advocacy of a libertarian capitalist economic theory does NOT
require any such assumption.  He claims now that my response is irrelevant.

Notice another subtle rhetorical tactic.  Ferguson claims that I come
forth with nonsense about "Capitalism" and "Liberty" and something about
"social gifts."  I do not remember my entire post (I hope that he has
a copy somewhere), but one thing is for sure: I would not use the
phrase 'social gifts' under any circumstances.

Is Ferguson ready for an intellectual discussion of the issues
involved?  Let's see what the evidence suggests...

>I'll claim
>that Dickens got you weasels right the first time you raised your
>cold hearted "philosophy", and (Mr. Wales ukases to the contrary) nothing
>has been raised of late to change his dreary assessement.

Since I've been posting to this group, I have often included a little
lesson about fallacious arguments with my post.  For those who might 
enjoy such, this post will be no disappointment.

The 'ad hominem' fallacy is committed whenever someone rejects or 
dismisses another person's statement by attacking the person rather
than the statement itself.

You may notice that my claims have been modest and (to date) not
addressed by Mr. Ferguson.  His wonderfully rational response is
to call me a "weasel" with a "cold hearted 'philosophy'".

Never tease a weasel, Frank.

--Jimbo

Organization: Senior, Mathematics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA