From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Negative Income Tax (Was: Social programs)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 00:49:26 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.075008.11223@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>I have not anthropomorphized the debate...

liar. you fired the first shot.
did you not say "you sir, are not a democrat!" very early in this discussion?
which is what got this started? i thought so.
don't start with me.

>I have not called any   
>particular person a fundamentalist...I have only called Objectivism
>a fundamentalist ideology.

more inconsistent word games. if i believe in objectivism, then you
are calling me a fundamentalist if i believe in something you call
fundamentalist.

*this* is the best you can give as evidence of your marvelous argumentative
skills and consistent philosophy?

>Objectivism adheres to a rigid set of
>axioms

you mean like your adherence to "popular sovereignty"?

>where the terminology is often redefined from commonly
>understood denotations to restrict and contort words and ideas to 
>into an inflexible rulebook structure.

you mean like your "government-guaranteed right to vote"?

>If it waddles like a duck,
>and quacks like a duck...

you mean like your inconsistent, cowardly argument style imply an
inconsistent, cowardly philosophy?

>How can you accuse me of espousing dogma...

you are unable to defend your positions, and you repeat claims
(not arguments) against your opponent which are either incorrect
or unsubstantiated NUMEROUS times, while ignoring valid counter-examples
to your position. seems pretty clear to me.

>apart from asserting a
>single principle, that of popular sovereignty, I haven't been advocating

you must be the most dense person on the face of the planet -- maybe even
worse than Gary Dare, a feat i thought impossible only a month ago.
(cheap shots get returned, Gary :^)) why do you refuse to address all the
counter-arguments i have made which blow your moronic position out of the water?
and how can you continue to claim to know anything about objectivism when
you clearly don't? how can you not address the totally impossible implications
of a government-guaranteed right to *anything*? how can you call objectivism
"fundamentalist" when *by definition* so is yours if it is based on a
"principle", which is the same as a fundamental?

>any ideology...and the advocation of popular sovereignty is basically
>asserting the position that everyone is entitled to their personal
>beliefs and a right to voice them politically through 
>their right to vote...which is a method more than an ideology.

complete hooey.
and since you are the one who claimed that rights were not prioritized,
it is still incumbent upon *you* to explain under what circumstances you
would put the right to property over the right to vote. the definition of
right to vote you imply in the preceding paragraph has nothing to do with
the buffalo biscuits for which you were attempting to argue earlier.

until you can address clearly and logically the inconsistencies in
your arguments, and the counter-arguments you have ignored, nothing
more you have to say on the subject will be other than evangelical
propagandic dogma. i just hope everyone else can see this too.

btw, even the question of the NIT, which this discussion started out as,
was resolved in a separate discussion once it was discovered that your
definition of it turned out to be totally inaccurate. which is what led to my
opposition to it in the first place -- way to go. (if you disagree with this,
i suggest you take it up with Christopher Browne). this evidence of your
great comprehension of something you claim to understand is more
evidence in the growing pile which suggests you know little about
the things you claim to understand.

--
charles
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:9876 can.politics:11356