- Capitalism and Alternatives -


Posted by: Samuel Day Fassbinder ( Citizens for Mustard Greens, USA ) on October 13, 1999 at 12:34:54:

In Reply to: presently posted by Gee on October 12, 1999 at 17:19:47:

: : SDF: You just said that if I didn't see it that didn't mean that it wasn't there. Defined and absolute, and then you just skip on without providing definitions, philosophical proofs, or nothing? Care to be more specific? Or does gainsaying increase your self-esteem like real thinking never could?

: I could mimic you and suggest that "ive been to such and such and Ive seen real thinking" which then gives me dominion over the concept. ofcourse it doesnt.

SDF: The point I was OBVIOUSLY making was that you made such a bandwidth-consuming bombast about defined concepts, concepts you youself claim dominion over, without defining yours. And you certainly don't have the dominion you have previously claimed over terms such as "force" and "self-interest," especially after I've shown how hollow their claims to representation are.

: If you want to discuss force as a seperate issue, i'll be happy to consider and discuss the concepts.

SDF: Why didn't you do that in your above post, especially since you are making such a guessing-game about it? As I said before, "force" in this fantasy universe is only force if it is defined beforehand by an anarchocapitalist.

: :SDF: Precisely what I have thought about many of the words you use. Self-interest, force, it's so much idle talk.

: Given your opinion of it, why do you proceed to "not see any force" without being sufficiently 'un-idle' to explain what you mean by it?

SDF: Force is like violence, it's physical force. Nobody threatened me with physical punishment if I did not choose to go to a private school, nor if I chose to go to a public school, not even my parents. Force requires mass and acceleration, just like Newton said.

: : I'll tell you what's individual about it -- it's the individual's participation in democracy. The only way that one could believe that such participation invalidates individualism is through the "idiotic" belief that "if two libertarians agree, that somehow invalidates individualism".

: Aha, now I see. You think that that "if two libertarians agree, but the third doesnt,

SDF: This is a nonsequitur. You're changing the subject. We are talking ONLY about "if two libertarians agree." Democracy, therefore, is when people become self-aware of their presence as a SOCIETY, after which they remain individuals, but gain something in the process.

: : SDF: So? The owners of a private school can do the exact same thing.

: The difference being that attendanace isnt compulsory and that their educative content is decided by the owners and *selected* as agreeable by the buyers - not decided by the (state) owners in nominal agreement with what purports to represent all the 'buyers' but is infact just a group in and of themselves which cannot represent all the 'buyers' because the act of representing two people with mutually exclusive goals must result in delivering an unwanted good to one or all parties.

SDF: Which is a bunch of philosophical blather saying nothing about what goes on in the public schools. The fact that the standards are so vague usually means that the teachers can do any number of things so long as they don't arouse the wrath of the parents, because there's always a plastic justification in the standards. I've taught in the American public schools since 1988. I went to an American private school for six years, I also went to an American public school for six years. Would you like to know what goes on inside them? Or do you think you know already?

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup