: Qx: Class analysis is indispensable. And it's no use quibbling with rightwing bombast that it isn't."Class" analysis, if reasoned deductively from the premise of historical materialism, is not relevant. It's only relevant from a comprehensive and anti-foundationalist manner of looking at things.
: Qx: Let's see ....the rich folks live on the hill with far more than they really need and the rest of society lives elsewheres. Ever heard of neighborhoods?
I live in one. So what. And your reference to "need" is just another representation of your values-imperialism. Who are you to tell someone else what they need; that comes from their value system.
: : : Qx: So you advocate giving up and then ingratiating yourself with Public Choice Theory. Just great.
: JJ: You're presuming some objective moral standard. Public Choice Theory is a descriptive analysis of how people act in pursuing their own standards of value. Again, fully admit taht I moralize based upon my particular viewpoint, and you do the exact same thing.
: Qx: AT least it's done with some critical thinking. Keep in mind that I used to be a rightwinger. That's until I wised up. I saw how people worshipped Reagan and I knew then that it was wrong. About twenty years later I don't regret shedding rightwing garbage. Especially neo-classical economics and Public Choice Theory that trails along as excess baggage.
First, your whole analysis is completely muddled up by the whole right-wing reference. I certainly don't idolize Reagan; I think he was a weak fool with very little clue what he was doing.
: If there is an objective moral standard it should include such things as the environment and yes...people who are kicked around due to corporate excess and the United States foreign policy that supports that corporate excess.
But there isn't. It isn't based on food, the environment, childcare, education or anything else anyone can think of. Your values-imperialism is showing through here.
: JJ: The difference is I fully admit that I come from a particular viewpoint while you don't.
: Qx: Of course, you haven't taken much time out to read my postings and I mean all of them. I recommend that you do that before you erect yet another straw man.
No. See you're Beacon Hill analysis, and your "environment" comment further up and your "need" comment on this same post. You really do, although without realizing it, think that you have a claim on the objective moral standard. Another thing, you're claiming the Chicago School is immoral also. This is a moral judgement and one made about particular people and not actions. You, Qx, believe deep down that you have a special insight as to the "true nature" of morality.
: Qx:" Oh, I read alright but your amateurish debating tactics are just what I like to shred you with.
Hmm, nothing of import to respond to.
