Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!
From: michael price (nini_pad_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 10/11/04
- Next message: Philippe Geril: "FUBUTEC'2005 Call for Papers"
- Previous message: Gabrielle Rapagnetta: "Re: John Kerry Stalinist Campaign Slogan"
- In reply to: Ron Allen: "Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!"
- Next in thread: Ron Allen: "Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!"
- Reply: Ron Allen: "Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 11 Oct 2004 00:33:05 -0700
Ron Allen <rallen2@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<mkY7d.130648$Np2.120060@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
> Ron Allen wrote:
> > There is a will to believe, a wish to believe,
> > just as there is an urge to know, and a desire
> > to learn. I see the world, reality, through
> > clashing perspectives. I have my very own
> > consciousness of reality, and I also encounter
> > various versions of reality when I read and
> > listen to the opinions of writers and speakers.
> > From multiple perspectives I make a decision
> > about what I believe best and most expresses
> > what is real and true. My volition does play an
> > important part, I'm sure. I like to believe
> > that I'm on the side of goodness and liberty, on
> > the side of truth and beauty. There are
> > exterior facts, and there is interior desire.
> > These come together in every knowing self.
>
> > Knowing is largely solitary. Knowledge is
> > autonomy, individuality. Knowledge is a private
> > gnosis, a personal gnosis, even a poetic gnosis,
> > true only for the individual knower.
>
>
> Michael Price wrote:
> > Then it is not true at all, . . .
>
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> What is true to me may not be true to you;
But some things are true for all.
> but you
> are not the final, ultimate, or unappealable judge
> and jury, determining and deciding what is the
> true truth.
No logic is and logic is not your friend.
> No truth us true for all people, nor
> for every places or for all time.
Is that statement true for all people or for all time?
> This may be a
> very hard and difficult truth for us to handle and
> manage; but it is a truth which accords with the
> facts.
What facts would those be if there is no eternal truth?
> You can believe that those with a truth
> different from your truth are liars or dunces; but
> that judgment of the facts, that people have
> different truths, is only your judgment of the
> facts, but not the facts per se, not the brute
> facts.
>
>
> Michael Price wrote:
> > . . . for how can you know anything that is not
> > true . . .
>
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> How can we know if anything is true? Even the
> words "true" and "truth" are problematic and
> enigmatic words. People have known with certainty
> many truths which people no longer believe to be
> the truth. This is empirical fact. This is a
> significant truth.
Indeed it is but how can you say you "know" that which
is false?
>
> The question is: If there is a truth to be known,
> how can we come to know this truth, or if what we
> believe to be true is truly true? What we believe
> to be true corresponds just enough to what may be
> true that we can function in the real world with
> some degree of certainty and finesse. What we
> believe to be true may approximate what is true,
> but we do not know how carefully or correctly our
> truths approach the truth.
>
> When talking about truth, it must always be kept
> in mind that there is natural reality, and there
> is societal reality. Gravity is an unalterable
> truth about what we observe in natural reality;
> but private property rights are an alterable truth
> about what has been instituted and established as
> a societal reality.
No it isn't. It is a consequence of the nature of
man and the universe. Man cannot use the same resources
as another man at the same time, therefore exclusive use
must be apportioned and the needs of justice mean that
it is apportioned according to certain strictures called
"rights".
>
> The anarchist, Max Stirner (Johann Kaspar
> Schmidt), wrote that property "exists by the grace
> of law. It is not a fact, but a legal fiction."
Then how come it predates the State?
> Property is not a natural reality, not a natural
> fact; rather, property is a societal reality, a
> societal fact, a societal creation.
Assertion != proof.
>
> James Madison, politician and political theorist,
> wrote that property is "a social right". I
> suppose that with these few words, Madison was
> implying that property is not a divine right, and
> that property is not a natural right. However, I
> do not believe that existing property is a social
> right, because society has never democratically
> established the right of property, nor has society
> ever democratically instituted the rules of
> property.
>
> The anarchist, Mikhail Bakunin, wrote that private
> property is "at once the consequence and the basis
> of the state". Get rid of private property, and
> you get rid of the state; get rid of the state,
> and you get rid of private property. If Bakunin
> was correct in saying that the state created and
> constituted private property, then Madison was
> wrong in saying that private property is a right
> derived from society.
>
>
> Michael Price wrote:
> > . . . and how can truth not be universal?
>
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> Has there ever been an unchallenged universal
> truth?
>
There isn't one. That doesn't mean there is not a
universal truth. Challening something doens't make
it untrue.
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> > I'm sure that I have my own private myths; these
> > are like a cure. Knowing, as I see it, is
> > neither truth nor fiction; knowing is beyond
> > truth and fiction.
>
>
> > Knowing is loss. This is perhaps why we all too
> > often smother freedom with dogma. Knowing is
> > also loving. Those who are consumed by fear and
> > by hate are so pompous, so defensive, and so
> > self-righteous that they can search a text, not
> > for its truth-content, but only for its errors
> > and mistakes. They will not come to a balanced
> > estimate of what they read or hear. Dogmatics
> > cannot rightly read, or truly hear, because they
> > are consumed by a fear of error and of evil.
> > Dogmatics have no curiosity to explore. They
> > have no memory, and no hope. All they have is a
> > kind of learned ignorance. And it is this
> > received dogmatism that often makes them so
> > aggressive, and so defensive.
>
> > Your truth just as much a volitional creation as
> > is my truth.
>
>
>
> Michael Price wrote:
> > No it isn't. My truth is based on facts and
> > logical deduction far more than yours is. You
> > simply believe and then ignore anything that
> > disputes your belief backing them up with
> > baseless assertions as above.
>
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> The art of reading well is not an art you have
> cultivated.
I cultivated it better than you cultivated the
art of writing well.
> Seeing how you read what I write,
> it's understandable that you are no better at
> reading the facts as they exist.
>
> You are not a common-sense reader, and you're
> likely not a common-sense observer of facts.
Yet you are the one who runs from common sense
problems.
> If you cannot come up with a common-sense
> reading of what people write, because you cannot
> tolerate opinions that differ from your opinions,
> then how are we to believe that you can manage to
> come up with a common-sense observation of the
> facts?
Your claim that I cannot come up with a "common-sense"
reading of the facts is based soley on my inability to
come up with a reading that agrees with you. You are
not the arbiter or indeed the possesor of common sense.
>
> No matter how logical your deductions may be, it
> is the facts which you accept and believe, and the
> facts which you deny and doubt that can totally
> debase even your best logic, and wholly subvert
> all of your best deductions.
>
Yes I noticed that in your own writings.
>
> Ron Allen wrote:
> > But, if it be true that character is fate, then
> > it is also true that personality is our destiny,
> > and individuality is our future. You are all
> > too willing to display your character in these
> > internet discussions, to show off your
> > temperament in these newsgroup debates. I get
> > e-mails from readers, who refuse to engage in
> > debate, because of all the rudeness, who tell me
> > that they enjoy what I write. One e-mail spoke
> > of my compositions as having re-kindled their
> > hope.
>
> Michael Price wrote:
> > Anyone who sees hope in your emails is seriously
> > deluded.
>
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> I'm not convinced that you are the best judge of
> who is, or who is not, deluded.
>
Well let's do a simple test; should Ron's posting be
a source of hope. What is there to be hoped for? Well
Ron proposes a vastly different economic system, is there
any hope this system will be implemented or if it is that
the fate of humankind would improve? No. Simply put
until he at least suggests a system of economic risk
handling there is no chance people will adopt his system
or if they do that they will survive.
>
> Ron Allen wrote:
> > Do you get such e-mails from well-wishers?
>
>
> Michael Price wrote:
> > No, nor do I seek them.
>
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> It's not like I sent an e-mail asking for e-mails.
>
>
>
> Ron Allen wrote:
> > There are a number of e-mails that express
> > strong disagreement with my opinions, but they
> > also take the time to express a courteous
> > disagreement.
>
>
>
> Michael Price wrote:
> > So did I at first my patience is not
> > inexhaustable.
>
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> Patience is a virtue, Michael.
Only when it is beneficial. Being patient with
those that do not reward patience is a waste of time
and virtue.
> Patience is the path to knowledge.
_A_ path to knowledge.
> Patience is a way of knowing.
And thus useless for those who already know.
> If you have given patience up, then you have also
> abandoned the path to knowledge, you have forsaken
> the one and only way of knowing.
>
>
> Ron Allen wrote:
> > They do not call me a liar, or a moron. What I
> > am often praised for is my "heroic persistence".
>
>
> Michael Price wrote:
> > What is heroic about continuing to offer the
> > same lies after they have been proven false?
> > They write no sagas for fools, Ron.
>
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> I suppose the heroism I'm often praised for is my
> ability to take your insults like a gentleman and
> continue to make a case for the cause I believe in
> as best I can manage, given my limited knowledge,
> and my limiting democratic principles.
How you equate continual lying with gentlemanly conduct
is beyond me.
>
>
> Ron Allen wrote:
> > How can I care what you write against me as a
> > person, and not just against my opinions as a
> > philosophy, when there are such kind and
> > generous people out there, reading what we
> > write, and telling me they really enjoy reading
> > what I write. I've even been given some
> > inverted compliments. One e-mail called me a
> > "sublime hypocrite". I've been told that what I
> > write is "both brilliant and specific".
>
>
>
> Michael Price wrote:
> > You must be joking, you are the least specific
> > of any poster I've ever debated. I have never
> > recieved any information I would call specific
> > on your system despite continual requests.
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> You want more details about a democratic society
> than I can give.
Then you yourself cannot know if this democratic society
is a good thing or even not a disaster. I have asked for
enough details to be able to tell whether or not your
society has a chance of working. You have not provided them.
> What I write is all I can say, all I need to say, about democracy.
>
No it isn't. You can write about how your system would handle
economic risk and what you would do to prevent the abuse of minorities.
You have not done so except for saying there would be a "Basic Rights
Proviso" without any information on how or why you expect it to be
enforced.
> You want me to write more than I write, even while
> you fail so ineptly, so abysmally in your readings
> of what little I do write?
>
You keep claiming I fail to read your writings correctly
yet offer no alternate coherent explanations for your writings.
>
> Ron Allen wrote:
> > But, I've also been told that my compositions
> > are "curiously elliptical", which from the
> > content of the e-mail I took to mean that so
> > much that is important is left out of what I
> > write.
>
> Michael Price wrote:
> > Yeah, I said something very similar.
>
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> There is only so much that an individual can say
> in advocating a social-democracy.
Yet you can repeat yourself endlessly.
> Besides, I am
> convinced that, if one takes a democratic stand,
> it is very easy for one to make up some practical
> suggestions about how to go about doing democracy
> in the devilish details.
Then do so.
> I do not have to know or
> say everything in order for me to be a modestly
> satisfactory advocate for democracy. There are
> readers of what I write who can connect the dots
> for themselves and by themselves, and still come
> up with an admirably fine practice of democratic
> principles.
>
Well I can't. I don't know what you mean by what you
say unless it is what I think you mean. If it is what
I think you mean then it is brutal and suicidal. Clearly
those who "come up with an admirably fine practice of
democratic principles." think it means something else.
So obviously the dots can be connected in more than one
way. It behoves you to say which way is right.
>
>
> Ron Allen wrote:
> > I can only reply to this by saying that what I
> > write cannot possibly be the whole truth, or
> > even the only truth.
>
> > But, again, I digress. Let me conclude this
> > post with one last point: Michael, you're an
> > inadequate critic.
>
>
> Michael Price wrote:
> > Then why can't you refute me?
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> I'm in this newsgroup discussion as an advocate
> of my opinions, not as an obstinate and insulting
> attacker of your opinions.
>
> It is not necessary for me to refute your beliefs.
It is if you want to be take seriously and for your
system to become reality. Unless someone (and nobody
else is stepping up to the plate) refutes my beliefs
you won't have any evidence that your system won't
kill millions of people. Now call me crazy but I
don't think people will go for a system that does
that.
> It is necessary that those who believe in, and who
> desire democracy and liberty set forth their case
> as best they can, without fear of being called a
> fool or a liar.
And doing so includes refuting my arguments.
>
> Democracy's flaw is optimism. Liberty's flaw is
> optimism. If you hate democracy, then you also
> hate liberty.
Liar.
> If you hate liberty, then you also hate democracy.
>
On the contray many haters of liberty love being
able to vote more tyranny.
> If people take the time to cultivate and develop,
> to acquire and improve a critical consciousness,
> then that will be enough for me, that is enough to
> make me happy, that is enough to make democracy
> and freedom more possible and more proximate.
>
> Michael Price wrote:
> > Why can't you describe how your system would
> > avoid the lethal problems I describe it
> > encountering?
>
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> If I could take your descriptive pessimism as
> seriously as you do, then I would very likely
> feel a motivation to deal with your objections.
Well why can't you take it as seriously as I do?
I mean the problems I describe if not handled well
could result in the deaths of millions, maybe
billions. As a "friend of the people" I would think
that worthy of your serious consideration.
> But, your niggling reservations are just too
> frivolous to take seriously enough to demand
> careful thought.
What is frivilous about pointing out that your system
lacks essential economic processes that are neccesary
to prevent mass death?
> Why should I give a careful
> consideration of your objections, when you give
> so many careless constructions of my opinions?
>
Because, as I have said on more than one occasion, unless
you can answer such objections you don't know whether your
system will cause mass death. Now you claim to want people
to support your system, how do you expect to do this without
an moderately effective assurance that they won't die because
of it?
>
> <><><><><><><><>
>
> "Maturity is crying alone."
> -- Anonymous
- Next message: Philippe Geril: "FUBUTEC'2005 Call for Papers"
- Previous message: Gabrielle Rapagnetta: "Re: John Kerry Stalinist Campaign Slogan"
- In reply to: Ron Allen: "Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!"
- Next in thread: Ron Allen: "Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!"
- Reply: Ron Allen: "Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
