Re: Historical comparisons


royls@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 7 Mar 2006 08:34:04 -0800, "William Mook"
<william.mook@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

That you think I am defending privilege says it all. LOL.

Maybe you don't realize that's what you're doing.

Especially since you pulled it out of your ass at the last minute! lol

But I think you do.
The blatant dishonesty of the following convinces me:

I'm calling you a socialist because you are advocating public ownership
of property over private ownership of property because in your view
private ownership is 'privileged.' Nothing dishonest about that at
all.

You're a damned socialist or worse,

Wrong.

You are know by your commentary here - and its socialist.

According to the founder of the US Libertarian Party, I'm a
libertarian.

The issue isn't what sort of cards you carry with you - the issue is
what you are saying! You are saying that public ownership of property
is preferred over private ownership of property because in your view
private ownership is privileged - THIS IS SOCIALIST!

socialism n. Any of various theories or systems of social organization
in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned
collectively


I could challenge you to quote me advocating anything
socialistic, but I know you can't, so what's the point?

Your comment - pulled out of your ass - not deriving from any part of
what you have talked about previously - your comment that I am
defending privelige because I believe people have a right to own
private property - marks you off as a socialist.

You didn't say one damned thing about privilege, what it means, how its
defined, and how it impacts economic efficiency and all of that. -
NOTHING. But there it is, plain as day at the very end!

You're asking me to defend the obvious? And then you have some arcane
connection in that black hole you call a mind connecting private
ownership of property and privilege - without any discussion any
support anything.

This marks you off as a person who has socialist ideals and leanings.

I didn't say that was a bad thing - I just said that's what you are - I
don't give a *** what kind of cards you carry with you or what they
say - THAT'S NOT THE POINT - and you know it.

and you're arguing out of your ass.

I have refuted all your arguments

No you haven't. And even if you did, you are again dishonestly ducking
the issue. WHY THE HELL DO YOU THINK PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY
ENTAILS SOME SORT OF PRIVILEGE?

Privilege means only a small number of select people can engage in an
activity. If all people can freely buy and sell property in a free and
open market unconstrained by restrictive rules - how can private
property = privilege? IT CAN'T!!! So, you've got things screwed up in
your head on this topic, and your consistent inability to even see the
elusive obvious fact that you do- says it all.

by simply identifying facts of
economics that have been known for centuries,

You have not provided support of your implied thesis that private
ownership of private property in a modern industrial society is a bad
thing. You have not shown that public ownership of property and
resources is a good thing. You have airily dismissed unfortunate facts
and market realities while holding fast to the brainwashing you
received at the hands of socialist tutors at your college so long ago.

and their logical
implications.

Look, I'm open to hearing whatever evidence you have that supports your
thesis that public ownership is superior to private ownership of
property. However, anything you say in this regard has to answer the
findings of the two peer reviewed papers I cited from stanford and the
Cato institute.

The fact that you are unaware of those facts

Look, here's a clue bub, what facts are you talking about specifically?
You're real good at taking on airs of superiority while accusing me of
defending privilege - but whenever you find yourself talking about
adjectives rather than what the adjectives refer to, understand you are
being hazy.

You have repeated spoken of 'those facts' and 'their logical
implications' ad nauseum! WHAT FACTS ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? WHY DO
YOU HOLD THEM TO BE FACTS? WHAT SPECIFIC LOGICAL SEQUENCE ARE YOU
USING TO SUPPORT YOUR CONCLUSIONS?

It seems to me you are dishonestly portraying your views and your
argument. You avoid direct discussion of an issue by bringing up other
issues to confuse it. You refer to things you don't define or support
except in the most general and fuzzy of ways. And you draw conclusions
about things so far removed from your topic (i.e. connecting privilege
and private property) that is appears to a casual observer you pulled
it out of your ass.

and
dislike those implications does not affect the fact that they are
accurate.

I don't like or dislike the conclusions. What I dislike is your
dishonesty and your abject inability to carry on a rational
conversation on this subject. I gave you two peer reviewed references
one from Stanford, another from the Cato Institute, that talked about
the efficiencies of private enterprise relative and private property in
the hands of private enterprise.

YOU HAVE NOT RESPONDED USEFULLY TO ANY OF THESE VERY COGENT AND WELL
DOCUMENTED FINDINGS.

You have preferred to lay back on your well worn discussion of
generalities and fuzzy thinking.

In the real world private property in the hands of private enterprise
CREATES VAST WEALTH - WHICH WHEN WIDELY PRACTICED IN A FREE MARKET
BRINGS GREAT SOCIAL BENEFIT TO ALL.

It is this fact of history, and of markets, that you elect to IGNORE
while spouting the utter bull*** you learned in school supporting an
outdated and outmoded way of looking at the world that history shows
doesn't work.


If anyone can participate in a free and open market, giving folks the
ability to own private property in no way creates privileged castes.

Wrong again.

Not so much! lol

Giving people private property in natural resources
does.

Not of ANYONE CAN BUY AND SELL THAT RESOURCE IN A FREE AND OPEN MARKET!
You need to explain how free access to resources in a free market
can be seen as a system of privilege.

Always has, always will, by definition.

THIS IS NOT A LOGICAL ARGUMENT!!! THIS IS A STATEMENT OF SOCIALIST
FAITH!

Look, you can say all you like that private property = privilege. But
you have to explain it logically with well documented support. YOU
HAVEN'T! Saying that you have when you haven't is dishonest.


If some people own the
opportunities, and others must pay them rent for access to those
opportunities, equality of opportunity is not even a remote
possibility.

This assumes a static unchanging system of ownership. How is this
static system of ownership maintained? Its this static system of
ownership that creates the potential for privilege.

What about a situation where ownership varies? Where there's a free
and competitive market in private property? People who own property
and resources one day, sell them to other people who own them the next
day Here, there is no opportunity for privilege.
..
And, that you think a working interest spreads risk and that's it,
shows you are shuttered in your view of things to protect your flawed
socialist paradigm.

ROTFL!! I doubt that you can even define "socialist" accurately.

You say the damndest things, but they're always in the nature of
dismissive comments about an argument you have had in your head - but
haven't shared with any of us! This makes your comments manipulative
and dishonest - and you come off like an arrogant *** - and it
makes people not like you very much!

-- Roy L

Roy, get a does of reality - just because your vaunted commie profs
wherever you went to school successfully brainwashed you - doesn't mean
those of us who weren't brainwashed are the scum of the Earth. Read
the papers I've cited and work out the logic step by step for fools
like me - and then maybe you'll convince me - or better yet, maybe
you'll actually learn something new - and change your mind to comport
with the reality of the world today.

.