Actually I am stilled baffled as why the original screed was posted in the
first place. It was so full of inaccuracies and logical fallacies that
the best thing to do would be to hit the delete key.
By the way, those expletives only apply if you actually thought the
initial article that was C&P'd had any connection to reality.
Steve
--- dennis kostecki <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Since this discussion has deteriorated to the use of expletives such as
> "ignorant" and "moron"
> would it be so troublesome as to move it out of the public realm (this
> list)
> to the private realm? Anyone else agree?
>
> Regards,
> Dennis
>
> At 04:24 PM 5/21/2000 -0700, you wrote:
> >
> >> | The Center, based in Spotsylvania, Virginia, is closely affiliated
> >> with
> >> | the Ayn Rand Institute. Rand was the philosopher who laid the
> >> | intellectual groundwork for Reaganism (Alan Greenspan is a Rand
> >> fan) --
> >
> >Boy, anybody who blieves this is either ignorant or a moron.
> Reaganism,
> >by this I mean supply side economics, would not suit Rand at all. Any
> >level of taxation is bad according to Rand and Objectivism. However,
> in
> >supply side economic theory there is a an optimal level of taxation
> from a
> >revenue stand point which can be seen by looking at the Laffer Curve.
> >
> >While Greenspan may have been a fan and follower at one time of Rand's
> I
> >don't think it is fair to characterize his views as being in accord
> with
> >Objectivism. Again, no objectivist would support the idea of a central
> >bank that has control over such things as interest rates, the money
> supply
> >and reserve requirements.
> >
> >
> >> | no law restraining corporate power is a good law.
> >
> >This is patently false from an Objectivist stand point. They are
> >objectivist no anarcho-capitalists, there is a distinction and to
> pretend
> >there is not is intellectual fraud. To see some information on
> >anarcho-capitalist go to the Ludwig von Mises Institute and look up
> David
> >Freidman.
> >
> >
> >> | The Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism feels the same way.
> >> Its
> >> | web site (www.moraldefense.org) is dominated by articles denouncing
> >> the
> >> | antitrust laws and the government's case against Microsoft.
> >
> >And what does this have to do with Earth Day? Nothing. This is an
> >attempt to discredit the Center's views on Earth Day by pointing the
> its
> >views on the Microsoft anti-trust case. Also, look up Paul Krugman's
> >article on the Microsoft suit in Slate, he is far far from being an
> >Objectivist and he cites some interesting reasons why having a monopoly
> >may not be all that bad.
> >
> >
> >[irrelevant BS snipped]
> >
> >
> >
> >> | So, we wanted to know, who is funding your Center, Bob? Where is
> >> this
> >> | money coming from, anyway?
> >
> >Ahh the typical enviromentalist attack. Can't seem to counter their
> >arguments so go for the pocket book. Who funds WWF, Resources for the
> >Future, Earthwatch, World Resource Institute, etc. ? How about
> Chevron,
> >Exxon, Dupont, AMOCO, Chrysler, etc. Ooops, what was that about those
> >living in glass houses.
> >
> >
> >[more irrelevant BS snipped]
> >
> >
> >
> >> | Still, if implemented, the extremist views of the Center for the
> >> Moral
> >> | Defense of Capitalism would lead to a society where big
> >> corporations would
> >> | be allowed to roam freely without restraint -- lawless corporations
> >> in a
> >> | lawless land.
> >
> >Again an actual distortion of the Objectivist view point. Sounds more
> >like these guys are trying to compare them to anarch-captialist. Just
> >another lie.
> >
> >Steve
> >
> >
> >__________________________________________________
> >Do You Yahoo!?
> >Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
> >http://im.yahoo.com/
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|