> b wrote:
>       Granted, mon ami... no bearing whatsoever... bar the fact
> that everything
>       you post is 'informed' by the Libertarian perspective.

Mumps
> Says YOU.
> This too is ad hominem.

Of course it isn't... the 'articles' you forward are from self-confessed
Libertarians, and you argue from a Libertarian perspective yourself. It's
nothing to be particularly ashamed of, Mumps!

> b wrote:
>      For example... no one else defines or experiences Capitalism in
>      the way that Libertarians do... most of us believe that we live in
>      a world dominated by Capitalism,
>
> Then you are delusional.

Not at all... I just use a more common and widely understood definition of
Capitalism than do Libertarians. That doesn't make anyone 'delusional',
although it does mean that Libertarians are bound to have some difficulty in
making themselves understood.

>
> b wrote:
>      whereas the Libertarian denies this.
>
> Whether they do or not is irrelevant.

It was particularly relevant to you only last month... you argued long and
hard on precisely these 'irrelevancies'. Would you like me to re-post?

>
> b wrote:
>      Most of us are accustomed to a somewhat looser definition of
>      monopoly than the 100% 'ownership' of a market that the
>      Libertarian insists on.
>
> Whether or not Libertarians believe this is irrelevant.
> Your custom is wrong.

Custom is never 'wrong' per se, although such is often argued by
authoritarians. Anyway, all I'm doing is reminding you of your own
statements. Are you renegging on these?

>
> b wrote:
>      So when you and others argue, while you use the same
>      terminology, you take it to mean totally different things.
>      Under these circumstances, marked by your refusal to
>      step outside the highly theoretical boundaries of Libertarianism,
>      a theology that places all its faith in utopian constructs that it
>      also affirms have never existed, I'm not sure who is the more
>      responsible for any obfuscation.
>
> This is not only ad hominem, but also ad populum.

Neither... just a couple of observations - both of which I'm happy to
justify. Anyway, you accused me of obfusticating... I'm just suggesting that
there may be other factors that should be taken into consideration.

> Don't hang yourself on the personalities -- real or
> imagined -- address the issues.

Firstly - no imagination... only what you have said previously. Secondly...
difficult to address the issues with someone who insists on speaking in a
foreign tongue.

Regards

b

bruce sandford
Hamilton 2001
Aotearoa - New Zealand

ICQ: 20816964


> Mumpsimus
>
>
>
> _____________________________________________
> NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
> Click here for FREE Internet Access and Email
> http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
>