> I have not seen a better alternative to free markets either, but I
> feel that banning mockery comes a bit too close to "religious" worship
> of ideas that should be analysed only in terms of their practical
I'm not sure I follow the above reasoning. The only one discussing "banning" mockery is you.
Calling mockery tired, or tiresome, or banal, or anything else, and asking that someone do something more constructive,
doesn't constitute "banning" as far as I can see.
The rest of your comments were inappropriately tagged as being E. Shaun's, though his were at the bottom and
double-">>"'d. Please consider more careful proofreading of your posts.
> Free markets are the most successful approach to economic and social
> organization that we have developed so far. But that should not
> prevent us from thinking of possibly even better alternatives.
> Remember "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite". It is clear that L and E are
> orthogonal concepts. I believe that F is the only glue that can hold
> them together. So when I think of those who are damaged by free
> markets (please don't say that nobody is), I cannot help hoping that
> we develop an approach to economic and social organization that
> retains most of the benefits of free markets, while at the same time
> protecting the interests of those who are currently unable to take
> full advantage of them.
OK, and this hope for more F is helped precisely _how_ by sarcasm? Is sarcasm "analysis"?
"Critical thinking", the way most people seem to practice it, is pretty cheap. I include myself, all too often.
MMB is reachable via butler at comp dash lib dot o r g * My moronic mnemonic for smart behavior: "DICKS" == * * diplomacy, integrity, courage, kindness, skepticism. *
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:29 MDT