Re: Filter: Andreas Pour

Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
> I understand your reasons for doing so, but ironically you use the same
>  form of argument yourself,

I tend to think that it is completely different.  My train of thought tends
to wander around but I hope that I don't try to *start* an argument that is
an exponential tree -- perhaps I make the mistake of trying to follow one
from time to time.

> only using fewer wierd links and references.

But, you may have a valid point that it is a question of degree rather than
a difference of kind.

> Andreas accuses people of being neo-con,

Yes, and he continues to do that despite my definitive statement that I am
not a Neo-Conservative.

The logical point here is somewhat muddled since I don't think that a
Neo-Conservative would take it as an insult if called one.  So, if he uses
it as an insult, he must realize that he is accusing those that are NOT
Neo-Conservative of being: "neo-cons".  Does he understand that by 
definition that Neo-Conservatives are formal Liberals (American not British 
definition -- I guess since the common American political usage for Liberal 
meaning Leftist isn't in the dictionary).

I am a Paleo-Conservative (more or less) -- what they call a Liberal in 
Britain (it gets more confusing doesn't it :-)).  I believe that I said 
this while trying to explain that by definition I believed the laws of 
classical economics because I was a classical conservative.  I'm not sure 
that he understands that.  I say 'more or less' because I don't follow some 
of the classical Liberal beliefs such as the Gold standard -- I say, with a 
certain irony, that those that believe that intrinsic money is the solution 
to a problem don't really understand economic theory.

> and you accuse people of being neo-com,

I also accuse those that blame all of the problems in the world on the evil
Capitalists of being Marxists.  That is a facetious remark.  However the
Neo-Coms are real:

	http://www.workers.org/
	http://www.iww.org/

Although I'm not sure if it is correct to call them *Neo*-Communists since
the IWW has been around for some time.  And since the WWP are considered to
be Trotskyites one could wonder if they were *Neo* anything if you
understand Russian history -- Stalin overthrew the Trotsky government with
a coup so who is NEW?

We believe in free speech, but should we believe in "forced" speech by
front groups:

	http://www.internationalanswer.org/

This anti-war group got a lot of press till the media found out that there
were a front organization of the WWP.  Perhaps after that, it was just old
news that there were Communists opposing US policy.

> and you both refuses to take certain arguments seriously as a result.

Well that argument is questionable.  I do refuse to take any argument that
contradicts the basic principles of classical economics seriously.  I also
refuse to take any argument that contradicts the laws of thermodynamics
seriously (I don't believe in perpetual motion or running your car on
water).  As a classical conservative, I see those two positions as somewhat
equivalent.  He appears to dismiss out of hand the basic principles of
classical economics.  I find this a very odd position, but I understand
that he has to do it because if you apply these basic principles to what he
says about economic questions, you find that he is simply wrong.

> All in all it seems you have a lot in common ;-)

An interesting thought.  Perhaps if taken as being the two sides of the
same coin, it does make some sense.

--
JRT


Kde-cafe mailing list - [email protected]
http://ofb.biz/lists/listinfo.cgi/kde-cafe

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this mailinglist are the personal
opinions of the author and do not represent OfB.biz: Open for Business, KDE or the author's employer.