Re: NACLA on RCTV

[Bill Lear <rael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 11:32:41 (-0700) David B. Shemano writes:
>...
>Therefore, when I engage in the dialectic on this list, I try and
>limit myself to essentially utilitarian arguments and to focus on the
>consequences of decisions as opposed to the motivation or rationale
>of decisions.  For example, I raised Milton Friedman's argument in
>Capitalism and Freedom because he makes an entirely consequentialist
>argument.  If you value freedom of expression and the ability to
>dissent as an apriori value and want to design institutions to
>safeguard that value, it is much easier to do in a society based upon
>private property as opposed to collectivized property.  And my point
>is that Venezuela is simply a further data point that Friedman is
>right.  If you disagree that freedom of expression and abiity to
>dissent is important, then Friedman's argument (and my post about
>Venezuela) is irrelevant to you.

Boy, you really are a lawyer: if you value freedom, then you must
desire private property.  I see.  And, that is supposed to be an
argument, or an expression of your religious belief?  Further, to
insinuate that those who disagree with Friedman's (nonexistent)
argument merely do so because they don't think dissent is important is
ludicrous.  The level of argumentation here is beyond belief,
literally.  I can't believe that someone who clearly knows how to read
can't be bothered with a little simple history and logic.

It's been pointed out repeatedly on this list that your ignorance of
history is blatant --- how many people has Chavez murdered in his
first years in office?  How many people did Pinochet?  Does death not
imply lack of dissent?

Please, save your courtroom antics for your profession.  If you want
to make an argument here, please think and read before you post.


Bill