David Hobby thinks I've mischaracterized his position: > > David Hobby thinks that workers are coerced into taking > dangerous jobs > > and that government can make us all safe: > > Mike-- If you mischaracterize my position, I won't discuss > things with you. Basta.
I'll address both of my characterizations of you and demonstrate their accuracy. First, I said that you believe workers are coerced into taking jobs. Quoting you: > When the market messes up, and people start dying from risks they > did not have a chance to freely accept, then Government SHOULD intervene. Do I have to get out the dictionary, or will you freely accept that I characterized you accurately? (I understand you might feel coerced in making this admission, kind of like how somebody feels coerced when his dream job isn't available, but in neither case is there any coercion.) I also said that you think government can make us all safe. Quoting you: > Intervening when markets malfunction is an integral part > of what Government should do. Now, in this case, the connection between my characterization and your position is not so patently obvious. So I'll connect the logical dots. First, though, let me say that when people of your ideological stripe talk about "markets" malfunctioning, that's not what you really mean. You mean every institution and association except government. You hubristically plan to interfere in the voluntary relationships and associations people enter into, and to impose your own view of what outcomes should be. To provide moral cover for this arrogance, you literalize metaphorical references to coercion. For example, you pretend that an employer who offers a deal to a freely consenting adult is engaged in "coercion" by mere virtue of the fact that no better deal is being offered elsewhere. I also thought it was inadvertently revealing that you capitalized the word government. Clearly, you believe that government is *capable* of correcting "market malfunctions" (whatever the hell those are), or you wouldn't be advocating government intervention in the first place. The particular issue under discussion in this thread has been workplace safety. Therefore, your argument is obviously that government intervention is an effective way to achieve workplace safety. Or are you saying that you don't believe that government intervention is an effective way to achieve workplace safety? You have to pick one or the other. Finally, while I'm still in logical vivisection mode, I feel *compelled* to comment on this: > Mike-- If you mischaracterize my position, I won't discuss > things with you. Basta. Now, I'll admit that this statement is not inherently incoherent. Perhaps it could be taken as you warning me that, up till now, I have not mischaracterized your position, but you suspect I might start soon, so I better not or you'll give me the silent treatment. But we both know that's not what you meant. You obviously believe that I have already mischaracterized your position. But you still kept discussing things with me anyway, didn't you? Bitcha. Mike Lee Islamic Moderate
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
