--- "Kevin S. Van Horn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Steve Thompson wrote: > > >That's too logical, > > > No, it's not. Logical actors dominate in the economy > because those prone > to excessive irrationality end up with little money > to play with.
Perhaps you aren't joking... I would be forced to agree with you is you defined `logical' in this context to mean actors following the logic of the current economic status quo. Obviously, our present economic order resists (strongly!) fundamental change; and there is a logical consistency to it. Concerning irrationality in the sense that applies above, well, I think that's a difficult one. Some are irrational in their expectations of returns from the economy; others are irrational in their assessment of its very structure. Obviously there are many ways of going wrong and losing. > >and as you state below mere economic incentive does > not cover the case where organised bigotry drives an > agenda of exclusion. > > > No, I do not state this; I merely answered a > "what-if" question. So you weren't suggesting that organised bigotry in any way drives an economic agenda? Fine. You could say that, but you would be ignoring the obvious exclusion of the poor/uneducated from many areas of the economy by way of a conscious set of policies. But perhaps you don't notice that sort of thing? > >Your much vaunted Constitution and the Bill of > Rights are > >supposed to address this issue, since the > principles > >in question govern the overall social fabric, > > > What in the world is "overall social fabric" > supposed to mean? The only > thing the Constitution and Bill of Rights are meant > to govern is the > U.S. Federal Government itself (and, to some extent, > the states > comprising this federation). I suppose I could have merely said `social fabric' and it would have been better English, but I am not perfect. Otherwise, I understand the scope of authority imputed to be the sole domain of said documents. I don't believe that my comments are completely beyond the scope of the philosophy that was, or at least should have been, the motive for their creation. > >which is supposed to provide for a measure of > equality in `the > >commons', > > > You won't find any trace of any notion of "equality > in the commons" -- > whatever the phrase is supposed to mean -- in the > U.S. Constitution, > Bill of Rights, nor any of the discussions involved > in the drafting and > ratification of these documents. I would think that the idea of `equality in the commons' is implicit in the motivation for such documents, whether or not it is stated in so many words. It seems rather obvious to me, but of course that may not be the case. I wasn't there when they were written, and I do not really know anything about the people involved, their personalities, beliefs, and motives. Perhaps I'm projecting what I *think* should be a part of the principles behind such documents. > >I'll note that as a practical matter it looks sort > of > >like your Constitution > > > Why in the world are you bringing the U.S. > Constitution into this > anyway? I never even mentioned it, and it wasn't > mentioned in the > material to which I was responding. My answers are > meant to be > normative, addressing fundamental issues of rights > that are entirely > independent of the decrees or scribblings of any > group who styles > themselves a "government." I mentioned them because they are not only a frequently occurring subject of debate in this forum, but they are pertinent to the subject of this thread, and because they have seen mention recently in other messages. > >>Anybody for whom this is not blindingly > >>obvious still hasn't > >>grasped the fundamental concept that most children > >>acquire by the age of > >>three or four: the difference between MINE and > >>YOURS. > >> > >This has always been something of a peeve of mine; > >that certain people consistently fail to make this > >distinction. [...] > > > Well, we seem to be in violent agreement w.r.t. the > rest of what you > have written... Perhaps that is so. I'll ask that you excuse my tangential comments, but that said, I was merely using your reply as a foil for my comments and wasn't intending to stick exclusively to the nominal focus of your post. I expect you'll understand that while I was indeed spawning a subthread, that sort of thing does happen from time-to-time in this forum. Regards, Steve ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
