I'm sorry, I can't let Jim Craven's savage misrepresentation of Herb
Gintis and his work go by without rebuttal. I disagree strongly with
much of Herb's work; in fact I've spent a lot of time on this net
criticizing his and Sam's approach to "contested exchange." Even so
I have no doubt about Herb's social and political concerns or his
intellectual independence. Jim's suggestion that Gintis is a
>... sycophant...employed to push revisionist
> history, pollute the minds of young students with the likes of neo-
> classical bullshit ...
is malicious nonsense, as is his claim that Gintis believes that
> ... Wonderful conditions exist for all in the U.S.
Herb's failure to recite a litany of political atrocities before each
e- mailing should not be taken to indicate otherwise.
And may I add that this is just the latest example of an aspect of
PEN-L that I most detest, namely the translation of legitimate, even
profound disagreements among us on the left into vicious
name-calling.
Argument ad hominem is the tool of our political opponents. It has
no place on PEN-L.
Herb Gintis was chased off this net 2 years ago by this sort of
barbarity, and his departure is our loss, even if (possibly) most of
us disagree with his views.
C'mon, folks, we're a heterodox lot. Of course we will disagree,
often fundamentally. [Jim Craven and I, to take a random example,
probably approach economics in subtly distinct ways...] But please,
let's quit translating these differences into personal attacks.
Gil Skillman
