About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


Post 20

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 10:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jim, when I summarized your argument for multiple jurisdictions as if they were competing governments, I gave readers a link so they could verify my interpretation. You quote that summary, but then restate your position in a totally new way and give no link back for comparison.

Your original proposal was very different than the simple party veto in your recent proposal. Criticizing my observations of X, while misleading people to think the object of my criticism was Y.

That is dishonest!

Anyone that wants to see for themselves, can use the link above which leads to where Jim proposes X. Easy to see the radical difference between that and this:

"The Republican contigent of congress holds an absolute veto over any proposed legislation by the Democrats that affects Republicans (the Democrats can screw over their supporters to their hearts content). The Democratic contingent of congress holds an absolute veto over any proposed legislation by Republicans that affects Democrats. Thus, the powers of government are strictly limited to those that the two largest blocs of voters mutually agree upon."


Post 21

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 10:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jim, my final point regarding your last post is that you mis-characterized my statement about your attacking Rand and Objectivism.

I said, "Incidentally, that argument [referring to your competing governments proposal] was made in a thread that Jim started with a nasty sort of lampoon of Objectivists, Rand and Atlas Shrugged. Jim, if it isn't your intention to attack Rand or Objectivism, then you need to exercise greater care in choosing your language and arguments."

Is that unreasonable? Does that amount to attacking you for a specific disagreement? I don't think so.

And I believe I was proven correct when you chose to use language that lumped Rand with theology, and implied that she is responsible in some way for the increase in tyranny we have seen in our government.



Post 22

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 - 10:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Steve,

You asked Jim “Your claim that she held industrial pollution to be a virtue, is one you don't bother to document - where did she say that?”

I don’t recall where this was, perhaps someone else will remember, she said everyone over the age of thirty five, or thereabouts, should find the sootiest smokestack they can find and give it a big kiss.

Jim’s rendering is fair since her context, as I recall it, was that without belching smokestacks we would be stuck with pre-industrial-revolution life spans.

Recently (I believe it was recently) Peikoff wrote that there should be no laws to check air pollution. He said that specific polluting acts that harm specific identifiable victims should be actionable but that pollution by everyone that affects everyone should be unchecked, unregulated. As an example he said that if the air in LA stings your eyes—then you shouldn’t live in LA.

As far as I can see from everything she wrote and said of which I am aware, she agreed with Peikoff.



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 23

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 - 1:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon,

I appreciate the feedback, but there is a big difference between recognizing pollution as a problem, and calling it a virtue.

Because she said something to the effect that torts would be the a good approach to stopping pollution where individuals suffer a loss. Saying that, in itself, indicates she put pollution in the category of problem NOT a virtue.

Maybe someone can find her actual words. And we can look at them in the context.

Was I wrong to ask Jim this: “Your claim that she held industrial pollution to be a virtue, is one you don't bother to document - where did she say that?”

And if, as you said, "...her context... was that without belching smokestacks we would be stuck with pre-industrial-revolution life spans," then isn't the virtue in escaping that early and ugly death? And isn't the industrial pollution, in that context, the price? A price, not a virtue.

If she said that pollution is a virtue, I completely disagree with her. But you know what, I'll eat my hat and that belching smokestack if anyone finds her making that claim!

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 24

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 - 1:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

"Take thy face hence."
(William Shakespeare, Macbeth V.iii)

To say that men should hug soldiers is not to say that they should hug war crimes. Rand's use is synechdochic. Like Shakespeare, she uses the bold visual image of the smoke stack, an accident, to stand poetically for the substance - industrialization - which produces that accident. Rand was admiring the substance and minimizing the accident, in contrast to the anti-industrialist, who claims to hate smokestacks but who really hates industry. Just as Shakespeare was not speaking of dismemberment, but of banishment, in the quote above, Rand was not worshipping smoke stacks as such, whatever a barbarian might think, or a dishonest cynic might pretend.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 25

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 - 1:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

In the assumption, however overgenerous, that this is an honest misunderstanding, consider the joy of a woman who feels her unborn baby kick, or the master of a lost dog elated to see muddy footprints on his carpet as he arrives home. Does the woman like being kicked? Does the man like his carpets muddy?

Post 26

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 - 1:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I sanctioned Ted's previous post - for teaching me that metaphors had sub-classes - Synecdoche. Who knew?

The more I learn about language, the more I understand about ideas. That's nifty!

Or turning it upside down, there are many ways to be shallow from not knowing.

Post 27

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 - 1:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Is everyone around here a tenth-grade dropout? :)

Here is one of the best scenes Shakespeare wrote. Not the repeated use of synechdoche, metonymy, etc. (Gloster, wooing the widow of the man he killed, is the future Richard III.)


Richard III

Act I, Scene ii:
London. Another street.

[Enter the corpse of King Henry the Sixth, borne in an open coffin, Gentlemen bearing halberds to guard it; and LadyAnne as mourner.]
ANNE:
Set down, set down your honourable load,—
If honour may be shrouded in a hearse,—
Whilst I awhile obsequiously lament
Th' untimely fall of virtuous Lancaster.—
Poor key-cold figure of a holy king!
Pale ashes of the house of Lancaster!
Thou bloodless remnant of that royal blood!
Be it lawful that I invocate thy ghost,
To hear the lamentations of poor Anne,
Wife to thy Edward, to thy slaughter'd son,
Stabb'd by the self-same hand that made these wounds!
Lo, in these windows that let forth thy life,
I pour the helpless balm of my poor eyes:—
O, cursed be the hand that made these holes!
Cursed the heart that had the heart to do it!
Cursed the blood that let this blood from hence!
More direful hap betide that hated wretch
That makes us wretched by the death of thee,
Than I can wish to adders, spiders, toads,
Or any creeping venom'd thing that lives!
If ever he have child, abortive be it,
Prodigious, and untimely brought to light,
Whose ugly and unnatural aspect
May fright the hopeful mother at the view;
And that be heir to his unhappiness!
If ever he have wife, let her be made
More miserable by the death of him
Than I am made by my young lord and thee!—
Come, now towards Chertsey with your holy load,
Taken from Paul's to be interred there;
And still, as you are weary of this weight,
Rest you, whiles I lament King Henry's corse.

[The Bearers take up the Corpse and advance.]
[Enter GLOSTER.]
GLOSTER:
Stay, you that bear the corse, and set it down.
ANNE:
What black magician conjures up this fiend,
To stop devoted charitable deeds?
GLOSTER:
Villains, set down the corse; or, by Saint Paul,
I'll make a corse of him that disobeys!
FIRST GENTLEMAN:
My lord, stand back, and let the coffin pass.
GLOSTER:
Unmanner'd dog! stand thou, when I command:
Advance thy halberd higher than my breast,
Or, by Saint Paul, I'll strike thee to my foot
And spurn upon thee, beggar, for thy boldness.
[The Bearers set down the coffin.]
ANNE:
What, do you tremble? are you all afraid?
Alas, I blame you not; for you are mortal,
And mortal eyes cannot endure the devil.—
Avaunt, thou dreadful minister of hell!
Thou hadst but power over his mortal body,
His soul thou canst not have; therefore, be gone.
GLOSTER:
Sweet saint, for charity, be not so curst.
ANNE:
Foul devil, for God's sake, hence and trouble us not;
For thou hast made the happy earth thy hell
Fill'd it with cursing cries and deep exclaims.
If thou delight to view thy heinous deeds,
Behold this pattern of thy butcheries.—
O, gentlemen, see, see! dead Henry's wounds
Open their congeal'd mouths and bleed afresh!
Blush, blush, thou lump of foul deformity;
For 'tis thy presence that exhales this blood
From cold and empty veins, where no blood dwells;
Thy deeds, inhuman and unnatural,
Provokes this deluge most unnatural.—
O God, which this blood mad'st, revenge his death!
O earth, which this blood drink'st, revenge his death!
Either, heaven, with lightning strike the murderer dead;
Or, earth, gape open wide and eat him quick,
As thou dost swallow up this good king's blood,
Which his hell-govern'd arm hath butchered!
GLOSTER:
Lady, you know no rules of charity,
Which renders good for bad, blessings for curses.
ANNE:
Villain, thou knowest nor law of God nor man:
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity.
GLOSTER:
But I know none, and therefore am no beast.
ANNE:
O wonderful, when devils tell the truth!
GLOSTER:
More wonderful when angels are so angry.—
Vouchsafe, divine perfection of a woman,
Of these supposed crimes to give me leave,
By circumstance, but to acquit myself.
ANNE:
Vouchsafe, diffus'd infection of a man,
Of these known evils but to give me leave,
By circumstance, to accuse thy cursed self.
GLOSTER:
Fairer than tongue can name thee, let me have
Some patient leisure to excuse myself.
ANNE:
Fouler than heart can think thee, thou canst make
No excuse current but to hang thyself.
GLOSTER:
By such despair I should accuse myself.
ANNE:
And by despairing shalt thou stand excus'd;
For doing worthy vengeance on thyself,
That didst unworthy slaughter upon others.
GLOSTER:
Say that I slew them not?
ANNE:
Then say they were not slain:
But dead they are, and, devilish slave, by thee.
GLOSTER:
I did not kill your husband.
ANNE:
Why, then he is alive.
GLOSTER:
Nay, he is dead; and slain by Edward's hand.
ANNE:
In thy foul throat thou liest: Queen Margaret saw
Thy murderous falchion smoking in his blood;
The which thou once didst bend against her breast,
But that thy brothers beat aside the point.
GLOSTER:
I was provoked by her slanderous tongue
That laid their guilt upon my guiltless shoulders.
ANNE:
Thou wast provoked by thy bloody mind,
That never dreamt on aught but butcheries:
Didst thou not kill this king?
GLOSTER:
I grant ye.
ANNE:
Dost grant me, hedgehog? then, God grant me too
Thou mayst be damned for that wicked deed!
O, he was gentle, mild, and virtuous.
GLOSTER:
The better for the king of Heaven, that hath him.
ANNE:
He is in heaven, where thou shalt never come.
GLOSTER:
Let him thank me that holp to send him thither,
For he was fitter for that place than earth.
ANNE:
And thou unfit for any place but hell.
GLOSTER:
Yes, one place else, if you will hear me name it.
ANNE:
Some dungeon.
GLOSTER:
Your bed-chamber.
ANNE:
Ill rest betide the chamber where thou liest!
GLOSTER:
So will it, madam, till I lie with you.
ANNE:
I hope so.
GLOSTER:
I know so.—But, gentle Lady Anne,—
To leave this keen encounter of our wits,
And fall something into a slower method,—
Is not the causer of the timeless deaths
Of these Plantagenets, Henry and Edward,
As blameful as the executioner?
ANNE:
Thou wast the cause and most accurs'd effect.
GLOSTER:
Your beauty was the cause of that effect;
Your beauty, that did haunt me in my sleep
To undertake the death of all the world,
So I might live one hour in your sweet bosom.
ANNE:
If I thought that, I tell thee, homicide,
These nails should rend that beauty from my cheeks.
GLOSTER:
These eyes could not endure that beauty's wreck;
You should not blemish it if I stood by:
As all the world is cheered by the sun,
So I by that; it is my day, my life.
ANNE:
Black night o'ershade thy day, and death thy life!
GLOSTER:
Curse not thyself, fair creature; thou art both.
ANNE:
I would I were, to be reveng'd on thee.
GLOSTER:
It is a quarrel most unnatural,
To be reveng'd on him that loveth thee.
ANNE:
It is a quarrel just and reasonable,
To be reveng'd on him that kill'd my husband.
GLOSTER:
He that bereft thee, lady, of thy husband,
Did it to help thee to a better husband.
ANNE:
His better doth not breathe upon the earth.
GLOSTER:
He lives that loves thee better than he could.
ANNE:
Name him.
GLOSTER:
Plantagenet.
ANNE:
Why, that was he.
GLOSTER:
The self-same name, but one of better nature.
ANNE:
Where is he?
GLOSTER:
Here.
[She spits at him.]
Why dost thou spit at me?
ANNE:
Would it were mortal poison, for thy sake!
GLOSTER:
Never came poison from so sweet a place.
ANNE:
Never hung poison on a fouler toad.
Out of my sight! thou dost infect mine eyes.
GLOSTER:
Thine eyes, sweet lady, have infected mine.
ANNE:
Would they were basilisks to strike thee dead!
GLOSTER:
I would they were, that I might die at once;
For now they kill me with a living death.
Those eyes of thine from mine have drawn salt tears,
Sham'd their aspects with store of childish drops:
These eyes, which never shed remorseful tear,
No, when my father York and Edward wept,
To hear the piteous moan that Rutland made
When black-fac'd Clifford shook his sword at him;
Nor when thy warlike father, like a child,
Told the sad story of my father's death,
And twenty times made pause, to sob and weep,
That all the standers-by had wet their cheeks,
Like trees bedash'd with rain; in that sad time
My manly eyes did scorn an humble tear;
And what these sorrows could not thence exhale,
Thy beauty hath, and made them blind with weeping.
I never su'd to friend nor enemy;
My tongue could never learn sweet smoothing word;
But, now thy beauty is propos'd my fee,
My proud heart sues, and prompts my tongue to speak.
[She looks scornfully at him.]
Teach not thy lip such scorn; for it was made
For kissing, lady, not for such contempt.
If thy revengeful heart cannot forgive,
Lo, here I lend thee this sharp-pointed sword;
Which if thou please to hide in this true breast
And let the soul forth that adoreth thee,
I lay it naked to the deadly stroke,
And humbly beg the death upon my knee,
Nay, do not pause; for I did kill King Henry,—
[He lays his breast open; she offers at it with his sword.]
But 'twas thy beauty that provoked me.
Nay, now dispatch; 'twas I that stabb'd young Edward,—
[She again offers at his breast.]
But 'twas thy heavenly face that set me on.
[She lets fall the sword.]
Take up the sword again, or take up me.
ANNE:
Arise, dissembler: though I wish thy death,
I will not be thy executioner.
GLOSTER:
Then bid me kill myself, and I will do it.
ANNE:
I have already.
GLOSTER:
That was in thy rage:
Speak it again, and even with the word,
This hand, which for thy love did kill thy love;
Shall, for thy love, kill a far truer love;
To both their deaths shalt thou be accessary.
ANNE:
I would I knew thy heart.
GLOSTER:
'Tis figured in my tongue.
ANNE:
I fear me both are false.
GLOSTER:
Then never was man true.
ANNE:
Well, well, put up your sword.
GLOSTER:
Say, then, my peace is made.
ANNE:
That shalt thou know hereafter.
GLOSTER:
But shall I live in hope?
ANNE:
All men, I hope, live so.
GLOSTER:
Vouchsafe to wear this ring.
ANNE:
To take is not to give.
[She puts on the ring.]
GLOSTER:
Look, how this ring encompasseth thy finger,
Even so thy breast encloseth my poor heart;
Wear both of them, for both of them are thine.
And if thy poor devoted servant may
But beg one favour at thy gracious hand,
Thou dost confirm his happiness for ever.
ANNE:
What is it?
GLOSTER:
That it may please you leave these sad designs
To him that hath most cause to be a mourner,
And presently repair to Crosby Place;
Where,—after I have solemnly interr'd
At Chertsey monastery, this noble king,
And wet his grave with my repentant tears,—
I will with all expedient duty see you:
For divers unknown reasons, I beseech you,
Grant me this boon.
ANNE:
With all my heart; and much it joys me too
To see you are become so penitent.—
Tressel and Berkeley, go along with me.
GLOSTER:
Bid me farewell.
ANNE:
'Tis more than you deserve;
But since you teach me how to flatter you,
Imagine I have said farewell already.
[Exeunt Lady Anne, Tress, and Berk.]
GLOSTER:
Sirs, take up the corse.
GENTLEMEN:
Towards Chertsey, noble lord?
GLOSTER:
No, to White Friars; there attend my coming.
[Exeunt the rest, with the Corpse.]
Was ever woman in this humour woo'd?
Was ever woman in this humour won?
I'll have her; but I will not keep her long.
What! I that kill'd her husband and his father,
To take her in her heart's extremest hate;
With curses in her mouth, tears in her eyes,
The bleeding witness of her hatred by;
Having God, her conscience, and these bars against me,
And I no friends to back my suit withal,
But the plain devil and dissembling looks,
And yet to win her,—all the world to nothing!
Ha!
Hath she forgot already that brave prince,
Edward, her lord, whom I, some three months since,
Stabb'd in my angry mood at Tewksbury?
A sweeter and a lovelier gentleman,—
Fram'd in the prodigality of nature,
Young, valiant, wise, and, no doubt, right royal,—
The spacious world cannot again afford:
And will she yet abase her eyes on me,
That cropp'd the golden prime of this sweet prince,
And made her widow to a woeful bed?
On me, whose all not equals Edward's moiety?
On me, that halt and am misshapen thus?
My dukedom to a beggarly denier,
I do mistake my person all this while:
Upon my life, she finds, although I cannot,
Myself to be a marvellous proper man.
I'll be at charges for a looking-glass;
And entertain a score or two of tailors,
To study fashions to adorn my body:
Since I am crept in favour with myself,
I will maintain it with some little cost.
But first I'll turn yon fellow in his grave;
And then return lamenting to my love.—
Shine out, fair sun, till I have bought a glass,
That I may see my shadow as I pass.
[Exit.]


(Edited by Ted Keer on 7/30, 10:41pm)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 28

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 - 10:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted’s post 24 is indeed excellent and I agree with it.

I had been away from this thread, when I posted here I overlooked that some of you were having a spat with Jim—which I have no interest in and wasn’t aiming to distract you from.

Steve, thank you for your post 23. You nail it here: “Because she said something to the effect that torts would be the a good approach to stopping pollution where individuals suffer a loss. Saying that, in itself, indicates she put pollution in the category of problem NOT a virtue.”

I too would be surprised if Rand ever used the word virtue in reference to pollution as such.

However, I have no problem with what Jim wrote:

“Her views on […] the virtues of unchecked industrial pollution”

I think Rand did sing the praises of unchecked pollution.

From pages 4-5, Ayn Rand Answers:

“To give up some freedom because of allegations about pollution is to give up your freedom of judgment, your freedom of production, your freedom to control your life. Those rights are morally inalienable, and must never be surrendered. Even if the ecologists had some knowledge—which is singularly, eloquently absent—it is still up to them to convince you; then you can obey them voluntarily. Their superior knowledge would not give them the right to demand that we all give up our freedom.” Ford Hall Forum, 1970.

Steve, you wrote: “she said something to the effect that torts would be the a good approach to stopping pollution where individuals suffer a loss.”

That’s right, she insists that individual tort action is the sole appropriate remedy to pollution.
“Let people demonstrate an actual harm, and then sue the individual polluter.”
“He can sue you if he can demonstrate that the damage comes from your property.” Ford Hall Forum, 1969.


I offer an example, one I suspect we will agree on: If a party upwind of my property belched lead-laden ash onto my parcel, I could sue him and, properly, collect reparations, yes? Do I have to tolerate the belching and wait until my daughters go all retarded, or should the court recognize me already as a victim? I suspect we are still together in saying that I should win a case now, with the polluter ordered to stop and me winning roughly the amount it will cost to remove all the lead-laden ash or otherwise put my pad back right.

But hold on! Not everyone exposed to lead goes retarded. Some highly exposed children show no measurable decline in intelligence, while unfortunately, a substantial number of children exposed at this level will indeed go tits-up ‘tarded.

If you still say I should win the case now, prior to anyone going all retarded, are you not relying on the knowledge of doctors, ecologists and other scientists? Yet, above she states that even if they had knowledge it is still up to them to convince the polluter; then the polluter can obey them voluntarily. So should I win the case, Steve? Or rely on the polluter to obey the scientists voluntarily?

Some will now say that she was talking about MANY polluters, each of whom contributes an amount less than that which can be shown to cause damage.

So let’s move to two lead-spouters instead of one (and, for that matter, many homes draped in ‘tard-making lead ash, instead of one.)

What essentials have changed? Neither one of the two spouters is responsible, considered alone, for depositing on my property a quantity of lead ash that is dangerous. Only together do they achieve that level. That’s the big difference?

So where a single lead spouter alone pollutes my property to actionable levels, he should lose a court case from me and be ordered to lower his levels—while in the case of two spouters I must rely on them voluntarily obeying the scientists’ knowledge that they are ‘tarding my girls?

Forcing one or both to lower their levels would be to “demand that [they] all give up [their…] freedom of judgment, [their] freedom of production, [their] freedom to control [their] li[ves].”? Really?




(Edited by Jon Letendre on 7/30, 10:43pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 29

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 - 10:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Smoke in Your Eyes

How does Rand's theory of how you properly stop pollution (Did she ever advocate stopping a good thing?) amount to praise for pollution as such?

The fact that an off the cuff remark was published in writing after her death does not, in any case, make it an official position. Perhaps the estate has gotten sloppy? (I don't have the book on me.) Did they not include the standard posthumous proviso that Rand didn't vet and release the remarks herself?

In any case, it is quite obvious that Rand liked this sort of provocative hyperbole. But hyperbole is just that - hyperbole. She nowhere embraced pollution per se as a good thing.

Her statement from Ford Hall hardly counts as hugging smoke stacks because they pollute or "prais[ing] unchecked pollution." Were she an actual advocate of pollution, she might have tried advocating arson and aboveground atom tests as particularly efficient ways to produce smoke. Sound silly? I agree.


(Edited by Ted Keer on 7/30, 11:42pm)


Post 30

Thursday, July 31, 2008 - 12:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve, you said: "First, I have made no appeals to authority. That is false and unwarranted to the degree of dishonesty."

About this statement: "Since sloppy thinking and failures of imagination are so very far from characterizing Rand's work, Jim's burden of proof in supporting that claim is quite high"

Can you see how I might have construed the second statement as an appeal to authority, since it says that since Rand's work is GENERALLY of a very high quality, that anyone singling out just one single statement out of an entire book she wrote must have a higher burden of proof than usual? That she is such a genius that every book she writes is so perfect that every single statement in it must be presumed to be almost certainly true?

If I were to tell someone else that you generally write very intelligent comments, and they say, well, sure, but this particular statement of Steve's seems iffy to me, and I replied, well, I'm going to apply a higher burden of proof than usual and demand that the default assumption is that Steve is always right, and any challenge to any of his statements must be presumed false unless rigorously proven otherwise.

Would that be an appeal to authority? Because it sure as heck seems like it to me.

Now, do you still consider what I said "dishonest"?

Post 31

Thursday, July 31, 2008 - 1:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Here is a link to the strange mixture at the Belgium-Dutch border that I was asked to provide:

http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2006/12/12/52-the-enclaves-and-counter-enclaves-of-baarle-bnl/

Another link:

http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/baarle.htm


Post 32

Thursday, July 31, 2008 - 1:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jim,

You said, "Can you see how I might have construed the second statement as an appeal to authority?"And, "Would that be an appeal to authority?

No. First, we have both made statements at different times that acknowledge Rand's exceptional nature - it is a common agreement on a fact of reality that it makes no sense to ignore. Second, I didn't say 'x' was true because 'y' said it. Third, you left off the last part of my sentence as well as the sentence just after it, where I said, "...[Jim] should be meticulous in his reasoning and the exercise of his imagination: No sloppy thinking on his part, and no failure to use his imagination!" I just asked that you observe the standards you were holding Rand to - which we have both agreed, are the standards she normally meets.

I consider many of your arguments to be dishonest. Do you consider it honest to repeatedly mis-characterize my arguments and quote only part of what I said, leaving out a significant part of the text that undercuts what you are claiming?



Post 33

Thursday, July 31, 2008 - 6:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The "strange case" of the borders of Baarle happens not to be so strange after all. There is no competition here, but rather cooperation between the erstwhile united states of the Netherlands according to the 1843 treaty of Maastrricht. A treaty which Britain engineered and which she went to war to protect in 1914. This is not an example of competition, but of the cooperation of three peaceful western democracies related by tradition, commerce and blood.

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


User ID Password or create a free account.