I don’t think thats right. I think the fundamental difference is CLARITY IN PROPERTY RIGHTS.

We have immense amounts of governmental depredation in both setups. And in both setups we have government doing the things they ought be doing quite poorly seeing as they are distracted by doing things they ought not be doing.

At a snapshot the difference is that the first world countries have more capital accumulation. But as a process the thing about first world countries is that they have had a history of clarity in property rights.

exactly.

If the site isn’t the place for a personal beef, why did you let his comment through then.

Or should I read it isn’t the place for a personal beef I don’t like?

You closed the thread, by the way.

If you mean something else then please let me know by leaving a comment on the Big Bird Brain site. The ALS blog isn’t the right place for personal beef.

Open that thread or treat the phony’s comment like mine.

It always reminds me of a great (roughly recited) quote: “[insert unncessary political label]s pride themselves on tolerance of other views, then are shocked to find people who actually hold them”

Got me there.

So I should say it’s dogma that it’s impossible to have dogma without context.

This reminds me of how in Futurama you can make a robot’s head explode if you present it with a logical paradox.

Dogma means knowing absolutely, something that is in reality impossible.

Is it absolutely impossible or just hypothetically impossible.

However I don’t see the problem with “knowing” something if you’re aware of the level of uncertainty and aware of any assumptions. If you’re going to argue a point, shouldn’t you know your idea is backed up by objective reality and logic?

Dogma means knowing absolutely, something that is in reality impossible. But knowing aboslutely is not neccessary if you define the context. Examples are obvious in mathematics and physics. eg/ the number Pi is always rounded to a certain number of decimal places. You don’t need to know Pi absolutely (and you never can). The application of your calculation (context) is the key to knowing how many decimal places of Pi to use. And you can be sure that the answer to your calculation is Type I.

So I agree that dogmatic thinking is dangerous. Generalisations are dangerous. Thinking in black and white is also dangerous. How many people/governments/businesses for example are totally evil or totally good?
But I also think that libertarian principles and arguments can be known objectively. And I agree with this posting, that as time progresses, libertarian arguments of today will seem obvious to people in the future because they’ll be common knowledge.

The idea that we should or can simply “home in on” erranous “type II” ideas and wipe them out is absurd.

Sometimes, ideas have some truth and some falsehood in them; we try to pull them apart and put each bit in a different bucket.

Sometimes, given the same objective reality, people draw different conclusions because they disagree about methods of interpretation.

I would put myself in the libertarian camp, but if you go into arguments “knowing” that your ideas are “type I”, it’s called dogmatism.

The idea that we should or can simply “home in on” erranous “type II” ideas and wipe them out is absurd.

Sometimes, ideas have some truth and some falsehood in them; we try to pull them apart and put each bit in a different bucket.

Sometimes, given the same objective reality, people draw different conclusions because they disagree about methods of interpretation.