Re:

[Mitch Stone <mstone@vc.net>]

In reply to Matthew Benjamin's message sent 1/2/98 2:59 PM:

>What you have just given is, in the (loose) sense I meant, a refutation
>of the "theory" behind Levy's article.  Of course, it isn't a theory in
>the scientific sense (falsifiable), but it is a claim in the logical
>sense (true or false).  Pointing out that Levy's claims rest on
>"magical" reasoning undermines his credibility-he is a rationalist
>funded by the Cato Institute.

Yes, I know -- a rationalist or "objectivist" in the terms of Rand, et. 
al. This is the fundamental irony at work behind these theories: they are 
essentially acts of pure faith disguised by quasi-scientific rhetoric -- 
an uneasy attempt to reconcile 20th century rationalism and 19th century 
romanticism. I have nothing whatsoever against acts of faith, but I do 
think they ought to be distinguished from sustainable fact.

[snip]
>
>Translation:  
>People, in the main, have already accepted as true the notion that
>monopolies are bad.  Apologists such as the Cato folk attempt to change
>this notion through frequent repetition of their views, tie ins with
>other commonly held ideas (eg, distrust of govt), etc.  If such views go
>unchallenged, the authors achieve their intended effect:  distrust of
>monopolies declines, becomes occluded by other concerns (eg, about govt
>corruption), or shifts into that (helpless) distrust of all instutions,
>public and private, which shows up in polls.  Which is what, in fact, we
>have seen happening since the late 1970s.   Hmm....  Coincidence?

An excellent point. A while back, I suggested that we formuate "talking 
points" that can be used as a punch list for responding to Microsoft 
apologists like Levy. People with Levy-like views should not be able to 
lay claim the rational high ground (presuming they could even discover 
its location). They are not shy and retiring, and neither should we be.

>Obviously, I'm no scientist of public opinion.  But I have seen rhetoric
>in action.  The more we publish in rebuttal of views we dislike, the
>more plausible _our_ views become-and the debate itself becomes more
>visible, which is, as I suggested earlier, still to the advantage of
>opponents of Microsoft because people _do_ distrust monopoly power, and
>do have some vestigial idealism about their Republic.  

Agreed, 100%.

>Summation: 
>I posted my original remarks because 1) I want to see anti-monopoly
>arguments in print, but am not qualified to justify my beliefs in this
>area and 2) I suspected that the Post would publish such views,
>delivered reasonably.  
>
>Rebut your opponents, not me.  I may be a fool, but at least I'm on your
>team!

Please, don't mistake my frustration for a rebuttal of your post. I was 
reflecting only on the difficulty of engaging targets like Levy because 
they always retreat to declarations of faith whenever their findings of 
fact are depleted (which occurs almost immediately, if you know where to 
attack). Again, I admire faith, but these folks are insistent, against 
all evidence, that their faith is based on irrefutable fact. 

They also believe that if human beings fail to respond joyously to 
unfettered corporatism, then they are exhibiting a fatal character flaw. 
They even have dogmatic descriptions for all "enemies" of their mind set: 
collectivists and altruists (spoken sneeringly, as if sucking on a 
lemon). In this respect, they are uncomfortably reminiscent of Marxists.

   Mitch Stone
+---
   Editor, Boycott Microsoft ** http://www.vcnet.com/bms 

   To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally 
   convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection.
                                  -- Jules Henri Poincare