RE: WARNING: Off Topic/ad hominem

[Greg Peisert <gpeisert@jamesgregory.com>]

Hi Laura;

  Thank you for your response.

On Friday, February 12, 1999 8:28 PM, Laura Walker 
[SMTP:LJW6626@worldnet.att.net] wrote:
> Really, Greg --
>
> When you bait people the way you do with your "libertarian" rhetoric -- 
and
> let's face it, that's EXACTLY what it is -- you're asking to have people
> dish it back to you, with OR without the facts!  I see no flaws, factual 
or
> otherwise, in my statements.  I wouldn't have even raised the questions 
if I
> hadn't had the information, facts/factoids available.

   I suppose we could go round and round on this. But here is an example of 
what I mean when I accuse you of ad hominem:

You wrote:
 "For all your flag-waving, philosophical waxing about the "true" free
market, you and your free market theory friends and proponents sure don't
seem to give a whit about the individuals, or people as a whole, or an
entire culture/society.  All you seem to want is more, at the expense of
anybody who doesn't fit into your narrow view of a free market."

  What you attempt to do is divert the issue from a discussion of facts or 
economic theory to whether or not I and my "free market friends" "seem to 
give a whit about the individuals, or people as a whole, or an entire 
culture/society." The attempt is to change the subject from issues to 
motives, from claims of fact or evidence to claims of what I "want" or 
don't want, and how "narrow" you think my "view" is. That is ad hominem, 
defined.

  Now, whether or not I care about individuals is irrelevant to the 
discussion. Do YOU care about individuals, about "people as a whole" or 
about "an entire culture/society?" If so, what exactly do you DO for those 
individuals? Who are those "people as a whole?" What do you DO for the 
"entire culture?" If you replied, "None of your damned business, Greg," you 
would be RIGHT. It IS none of my damned business. It is irrelevant to the 
discussion.

  You talked at some length about how individuals might measure their 
well-being in terms other than the size of their bank account. Of course, I 
agree with that, and I live it. But whether or not I live it is not 
relevant. If it is, then it would seem the discussion would regress into a 
"hypocrite index" comparison. You would claim that I'm a hypocrite because 
I claim to want the best for people, but you see me as selfish and as one 
who wants only "more" at the expense of anybody who doesn't fit into my 
narrow view of a free market. (Lora, what makes you think my insatiable 
greed would fail to plunder my "free market theory friends"??) I would 
claim that you are a hypocrite because while you talk a nice line about 
caring for and about people, you don't really DO anything for them and you 
advocate public policy that works to their destruction. And of course, both 
claims would be equally valid. Which is to say, neither has any validity at 
all. It goes nowhere. It's irrelevant.

  Can we give each other the benefit of the doubt and believe each other  
 when we each claim that we are interested in seeing the greatest amount of 
good for the greatest amount of people? We simply approach it from 
different directions.

  You think that the best way to help people is to provide an extensive 
government welfare net to take care of people and relieve them of the 
uncomfortable responsibility of having to take care of themselves and take 
responsibility for their decisions (for example, having a baby as a single, 
teenage mother, which accounts for 75% of all people below the poverty 
line).

  I claim that the best way to help people is to demand that they be 
responsible for their decisions and their own lives. I claim that when you 
do that, people develop support systems that are far more effective, 
efficient and compassionate than the government, centrally planned 
approach. I claim that demanding individual responsibility helps people 
grow and develop self-esteem.

  You view that as a calloused, uncaring, selfish attitude. I view your 
welfare state approach as destructive, immoral and completely 
counterproductive to its idealistic goals. You would claim that I don't 
care about individuals. I would claim that my approach is the very 
definition of true compassion, and that when you allow people to escape the 
responsibility of their decisions and actions, you do them terrible harm. 
You destroy them. I would ask rhetorically, "Is THAT how you CARE for them? 
By destroying them, robbing them of their self-esteem and rewarding 
indigence?"

  These are not "libertarian mantras" or even "liberal mantras." They are 
fundamental issues about the role of government and society. You see the 
role of government as ensuring outcomes. I see it as ensuring the right to 
pursue whatever outcome you, as an individual, dream of. You may claim that 
is an oversimplification, arguing that government cannot "ensure the 
freedom to pursue a dream" unless it guarantees the means  to achieve that 
dream. I claim that such reasoning is a logical fallacy and that it doesn't 
work. It is irrational. You would claim that I see it as irrational because 
I'm just blinded by my selfishness and my narrow view of the world. (That 
is, you resort to a moralistic ad hominem argument.) You might claim, as 
Margaret did, that when I demand responsibility of others as I do of 
myself, I have the emotional maturity of a 3-year-old. I claim that if you 
believe that, you are a victim of the welfare state. I claim this notion of 
"positive rights" is irrational because it is based on a flawed assumption, 
that of a "closed system." You can't have a closed system in a free market. 
Of course, you would probably disagree with that, and that's okay. You 
would claim that the system is "closed" for many. I would claim that the 
system is "closed" for almost no one, even if they ARE big, ugly and black 
(Margaret's description). You may disagree. Fine. If so, I'll be happy to 
discuss that. But don't attribute to me "narrow thinking" or a "closed 
mind" or claim that I "don't care about individuals" because I make what I 
believe to be a perfectly rational and defendable claim about free market 
economics and the importance of personal responsibility.

  I thought that incident up in Minnesota with Jesse Ventura and those 
liberal students was superb. He must be the only politician in the world 
today who is willing to confront those people, head on, and say it like it 
is. "You made a decision. It is not the government's job to protect you 
from the consequences of your decision." Amen, and amen. None of this, "I 
feel your pain [nearly as much as I would like to feel your breasts], and I 
think the government should be compassionate and help you through this, for 
the sake of you and your child, and for our society." What helps our 
"society" is when people get the message that they are not helpless victims 
and that they must be adults and take responsibility for their lives. 
Anything less is a terrible disservice.

>
> No, Greg, whenever you're unhappy with what's said -- whether it be from
> experts or experience -- you end up turning things on their head, 
accusing
> people of "attacking".  I'm just pointing out the obvious -- information,
> statistics, reliable evidence (if you'd be more open to it) about market
> theories.

  Where was your "information and statistics"? I missed it.

> I have NEVER said, in any of my postings, that I don't like the
> "quantitative" view of things.  What I HAVE said, repeatedly, in numerous
> ways is that success, economic well-being, prosperity, are NOT simply
> quantitative matters -- nor have they, as I pointed out in today's post 
--
> ever been.

  I quite agree. Indeed, I think it is an economic fallacy to measure 
economic well-being on the basis of income. The only proper way to measure 
economic well being is on the basis of consumption, standard-of-living. I 
do make a distinction between "economic" well being and social or emotional 
or psychological well being. If one depends on money or earning power to be 
happy, one's life is empty indeed. But again, that is a different issue, at 
least than the one I was discussing.

> I also added that the fact that qualitative factors (e.g.,
> "people", touchy-feely aspects) that USED TO be included in economic
> models -- as far back as Adam Smith's time, are no longer included, and 
pose
> a serious threat to long-term economic stability.  If Heilbroner is 
saying
> this (and there have been others beside him who are questioning and have
> questioned the elimination of "human" factors into the economic
> equations) -- a man who is, by all regards, a respected free-market
> theorist, something ain't right!

  You claim that Heilbroner is respected as a free-market theorist. It 
would not appear that anyone who really understands a free market would 
view him as a free-market theorist. According to one reviewer (Booklist):

"From the point where psychology and daily life, philosophy and commerce 
meet, Heilbroner offends left and right alike by hazarding only one 
prediction: that the success of U.S. capitalism in the next century will 
'hinge on the capacity to perceive the public sector . . . in terms of an 
indispensable source of strength for a private economy, not as a wasteful 
drag on it.'"

  We are to perceive government as "an indispensable source of strength for 
a private economy"?? Oooookaaay. Those are NOT the words of a "free market 
theorist." They are the words of a collectivist.

>
> Quality of life matters JUST AS MUCH, if not more than QUANTITY OF LIFE,
> Greg.

  I could not agree more. Indeed, I would state it a bit differently, since 
"quantity of life" could be understood to mean number of years, rather than 
as I think you intended it, number of dollars. I would say that quality of 
life matters MORE than quantity of life in years or quantity of stuff or 
money one accumulates. I get a kick out of the image I seem to have on this 
list as somebody who has a lot of money. Hah! Somehow I faked you all out. 
I believe that money is to be enjoyed and spent...recirculated into the 
economy. So, I spend too much, and I don't save "enough." But I thoroughly 
enjoy my family and doing things together. (Not that any of this is 
relevant. It's not.) But you see, we are in complete agreement on this 
point. It is the quality of life, of one's relationships, of one's 
loyalties and friendships, that is important to happiness.

  The number of dollars one makes is quite independent of happiness. 
Witness all the miserable rich people. It is interesting how, because I 
believe in a different approach to helping society and people enjoy a 
higher quality of life, you persist in impugning my motives. It is as if 
one who believes in individual responsibility, liberty in every respect 
(personal, economic, social...indeed I believe that liberty is a "whole" 
and that if you take it away in one area, you take it away in all areas), 
as one who believes in the "wisdom of the marketplace" and who deeply 
distrusts the "stupidity of government" you thereby assume that I am 
selfish, that I think only of money, that I measure everything in terms of 
dollars, and that I don't give a whit about people. Amazing. Whatever would 
lead you to believe such nonsense?


> I really thought that as a society, we'd evolved to the point of
> recognizing and accepting that NOT EVERYBODY prospers or becomes 
successful
> or shares in the fruit of our economic wealth; and any economic model 
that
> does not recognize the qualitative, "touchy-feely" aspects of 
individuals'
> lives cannot in any way create a long-term stable economic environment.

  I guess this is one of the points where you honestly lose me. I don't 
think that "economic models" create anything. They try to describe what is. 
I think we do recognize that one should not even think of "success" in 
terms of dollars, albeit many in our society do. "Success" in life means, 
to me, pursuing one's dreams, no matter what they be, and entirely 
independent of income. Success means being happy in the _process_ of life, 
for it is a process, not an end. I agree that it also has to do with being 
compassionate, caring, with values and with character, with integrity and 
love for one's family and friends. I believe that to some extent, everyone 
shares in the fruits of economic prosperity, and those who do, do so to 
differing degrees. The poor in the U.S. share in our prosperity. They do 
far better than the poor elsewhere in the world. My only claim is that more 
people are able to do better in a free market with limited government 
intervention than are able to do it under any other scheme that has ever 
been devised.

>  I
> advise you to go back and re-read "The Worldly Philosophers", as I HAVE
> done.

  Well, I never read "The Worldly Philosophers," but I took a look at it 
and read some of the reviews. It looks very good! So, I ordered it tonight, 
and I'll read it. Thank you for the suggestion Laura. (I mean that...I 
appreciate it, in spite of my being crippled by my "narrow view" of the 
world. ;-))

>
> So, in response to your request to stop the "ad hominem" attacks, I would
> say this: don't bait people with rhetorical symbolism, if you don't want 
to
> get intelligent responses back.  Then, after somebody HAS responded and
> stuck their neck out, twist, turn, rephrase, or play word games to make 
it
> appear that this wasn't REALLY what you said!

  I'm not playing games, and I'm not trying to twist what you say. I really 
do think that we come at things from such a radically different perspective 
that we are most likely both unable at times to understand what the other 
means. I think I misunderstand your words, and I think you misunderstand 
mine. Communication among those who share a common philosophical base is 
very difficult and prone to misunderstanding. Communication between those 
who have a very different philosophical base, as we seem to have, is even 
more difficult. I'm really not trying to bait you with "rhetorical 
symbolism". I think we just tend to see things in very different ways.

>
> Re: your 'challenge': I have a life other than this list, which is why I
> haven't been posting comments recently.  I can't or won't agree to a
> deadline unless I know I can meet it.  Frankly, right now, I'm involved 
in
> several other projects that require most of my time and energy.  As 
always,
> I am intrigued with your suggested reading material and will do my level
> best to get to it in the next month so that I can respond.

  Well, okay. I understand. I'm swamped myself. But, if you're like me, 
you're always pretty backed up with projects and stuff to do. I must admit, 
I _am_ a bit disappointed. I was hoping we could really do that...take a 
book from the other's perspective, carefully read it, and write a 
thoughtful review. It would be interesting. Maybe we could do it if we 
relaxed the deadline, and say we will do it by around the first of June?

>
> With re: your comments about my NOT having replied to the fair tax or 
social
> security reform issues, refer to the above.  When I am able to spare a
> portion of my week and/or weekend, I will indeed get back to these 
issues,
> although I think I already responded to the taxation question by saying I
> believed in a form of a flat tax system, essentially one that would also 
tax
> corporations and the upper 1/3 income brackets fairly, and eliminate the
> loopholes and tax credits on some items.  If this is not a sufficient
> response for you, oh well...

  Actually, I guess it is Margaret who challenged the FairTax ideas but 
refused to address the specifics. I would support a flat tax. The problem 
comes in with corporations. If you try to tax them on their profits, they 
can work the books around to minimize their profits. That's why I like some 
kind of sales tax, so that the government doesn't have to get involved, and 
maintain a huge bureaucracy to support that involvement in corporate 
accountancy.

  Take care, and thanks for taking the time to write. I spend way too much 
time at this. I wonder why I do it. But these issues are important to me, 
and frankly, this list is the best one I've seen in terms of getting 
challenged by some thoughtful, articulate people (even if you do 
occasionally resort to ad hominem! ;-)).

Best,

  -- Greg