[net.politics.theory] Libertarian Arguments -- Reply to Reply to Reply to Baba

mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan) (04/26/85)

Lines marked '>' and '>>>' are those of Baba; lines marked '>>' are mine.

>>>I seem to recall that one of the examples of ludicrous straw men given 
>>>by DKMcK was in fact a proposition put forward by a self-proclaimed 
>>>libertarian several weeks earlier.
>>
>>  1) Rather than seeming to recall, why doesn't Baba give us a concrete
>>example?
>
>Quite simply, spar doesn't have enough disk space to archive more than a
>couple of weeks worth of news.  Both your article and the one it put
>me in mind of are lost under the rainbow.  If you would care to mail
>me a copy of your article, I'll be happy to tell you which example 
>I was referring to.

Wonderful!  Baba makes an assertion which he cannot substantiate, and the
truth of which I question, and then asks him that I send him the proof.  If
I knew of an article which proved his accusation, I wouldn't have challenged
it in the first place.  I find his request extremely bizarre!

>>  2) The time that I attacked Baba for using a straw-man, he had claimed
>>that Cliff had said a Libertarian country would need no lawyers, when
>>Cliff had actually said that differences in the skill-levels of lawyers
>>would not affect outcomes. Cliff's assertion may be debatable, but
>>apparently Baba found it too challenging and opted to lie.
>
>[Cliff has] publicly agreed that my (mis)interpretation of his statement
>was natural and without malice, but not at all what he had intended. 
>Rather than stoop to your level, I'll assume you missed that exchange.

Well, since I appear to have screwed up badly here, I apologize.  Of course,
the alternative would be to stoop to your level, and simply drop-out of
the argument rather than concede error.

                               Back later,
                               DKMcK