Wit and Wisdom of Harry Browne

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
61

[quote]Al Shades wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
First he says his logic is infallible, and then he says he will never be any wiser.

The two statements aren’t contradictory. Keep trying. The rest of you, too.

Eight replies and counting without a single attempt to reply to my defense of Harry - this is awesome. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a greater mass upset in all of my forum posting, nevermind caused one. Present any statement to me and I can tell you whether I agree or disagree with it and why. But that seems to be too hard for most of you. You’re left floundering like pigeons in a pond because you simultaneously know that Harry Browne is right and there’s nothing you can say to get around it. So you ignore it and change the subject, all the while ramping up your attacks on my supposed sanity and intelligence levels.

This is a pattern that I have seen many, many times before. In fact, I know it like the back of my hand. I am no stranger to internet message boards and the ignorance found within. [/quote]

No doubt about that. I am sure you spend most of your time at the keyboard…typing with one hand no doubt.

62

Little Al is so precious!!!

“To read and to comprehend are two different things.”

I read your quotations.

I “comprehend” that Harry BS is full of it.

“You obviously didn’t read the quotations I posted, so you couldn’t have possibly comprehended them.”

I read them with relish!!!

“There’s absolutely no reason for you to be on this thread.”

I’m here for you!!!

“I created it specifically to put a stop to the bullshit that I was hearing on other threads while advancing libertarian viewpoints (the “utopia” nonsense). For you to dismiss and ignore the numerous refutations of your tripe that have just been presented - then go right on shoveling it in my face - is downright infantile.”

I tingle when I read such a pure example of hypocrisy.

“Words cannot describe the pretensiousness and folly of such a statement in light of your complete refusal to address facts that are made plain as day.”

Is this something like presenting 1886 as being a time of American purity. Then when shown (see my last post to you) that you are full of shit, not addressing it at all?

“Please, spare me your predictions about what I will and won’t believe in as I grow “older and wiser”. First, I’m not going to get any wiser, ever, because wisdom is something that people are either born with or develop in the early stages of their lives.”

THIS HAS GOT TO BE ONE OF THE MOST RIDICULOUS PARAGRAPHS EVER WRITTEN BY ANYONE!!!

If this was true, you are off to a very poor start.

“Second, your pathetic line of reasoning singles out Harry Browne as some deranged social pariah, sharing his views with no one else.”

I suppose you qualify for no one else.

“That’s pure crap. There are MILLIONS of libertarians and traditional conservatives in this country who would lend their support to a great deal, if not all, of Browne’s ideas.”

I love when you present will researched FACTS. Oh wait…

"To dismiss Harry Browne as some lunatic on the “fringe”

Correction: You and Harry BS.

“is to summarily dismiss the entire Libertarian, anti-interventionist, and traditional conservative movements as well, not to mention the opinions of thousands of leftists, rightists, and independants. As I said: pure, unadultered, garbage.”

Well said. “Pure, unadultered, garbage.” That sums you and the Brown Star up very succinctly.

“Even some of your fellow clueless chickenhawk posters, who merely pose as conservatives, have acknowledged the validity of Browne’s contentions in a few areas.”

You forgot to mention Halliburton, George H.W. Bush buying GWB into Yale and out of combat, Iraq invasion for oil. Have you met Lumpy?

"The debate, then, is obviously one of degrees. To try and diminish it into a black-and-white issue, with Browne on one side and “everybody else” on the other,

No one else=you.

I love you!!!

JeffR

63

[quote]Al Shades wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
First he says his logic is infallible, and then he says he will never be any wiser.

The two statements aren’t contradictory. Keep trying. The rest of you, too.

blah blah blah… [/quote]

Al, of course they are not contradictory. Only someone who is infallible has achieved the ultimate level of wisdom.

Either you are the supreme being or you are ignorant AND arrogant. If you were only a scrawny little kid you would be a triple threat.

And quit saying no one has refuted Harry Brownholes little essays. I have read posts from people all over the political spectrum pointing out the many fallacys.

64

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Either he is just goofing around or he seriously needs help. [/quote]

I’ll help him. I live in Cambridge and I weigh 145…

Before I forget: absolutely no one under 6-3, 250 (with a gun) should ever consider the merits of anarchy.

65

I started to right an issue-by-issue critique of the Harry Browne article, but I had to minimize it to do some actual important stuff and then my browser crashed – at any rate, I won’t be recreating that.

And I really shouldn’t need to, because I was repeating myself quite a bit.

The Harry Browne piece is mostly a bunch of contentions, all of which only make sense if one is to accept basic libertarian assumptions (i.e. government is bad). Whether you agree or disagree, they aren’t arguments.

Even when he does try to make an argument, as is the case with his point on the drug war or with his example of anti-trust, he is incomplete.

With the drug war he completely ignores the twin problems of violence and addiction from drug users. If you’re going to address the situation, you can’t pretend that problems don’t exist. You can make a very good argument for drug legalization – Harry Browne’s talking point isn’t an example of one.

With anti-trust, Browne makes a simplistic argument that is true only if you assume you are dealing with a monopolist in a low-cost-of-entry market. Also, anti-trust laws also deal with oligarchy, price collusion and market allocation, among other things – all of which are also dependent on the cost-of-entry into the market in order to truly depend on competition to solve the problems.

Then there’s the bit on immigration – not only is it not an argument, it completely avoids dealing with the actual Libertarian position, which is Open Borders. Open Borders is an extremely ridiculous policy if you are going to extend benefits from subsidized health care to free education to welfare to everyone who walks across. Harry just talks about how immigrants now want benefits – which, of course, they would receive if Open Borders were the policy.

Now Al, this isn’t actually to attack Harry Browne – the article is what it is – it obviously wasn’t written to make thorough arguments. As I’ve said, I’m actually sympathetic with a lot of Libertarian ideas, though they need to get more realistic if they ever want to see anything actually implemented. The problem comes from your contention that somehow all these raw conclusions are somehow irrebuttable arguments.

Al, actual arguments require more than high-school debate scoring – in other words, you can’t just assert a bunch of things and say you (or Harry Browne) are making arguments. You need to develop your premises, explain your reasoning, and then not jump over any unstated assumptions. When you attempting to demonstrate your “infallible logic”, think in terms of persuasive writing rather than debate scoring. If you do that, perhaps your writing will eventually approach the level at which you value it.