A short thought

[fpb]

If you believe in the free market, you MUST NOT allow a monopoly or a cartel to happen. If you do not regard a monopoly or cartel as the worst thing that can happen to a free market, you do not believe in free markets at all. And you will have a sweet time making sure, because businessmen, as a rule, hate competition.

Comments

[fishlivejournal.livejournal.com]

[bemused] The 'argument' above certainly puts me in my place. You see, I intended to point out that saying this is close to a tautology: that to have a "free market" requires it being "free". And yet something so simple is enough to invoke the internet's infamous flaming...

[fpb.livejournal.com]

The tragic thing about this is that superversive is, where his politics are not concerned, the most brilliant person on my whole f-list, and I am not, repeat not, exaggerating. And I have plenty of brilliant persons on my f-list. His essays on literary criticism are comparable with Matthew Arnold, AC Bradley, CS Lewis, or Ann Douglas - and that means brilliant beyond forgetting. When he gets on to philosophy, you begin to get something unbalanced and unduly aggressive, as with his treatment of Kant. (Not that there aren't a few big-name philosophers I would not treat as frauds and scoundrels; in particular Hume and Hegel.) When you get into politics, it's his way or the highway. And he will, as you see, get on your own blog to assault your views. On a couple of occasions, rather than start a kerfuflle on someone else's blog, I have stated my views in my blog, which is my space, and with no direct reference to the person who had caused the thought. On BOTH occasions, superversive, who was not even the object of the criticism, has come down screaming on me in my own blog for committing the sin of having my own views. I do want to remain his friend for the sake of his genius, but how does one cope with a man like that?

[fishlivejournal.livejournal.com]

[instantly distracted] philosophy was my primary major while at uni, so I'd be interested in hearing more: panning Hume is shooting a fish in a barrel, but I'd like to hear why you what you have to say on Hegel. What I understood of his stuff seemed interesting (although I get the impression that he'd fallen into 'the end of history' trap, assuming that because he couldn't imagine anything new, nothing new could happen). Mind you, it's been years and I can't remember much, so I wouldn't be able to hold a decent conversation about him I'm afraid.

===============================================
The idea that being brilliant is an excuse to be obnoxious... Back when I was the big fish in a small pool, I was an extreme case, so took a rude clobbering when I actually found myself in an actual academic environment. Being torn apart by people substantially smarter than myself was an effective lesson, backed by finding myself on the receiving end of the treatment I'd dished out to others. So the obvious thought: is it practical to introduce him to people who can run rings around him? If so, they're not going to tolerate his attitude, and the intellectual stimulation would be a fine motivation to rapidly acquire manners.

Alternately, politics eventually influences everything: surely if his literary criticism was negatively influenced by his politics, his own skills would rebel? (I haven't phrased that well, but I'm not sure how to). Perhaps an example - if he was to critique a literary document that is both worthy of his skill *and* counter to his politics, would he be able to put his politics to one side long enough to write about it? If so, I would expect him to develop courtesy; if not, this might at least show him the problem.
===============================================================

I'd assumed that posting about any controversial topic was an invitation to argue, and am more comfortable responding to someone else's post than posting myself. Am I breaching netiquette by this?

Thanks.

[johncwright.livejournal.com]

"how does one cope with a man like that?"

Try courtesy.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I did. He did not.
Please notice the reaction of fishlivejournal, a wholly uninvolved stranger, to the episode. That should tell you how it looks.

[fishlivejournal.livejournal.com]

Now that I've had time to have a look at Superversive's own LJ - you both come across as incredibly frustrated, having beaten your heads against brick walls one time too many.

And further, having been talking to each other in different languages. Frex, the tyrant/totalitarian dispute. Your position, if I understand it correctly, is that there is no practical difference between the two, that tyranny inevitably becomes totalitarianism?
That's a *practical* consideration, where he has been making a *technical* distinction. Neither of you can really address what the other is saying because you aren't actually talking about the same thing.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe reversing roles will help. Suppose you and he were discussing a historical matter: one in which both you and he mourn the lack of primary documents, and agree that the secondary documents have been compromised. All well so far. However, the subject of tertiary documents comes up - and he treats them as the same as the secondary documents.
Now sure, he would be correct in so far as they are also compromised, but as a historian I assume you would object to having secondary and tertiary documents treated identically? Even if, for practical purposes in this case, they were equally unreliable?

Hope you don't mind my sticking my oar in!