I admit it, best policy would argue to just ignore Major Freedom as most sane people would. However, sometimes I can't resist kicking the hornet's nest. Of course, once you've kicked it you're in for a Battle Royal because Major Freedom-or Major Unfreedom as I prefer to call him-has a neurotic need to always have the last word.
In a way then, your choice is to either at some point drop it and let him have his precious last word and conclude that he won the exchange or keep arguing with him in perpetuity. Most people come to the conclusion that the first choice is better. I often practice that myself with Mr. Anal Retentitve. However, sometimes, what the hell. It's highly amusing and totally predictable.
Major plays a pretty dishonest game. He makes claims and then pretends he never said it 3o seconds later. However, he flatters himself as some great Rothbardian superhero preaching against the evils of fiat money, and fractional reserve banking. Here is part of an interminable exchange between us yesterday-my fault. If I had just dropped it would have been over but I couldn't resist seeing how long I could get him going.
He was accusing me over and over again that I said all wealth and success is based on luck, which is not true. I don't think it is though I think it's a factor. So I finally told him he should either provide quotes of me saying this or stop saying it.
Naturally, he then accused me of making it up that he claimed I think all wealth is due to luck!
"I never said you claimed success is solely a product of luck. You keep accusing me of saying that, when I never did. Stop lying."
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=11919
Now this silly exchange had been going around and around. I think he figures that I wouldn't take the time to actually find all the quotes of him saying it. But hey, I'd wasted enough time on him so what the heck? I looked them up and gave him a sample:
"Now, about all the times you claimed that I said success is all about luck:
"The conjecture that wealthy people can only be wealthy because of luck, is false”
"You say it’s nothing but luck, I disagree”
“I am making a targeted argument with the goal of proving that wealth is not necessarily a product of luck.”
If I never said success is not only a product of luck why do you need to make any “targeted argument?”
“luck isn’t the only thing, which is what you said,”
Want another one? Ok you win:
“The conjecture that wealthy people can only be wealthy because of luck, is false”
“What I am saying is that wealth is not solely a function of luck, which is what you are fallaciously claiming is the case.”
"There are plenty more cases. It’s like those Highlights magazines for kids: ‘what is wrong with this picture’ and the kid has to pick how many errors."
"You can spend the whole day finding examples of Major Unfreedom claiming I said that it’s solely about luck. Now he admits I dind’t say that but that he never claimed that I did. His own words says otherwise."
So does he admit that he's been caught out there? No, of course not, now he's got yet another revisal of his previous revisals:
"I was directing those comments at those particular statements you made, where I deny that it is only luck. I wasn’t directing them at your understanding of wealthy people in general. That’s why I said
“I am making a targeted argument with the goal of proving that wealth is not necessarily a product of luck.”
You asked me:
"If I never said success is not only a product of luck why do you need to make any “targeted argument?”
"Do you honestly believe that I am justified in making a targeted argument only when prompted? I think it was important to say."
"I do not hold that wealth is always a product of luck or even always in part a product of luck, because that would imply that even if nobody did anything with regard to investment, that wealth would arise spontaneously through luck."
Sure, it was a targeted argument, unprompted by me saying that success was only about luck. That's why Unfreedom had said this:
"“luck isn’t the only thing, which is what you said,”
That doesn't sound like it was directed at me does it? So he's as usual trying to have his cake and eat it too. Does he even admit he was wrong in asking me to "stop lying" as I provided all those quotes of him indeed saying I say success is all luck? Of course not. This is Major Unfreedom logic for you-it's a different type up there on his strange planet.
P.S. Part of why I call him Major Unfreedom is that he is a proper follower of Herman Hoppe who claims that democracy is "a God that failed" and that monarch was superior to democracy. I also call him that as he's an obnoxious bastard who thinks nothing of not giving other people unflattering nicknames.
If you haven't encountered him on the blogosphere you've been lucky. His natural habitat at this point is hanging out at Sumner's The Money Illusion. The best strategy is probably to not engage. However, if you must invest in some Kryptonite first. The contamination threat is too high.
No comments:
Post a Comment