> OK, Ted, you win. You have made Marx immune to refutation; apparently, to
> even discuss him you have accept his premises as you understand him. Those
> premises cannot be criticized, except from within. And it's no good to even
> suggest a different, thinner interpretation than you propose. I note that it
> works both ways: Marx can't lay a glove on Hayek by your style of argument.
> So we end up with a situation on which by Ted's Marx, capitalism is
> wretched, and by Justin's Hayek (this is my reading of H, not a view I
> wendorse), capitalism's great, and they're both right! Sure that suggests
> there is something wrong with your mode of argument, Ted. However, I find
> this a dull game, and won't play. jks
These assertions are all rubbish. You couldn't defend one of them with argument.
Ted