>Carrol wrote:
>
>
>>What's your point?
>>
>>That universalizing propositions about individual responses are apt
>>to be empty.\
>
>
>Oh, the usual.
Isn't that odd coming from someone who just denounced the libertarian conception of the individual as "ahistorical"? I don't get it - on the one hand, we're all a bunch of disaparate, incommensurate individuals about whom no generalizations are possible, and on the other we're each just an instantiation of the collective. Which is it, Carrol? Is there such a thing as society or no?
Doug