[lbo-talk] Von Hayek was wrong

[// ravi]

On Apr 2, 2011, at 7:08 PM, 123hop at comcast.net wrote:
>>> 
>>> But I wasn't arguing against social security and pensions. I was just saying
>>> that working for free is a luxury most can't afford.
>>> 
> 
>> One doesn't argue about a fact. But your 'argument' suggests that it is
>> better to sit in the park and starve rather than spend some of the day at
>> work where it's warmer.
> 
> No it doesn't. It wasn't an argument, it was an observation that workers who are already privileged in some way can afford to work for free. I mean, one of the workers described in the article worked for free for one year after which he/she got some kind of executive position.
> 

(a) “one doesn’t argue about a fact” assumes facts hang around in the air waiting to be plucked and archived.

(b) any time phrases like “I am talking to a baby boomer” appear in counter-“argument”s, it is pretty much an admission of unwillingness (or inability) to engage with the content. There was a wise gent who used to say that a lot, around these parts.

	—ravi