[MD] Commie Talk and USA bashing?

[Christoffer Ivarsson]

Look, Craig, what the hell are you doing? Because it sure as hell isn't 
debating.

I mean, I say that an unchecked market (one without regulations that ensure 
that people aren't used) leads to terrible human suffering. I say that I 
draw this conclusion from my history studies, studies that among other 
things gave a good picture of how conditions for the poor were like in 
Britain when there were no such regulations and laws in place. I then offer 
a quote from one of the textbooks that describes the workers situation in 
Manchester in the 1840s:

"The houses were in many cases not worthy of human beings and gave rise to
many illnesses, among them tuberculosis. The salary of the workers were at
best at subsistence level, and could only provide the workers with poor
food, and thus the infant mortality was very high. In addition to this, the
factory workers could not depend on getting paid all the time, since they
could be fired at any time"

Now that is ALL I said. You know nothing of what the textbook in question 
other than the fact that is has above quote in it at some place (though in 
Swedish) and still your response is this:

[Craig]
> I think what's needed at Lund University is a more enlightened textbook
> which considers the free market in some year after 1840.

The way I see it, you though "Well, in that book there is apparently a small 
passage that seems to say something negative about the free market - why don't 
I denounce it altogether directly so that I don't need to bother with 
debating"  - or something along that line. That's the only explanation I can 
come up with - or at least the most generous one.

A philosophy teacher I once had said that the reason so many philosophers 
held Spinoza in such high esteem even though they didn't agree with him was 
because he was the ideal philosopher : Calm, methodical, generous in 
debating. A real philosopher it is said, doesn't want to win an argument by 
sheer rhetoric, he doesn't try to turn the subject around when he feels he 
is on shaky ground - he holds his course, because the Truth is more 
important than winning an argument. That's intellectual Value.

It makes me sad to see the kind of "radio-talk" that you and Platt use 
around here, because it gives me a profound feeling of Low Intellectual 
Quality - and what's worse, sometimes one is dragged down by it.  No, I'm 
not putting on a "holier then thou" face - I make the same mistakes every 
day: But I try my very best to keep it out of here. I have too much respect 
for the MOQ not to.