|
>> >> Do you intend to state what 'apparently irrational beliefs' this 'self-described skeptic' holds....? >> People who believe that representative democracy is the best we can do are true
>> believers. So people who adopt a pragmatic view are 'true believers'? I won't call your
definition wrong, but
it is quite unusual. >> They believe what their grade 3 teachers told them, and Channel 9
>> too. Fair go - some of what my grade 3 teacher told me was true. Like the fact
that a good place to find words starting with 'n' is after the words starting
with 'm' in the dictionary. She also told me lots of rubbish (oil would run out
by the year 2000 etc, etc). But overall the experience was useful. It taught to
to discriminate. >> But rationally, we know that free markets are the best we can
>> do. No, rationally all you have is a theory that free markets are the best we can
do, and some empirical evidence that in some cases it works well. Your
experiment has never been tried. Marxists have their economic theories as well.
Marxism wasn't discredited until it was tried and failed. Like the 20th century
Marxists, all you have is a theory. >> People
>> need competition if they are to do their best. So the "apparently irrational
>> beliefs" that I'm referring to include the belief that our political problems
>> can be solved without changing the electoral system, the belief that voting
>> really matters, the belief that the Liberal Party would be fine if only the
>> socialists got out of the way, and the belief that countries and legislatures
>> are somehow divinely inspired. Again you seem unable to differentiate between a pragmatic belief
that democracy gives a better result, and divinely inspired belief
that the democratic system is better. Doesn't this seem a little .. to put it delicately .. er .. irrational?
| 
