Folks,
If one assumes facts not in evidence and continues to change the scenario,
one can "prove" anything. This is Inchoate thinking.
From, http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary:
in�cho�ate
Pronunciation: in-'kO-&t, 'in-k&-"wAt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin inchoatus, past participle of inchoare to start work on,
perhaps from in- + cohum part of a yoke to which the beam of a plow is
fitted
Date: 1534
: being only partly in existence or operation; especially : imperfectly
formed or formulated : FORMLESS <misty, inchoate suspicions that all is not
well with the nation -- J. M. Perry>
- in�cho�ate�ly adverb
- in�cho�ate�ness noun
From, http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/thesaurus?book=Thesaurus&va=inchoate:
: inchoate
Function: adjective
Text: 1
Synonyms FORMLESS, amorphous, shapeless, unformed, unshaped
2
Synonyms INCOHERENT 2, disconnected, discontinuous, disjointed, disordered,
incohesive, muddled, unconnected, uncontinuous, unorganized
So, understanding Inchoate's limitations, let's look at his (ha ha) "logic."
He wrote:
> This is a problem that arises because
> people are greedy and recognize the
> profit potential in a captured market.
Inchoates falacy here is called, "begging the question." Yes, greed is the
genesis, but that exists in a monopoly situation or a free market situation.
The difference, of course, is which system best deals with that aspect of
human nature. A top-down, monopoly created and maintained by government
force is a "single point of failure" (and control) that greatly simplifies
attacks by anti-free market actors.
> Blaiming it on the government is
> simply a silly knee-jerk reaction
> with no reasoning or analysis behind
> it.
An interesting assertion with nothing to back it up. I simply pointed out
that the problem of which Inchoate complains arose under the system he
admires and that a free market would not be as susceptible to such problems.
That's hardly "blaiming [sic] it on the government."
> So, somebody hacks your phone and you
> take the phone company to court?
If that represents a violation of your contract, yeah.
> That's insane, very shortly you
> won't have a phone company.
"A" phone company? My Inchoate does have limited imagination. It seems
much more reasonable to assume that one would have phone companies that
would be more responsible in protecting their network from hackers.
Reputation capital and all that.
> in that sort of society wouldn't it
> be reasonable for any service provider
> to have exclusionary riders on any
> contract with respect to this sort of
> stuff?
No. I'll leave figuring out the obvious reason this would not happen as an
exercise for the (dull) student. (Hint: the answer is one word that starts
with a "c".)
> And how might they determine which
> party it was to bring the action
> against?
YOUR phone company. Sheez.
> There is clearly nothing in C-A-C-L
> philosophy that would prevent a large
> organization like The Mob (copyrighted
> I'm shure) from buying into a phone
> system and using it to their own
> advantage.
And there would be nothing to prevent me from buying my phone service from a
phone company that isn't mob controlled. Currently, of course, I DON'T have
that option. All the phone companies in America are mob (i.e., government)
control.
> What if that party refuses arbitration?
> It clearly is not in their financial
> best interest.
Now that is truly nuts. A company that gets a reputation for violating its
contract won't have many customers. In a free market, it is clearly in the
best financial interest of businesses to honor their contracts. Duh.
> And considering the agrieved company
> is nearly broke...
It is? I'm sorry, I hadn't heard. Is it too late to send flowers?
> ...do you propose that C-A-C-L
> arbitration will be done for
> free ever?
Contractual agreement, insurance function, pre-payment, charity, special
interest groups, consumers union, etc., etc.
> Of what motivation as a small company
> would it be for me to participate in
> such a system when it would never bring
> me any advantage or recovery?
Assuming facts not in evidence. [sigh] The pig shows no interest in, nor
talent for, singing.
S a n d y
