usfan
VIP Member
- May 28, 2013
- 194
- 32
- 68
- Thread starter
- #81
*sigh*Now the actual exchange is no longer a distant memory that may be confused with another exchange. Your employment of the viewpoint offered by Frederic Bastiat can be summed up as a restatement of a contentious viewpoint whereby the contentious part of the viewpoint of Frederic Bastiat is summed up as the Zero Sum Game viewpoint. If you don't want to discuss Frederic Bastiat, then you can refrain from referring to, and quoting, Frederic Bastiat. If you do want to discuss Frederic Bastiat, and you do quote from Frederic Bastiat, then it would not be justified to ignore the contention surrounding the Zero Sum Game viewpoint offered by Frederic Bastiat, unless you prefer to remain ignorant about it, or unless you too have, and hold dear, this Zero Sum Game viewpoint; which you may, or may not, recognize as a Zero Sum Game viewpoint.
yes, i quoted Bastiat. But it was not about 'zero sum game' or any such undefined concepts. It was about the perversion of Law into an instrument of plunder. That was the extent of my quote of Bastiat. If you want to bring new concepts into the discussion, the burden is on you to define your terms & apply them to the discussion, not yell at me for not following your scattered thought processes.
Has Law been used as an instrument of plunder? Are there those who pervert the Law for selfish reasons, instead of its proper function of protecting life, liberty, & property? Those were my points, which you did not address nor refute, but only deflected with some tangent about another topic.