Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: axial who wrote (27693)	8/6/2008 6:20:44 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

What is determined to be pragmatic, is largely determined by your previous assumptions, including (but not limited to) ideology and philosophy. It only seems purely pragmatic when the ideological and philosophical preconceptions are so thoroughly assumed that they aren't even noticed. Now in many case they perhaps shouldn't be noticed. The philosophical concept that "increasing human welfare is good" is such a philosophical preconception, but it seems so solid, and at the very least is so uncontroversial, that you don't have to directly push it, or have it explicitly recognized, even when you make arguments based off of it. Other ideas might be more reasonably disputed, but the point is you can't simply or reasonably dismiss ideology from any discussion of what is the best path for a country to take. Also not dismissing ideology DOESN'T mean you are not having a pragmatic discussion. I was very much focused on the pragmatic results of the ideas being discussed. I was NOT dismissing pragmatic solutions, but only solutions I don't find to be pragmatic. As for "agnostic solutions" I don't understand what you mean by that. Its most often used about religion, but even its more general use is connected to lacking any firm opinion. If your trying to bring about a solution, you are no longer agnostic as to what that solution should be. Not only was I not dismissing pragmatic solutions, but even if I had been, there is nothing dishonest or evasive about doing so, and most certainly there was nothing dishonest or evasive about my posts. As for Chairman Mao, he was hardly a great believer in market forces or individual freedom. I don't think we would have gotten along very well.