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 : George Gilder - Forbes ASAP -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dragonfly who wrote (469)	4/20/1998 3:44:00 AM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5853

Yes, I believe we could find an example of all three cases. A Premise is always a "conclusion" in that it must be taken for granted in order to make a logical argument towards a deeper conclusion. This is not slight of hand. It is by the book. Simply because all business enterprises will not be prosecuted(due to interpretation by prosecutors), does not disprove her notion that the act of selling is now technically/potentially against the law. This is very different from your example. In her argument, all who sell are potentially liable to be prosecuted under anti-trust laws. In your argument, a person or persons having committed a crime simply wouldn't reflect on all other people in any way- unless you add to the premise that they too have each engaged in some act in potential conflict with some law. For your argument to be applicable, she'd have had to have concluded that all people are in violation of anti-trust laws, whether they sell anything or not. Your attempt to equate your example with her argument and conclude she has used slight of hand, seems itself to be a bit of an attempt at slight of hand, to put it mildly. I rather think it is you who "feel" she ought to be wrong, and so you search in vain for a valid argument to support that feeling. Many, many people will tell you that Rand was a veritable master of Logical argument. If she is fooling us with faulty logic, you haven't found her method yet. Actually, when she says "The only difference between a criminal and a businessman under the law..." she has made a grave error right there. I'd wager there are other differences... .