... Well, it doesn't follow strict primogeniture, and some players may emerge while others fall away, over time. But access is often "inherited" in the sense

... For reference, the usual mutualist solution (for folks like Tucker et al.) was not to have any kind of "mutualist occupancy and use board," i.e., any kind

... This (the position Greenwald is criticizing, not the one he's expressing) was also David Brooks's basic take

In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, "Nathan Byrd" ... Yes, that's one common claim. We could in fact parse it out into at least three separate

... Bill, Well, this is not a team sport. I understand that it's natural for you to feel embattled or ganged-up-on, given the way that discussions on

... (1) John Hinckley's attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan and (2) Arthur Bremer's attempted assassination of George Wallace were both apparently

... That's an accurate gloss but hardly a detailed one. My point is that Russell and Frege had neither the same conception of "the basic postulates of logic,"

... Sure, and perhaps Russell was, but I don't think that he was mistaken about it in the way that you seem to think he was mistaken about it, or at least if

... He's frequently referred to as such, but I don't know where he claims the title for himself (I tried and couldn't find it in Human Action, at least). As

MBH,

(1) If Jocasta is not really Oedipus’s mother, then there is nothing wrong with him sleeping with her.

(2) If Oedipus (reasonably?) believes that Jocasta is not really his mother, then there is nothing wrong with him sleeping with her.

Some people believe that if (1) is true, so is (2). (Generally because they are internalists about justification.) I do not believe that. Perhaps you believe it; but you claimed to be sussing out my views. Of course, if you want to cherry pick some of my views here and there, ignore the rest, then roll them up with some views I don’t hold, which you made up, and pretend that this constitutes a knock-down response to my views, I can hardly stop you. But I don’t know what you think it proves. Certainly, when I explicitly tell you that my view about justification is P, and then you immediately proceed to repeat a counter-argument that depends on the claim that I accept not-P, what you are doing is hard to count as an even minimally honest response. And I do know that it’s not a game that’s worth my time to play.