Re: opportunity benefits

[pgxenak@juno.com (Paul G Xenakis)]

On Sun, 25 May 1997 10:54:53 -0400 (EDT) lucius K <lkahng@osf1.gmu.edu>
writes:
>
>You wrote
>> There is no reason to accept op cost as as acceptable as
>> neg fiat.  As Domenic stated, the problems of uncertainty or lack of
>> inevitability posed by opp cost are eliminated when one simply uses
>> fiat.  A fiated c/p is a much stronger position than one run on the
>> basis of opportunity cost.
>
>Explain the warrant for your claim "There is no reason to accept op 
>cost
>as as acceptable as neg fiat."
>
>Seems like your saying that oppotunity cost analysis somehow precludes
>Negative fiat.

Some are advocating this position--that the neg should run a c/p without
fiat, strictly based on opp cost. (I think Chris Smith supports this.) 
The problems of propensity/uniqueness for a c/p that is NOT fiated
concerns me most.  I think that all of these problems are cleared up by
using fiat.  Chris's post on the role was intresting but incorrect; I
tend to agree with Domenic, that the judge is voting on a one-shot
basis.  Therefore I think it is better to use fiat.  I think we are
agreeing here--at least some.

>
>I have never said that the negative doesn't get fiat. So now you and 
>Dom
>are _agreeing_ that opp cost analysis is legitamite if negative fiat 
>is
>used.

Comparing a c/p to opp cost almost like an analogy is one thing, but
making it the backbone of your argument and not accepting neg fiat is
another.  As stated before a c/p using fiat is much stonger than one
using opp cost.  Regardless of whether or not opp cost is a legit
argument, I don't think it is strong as neg fiated c/ps.

> What I've been saying all along. Your criticism of opp cost is
>flawed because you a criticizing a version you and Dom have made up.

Not really.  I have been trying to respond to Chris and Bob's versions of
an opp cost c/p (although Dom has gotten to them a little quicker than I
:)  I do think that we have been arguing against someone's version of an
opp cost c/p, although it may not have been yours. 

>
>				
>					lucius K
>					George Mason U
>
>


Paul Xenakis
Kempsville High School

---

References:

• Re: opportunity benefits
• From: lucius K <lkahng@osf1.gmu.edu>

---

• Prev by Date: Anti-Battistella: PART TWO
• Next by Date: Re: opportunity benefits
• Prev by thread: Re: opportunity benefits
• Next by thread: Re: opportunity benefits
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page