RE: Anti-Battistella: PART ONE

[Chris Smith <cdsmith@brain.uccs.edu>]

Domenic Battistella writes:
> You missed one.  Fiat does not mean the plan is passed and is enforced
> forever and ever.  A convenient omission considering that analysis
> proves that the opportunity is never really lost if the plan is fiated
> now.

Oops.  I must have missed that one too.  And it's an argument that I've 
been waiting for, because it is the most credible reason I've heard to 
reject opp cost theory.

My only response is that fiat has to last time.  If not, there would be 
little benefit to any plan that has any attitudinal inherency of any sort. 
 It would just be overturned as soon as it was passed.  Whether it requires 
that we look at fiat as intellectual endorsement or what, we need to adopt 
a model of fiat that assumes durability of the fiat'ed action.  In fact, 
I'm not so sure that we shouldn't view fiat as the intellectual answer of a 
thinking individual to the resolutional question.  That would seem to solve 
a lot of problems.

Chris Smith

"Love is apparently killed by time, only because it transcends time; and 
its spiritual and infinite essence cannot be contained with the limitations 
of a material and finite world."
	- Caroline Spurgeon, on Shakespeare's philosophy of love

---

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

---

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