Anti-Climacus

MY DEAREST DAVID:

First of all, I should like to point out that you seem to be misspelling my last name; it's T-R-O-E-S-T-E-R. I understand how that might be confusing.
Now, of course, you argue that MLB player salaries should be lowered somewhat. I'd like to point out that this is neither against the position I suggested, nor is it against the position of the MLBPA, which says that players ought to get paid whatever the market (in this case, the owners) will bear: the MLBPA, in fact, rejected a proposal to raise the minimum salary-- is that the sort of thing that money-grubbers do?
Secondly, successful union negotiations benefit all unions, because they provide effective tactics that get shared amongst all labor groups.
Further, I never referred to cutting the salary of anyone as a sin. If I'm wrong, as Martin Luther used to say, point it out to me and I'll gladly correct my mistake.
Anti-capitalist isn't reducible to anti-pure-capitalism, and even if it were, that wouldn't be what I meant (assuming, as I hope you do, that I am capable of determining the semantic content of what I write): what I meant was that opposing the placement of wage floors and ceilings (as the MLBPA did) is wholly consistent with any reasonable definition of what constitutes capitalism. Jeremiads about whether or not pure capitialism works, while valuable in their own right, don't seem to have much place here, because the topic I brought up was specific to one instance
And, a bit more specifically, if I may:

"It's like Nick's argument that language isn't a system of communication but rather reality itself through description because "that's the way its supposed to be." "

Actually, if you recall, I argued that language is both*, a distinction I think you didn't quite grasp at the time because, unfortunately, you were unwilling to do any reading whatsoever on the subject (and a cursory look at Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and Philosophical Investigations will suffice to evince the two senses of language of which I speak), and, much as I hold real and sincere affection for you, I do not, even for a moment, feel compelled to justify myself to someone who proudly waves the flag of their own ignorance of the significant literature on a given topic.


*Even that, I'm afraid, isn't quite what I argued. I said that language exists as a set of formal symbols for interpreting the world, which are, by nature, going to be formally incomplete (the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus); and also that language is the subjective means by which we describe the world, where we run into all sorts of problems generated by ineffibility (The Wittgenstein of Philosophical Invesitgations)