# Alan Greenspan Decides Social Security Privatization Might Be Okay -- Who Cares? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 16, 2005, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alan-greenspan-decides-social-security-privatization-might-be-okay-who-cares/290394 "2005-02-16T18:58:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2005, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alan-greenspan-decides-social-security-privatization-might-be-okay-who-cares/290394/41 "2005-02-18T05:38:36Z")
[Moderator Hat ON] Oh, and, er, yes, Huerta88, don’t call anyone a “jackass” here. Geez this thread has jumped the rails. Everyone needs to back off a tad. [Moderator Hat OFF] ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2005, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alan-greenspan-decides-social-security-privatization-might-be-okay-who-cares/290394/42 "2005-02-18T06:00:20Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > @Huertas You need to be careful where you tread, calling me a “jackass” is a pretty clear violation of GD rules, and I don’t want to see anyone get in any trouble. I have no interest in the Pit threads, don’t go there, haven’t earned a trip there yet. You busted out the “conspiracy theorist” epithet (which is . . . a Valentine’s message? Sounds kinda like a personal insult too) based on, apparently, a distortion of what I actually said. And . . . “conspiracy theorist” (even if it applied to me, and it doesn’t as far as I understand the term) is a relatively meaningless construct, probably not even a useful concept given how weighted down it is with the genetic fallacy and circularity (“Ignore that man, for I will convince you that he is merely alleging a conspiracy, and then I will demonstrate that his belief in this conspiracy grows out of his belief that conspiracies of such a nature can exist, which is as we all know an illegitimate source of belief.”). Specifically, though: > [@](#): > > As it is, I said you “probably” are a conspiracy theorist because in my opinion one would have to ascribe to some brand of conspiracy theorism if you believe that Alan Greenspan executes “dictatorial” powers. > > . . . > > it doesn’t make sense to use the adjective “dictatorial.” But obviously I’m _not_ clairvoyant, and I have to work with what you give me, and you just said blanketly “dictatorial.” Yes, but here’s where your faulty psychic powers must have been at work, because I **never said Greenspan exercised dictatorial powers.** (In my last post I did myself an injustice by suggesting I had used the word ‘dictatorial’ at all **by analogy** to Greenspan’s **term of office** (and nothing else; eye on the ball, here). What I **actually** said early on, now that I go back to the initial posts, was: > [@](#): > > No one has established to me that the unelected, arcane, and **apparently now dictator-for-life-tenure** , position of “chairman of the Fed” equates with "near infallible . . . . (emphasis supplied). Which is clearly a adjectival reference to (and **only** to) the length of Greenspan’s protracted tenure and repeated appointments by acclamation. And I’ve explained why I question interminible terms for almost any official, dictator or otherwise. So, I didn’t “blanketly” (or at all) call Greenspan, or his policies, “dictatorial,” and your entire apparent premise for in turn calling me a conspiracy theorist is wrong. Here’s another one to ponder: what “conspiracy theorist” of whom you’ve heard advocates **ignoring** the alleged author and prime mover of the conspiracy? None. Organizing a witch hunt to eliminate him, yes, exposing him for the Antichrist, yes. Going home (as I am now) to sleep and switching the channel when King Alan comes on? It doesn’t even make sense – words have meaning, and when you use them contrary to their actual meaning, people will question your motives. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2005, 10:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alan-greenspan-decides-social-security-privatization-might-be-okay-who-cares/290394/43 "2005-02-18T10:25:09Z")
> [@Gaudere](#): > > [Moderator Hat ON] > > Manhattan, RTFirefly, pantom, take this tiff to the pit. NOW. You want to debate, fine, but leave off on the sniping. > > [Moderator Hat OFF] [As you wish.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=303026) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alan-greenspan-decides-social-security-privatization-might-be-okay-who-cares/290394.md?page=2)