> Felado :  [Canada]
>
> A trial must take into consideration the degree of responsibility. It seems
> that Bardossy's responsibility for massacres was indirect.
Yes. In fact his chief crime in this area were crimes of omission (failure
to act against lawlessness) rather than actively promoting lawlessness. But
upholding the rule of law is a responsibility that the leader of a country
can't just omit. Debasing the law by introducing racist legislation also
fits this pattern of abuse.

> Initially he opposed the declaration of war on the Soviet Union.
Quite possible.

> He was condemned to death for the declaration of war on the Soviet Union
> and not for his other crimes. The trial itself was contrary to Hungarian and
> European judicial jurisprudence.
Yes.

> I consider Bardossy guilty but I do not believe that he
> received a fair trial and a fair judgement.
My position exactly. He got what he deserved, but not in a fair and
impartial manner.

Andra1s Kornai

>
> Comrade Durant, your reflexive anti-Americanism is less appalling to me. I
> realize there is a certain segment of middle- and upper-class Britons who
> take a great amount of pride in flaunting their radical Marxist
> sensibilities through bashing the United States at every turn. This group
> was hard at it even before the rise of Marxism and socialism. Your only
> saving grace is your futile banality -- shackled to a third-rate ideology
> that cannot possibly explain the paradoxes of human behavior and cruelty
> in an adequate manner. Fortunately, we confine your soulmates to the
> college campus and the House Republican Caucus here in the Great Satan. I
> don't expect that will change because the majority of Americans sense,
> quite rightly, that the Marxist obsession with "homo economicus" doesn't
> even come close to capturing the sum total of human existence. You, madam,
> are a dinosaur.
>
> understands that the truth of American involvement is much more complex
> than either of your hatreds for my nation will allow you to admit.
>
> Sam Stowe

I think you are getting a bit emotional, and your patriotic fervour
hinders you actually answering the points made about the gross
failure of US "peacekeeping" efforts in the past. I have no hatred
against anybody, I have well founded suspicions about
political/military actions.

However you are choosing personal attacks, which is a proof of
the total absense valid arguments in general.
By the way, I cannot count myself
either to be middle-class (neither incomewise, nor lifestyle)
or more than part-British (most of me seems to be stubbornly
Hungarian, and that's the way I like it).

It would be a pleasant surprise if those middle and upperclass
people you refered to would be indeed left-wing inclined.
I think Europeans,(most of all Germany) actively encouraged
the nationalist/shauvinist notions which initiated the war
in Bosnia. The only way to compensate now would be to pour
in enough resources/money, to rebuild the warzones.  If
the condition for getting these subsidies would be cooperation,
local democracy and observence of minority rights, it just might
work. If the people are left to fight on for scarce resources
such as accomodation, and minority rights are not resolved,
no matter how many troups will be stationed there, there will
be no lasting peace.

by the way "homo economicus"  or "more profit now!"
describes capitalism real well, thank you very much...
I'm not a dinosaur, if you mean people who attach themselves
to old-style systems of government, than the term describes you
better, but I refrain from name calling...


(p.s. how can someone flaunt their  Marxist sensibilities, even before
 the rise of Marxism? Just being curious...)

>
> Interestingly enough, I was thinking of Chile as one of the American
> foreign policy successes.  I know that Allende was 'democratically'
> elected, but his movements were away from democracy.  Pinochet was no
> democrat, but under his regime there was certainly more freedom than
> would have been the case had Chile fallen to the Soviets.
>

Fascinating. So any government elected democratically can
be forcibly removed, if there is a chance of them becoming
socialist (because this latest means soviet terror presumably),
even if that is the majority's wish. Food for thought...

>
>
> By the way, isn't this the *Hungary* newsgroup, not the US foreign policy
> newsgroup?  Perhaps we should be speaking about Horn's foreign policy
> instead.  (oh, for the days of Jeszenszky Geza...)

I think there is a merit in discussing the economic/political
system of the countries Hungarian policies are trying to follow.
A critical analysis of Stalin's USSR before following that system
would have been useful. You may say, that Hungary was forced
to copy that system.  Is Hungary forced now to copy monetarist
ancient free-for-all capitalism - I say, yes, and no matter who
is the prime-minister of the moment.

To recap, Andras Kornai, on 22 Nov 1995 writes

>As prime minister, Bardossy was responsible for
>
>       a) openly racist legislation
>       b) deportation and massacres of Jews (Hung. citizens) at
>          Kamenec-Podolsk
>       c) massacres of civilians (mostly Serbs) at Backa
>


It was pointed out to Andras that

        (i)  the government in power then did not have a policy to
             deport Hungarian citizens but rather, in response to
             German pressure, showed the door to illegal aliens
        (ii) the massacres in Bacska were not ordered or instigated
             by Bardossy


In reply, Kornai implies that the deportation of Hungarian citizens of
Putnok at the time proves his point.

Accessible records indicate that those of Hungarian citizenship of
Putnok, who were deported and subsequently murdered, suffered their fate
not under Bardossy's tenure in office, but later, after the German
invasion of Hungary in 1944. Kornai has not furnished sources to
contradict this view.

Later, on 30 November 1995, Kornai backs-off and now says that

>
>thing that might be in dispute is that Hungarian citizens indeed
>fell victim at Kamenec-Podolsk
>

The testimony at the trial of Bardossy does not contain credible
evidence as far as the culpability of Bardossy is concerned in ordering
any massacres. Kornai was challenged to provide substantiation of his
charges, see (c) above, but as yet has failed to do so.

Bardossy's role in the promulgation of racist legislation was not
disputed. It was, however, pointed out to Andras that laws and practices
of the same genre were widespread in the West at that time, and even
much later, and politicians in those countries were not charged with
alleged "war crimes". An interesting footnote is the recent
rehabilitation in Switzerland of the Swiss Paul Gruningen (sp?) who was
convicted in 1940 for helping Jews enter Switzerland illegally to escape
Nazi persecution. He was never able to get a decent job after his
conviction and died in poverty.

Andras also writes

>
>my charges were indeed broad enough for their truth to be self-evident
>

How's that again? The sentence reminds one of Koestler's "Darkness at Noon".

Andras also retreats on Bardossy when on 30 Nov 1995 he describes
Bardossy's trial as

>
>The kangaroo court atmosphere comes through very clearly.
>
>...far from impartial judge...
>

That's just the point Andras! How could guilt or innocence be determined
under such conditions? If it was a kangaroo court, as you state it, how
could the defendant defend himself? What validity has a judgement
rendered under such conditions?

When, in referring to the kangaroo court and the trial, Andras says that

>
>the amount of evil in the world was decreased
>

one wonders whether Stalinist political murder, as it was practiced in
Hungary at the time, really decreased the evil in the world? I would
argue that the opposite was the case.

CSABA K. ZOLTANI

Greg Grose wrote:

> George Antony wrote:
> : ...Again IMO, dispensing with ethnic hatred, and
> : even with animosity, is a sign of maturity.  Viz. Switzerland, Germany,
> : France, Austria, Italy vs Hungary and her neighbours.  ...
>
> There seems to be enough ethnic hatred dispensed against Turks in Germany
> and North Africans in France to make this distinction less than clearcut,
 IMHO.

While you make a valid point here, I think that the issues of the social
consequences of rapid, large and recent immigration waves on the one hand,
and the relationship with peoples/ethnicities cohabiting on the same land
for centuries on the other hand, are different.

George Antony

Peter Hidas writes in connection with the verdict on Bardossy:

>A trial must take into consideration the degree of responsibility. It seems
>that Bardossy's responsibility for massacres was indirect. Initially he
>opposed the declaration of war on the Soviet Union. He was condemned to
>death for the declaration of war on the Soviet Union and not for his other
>crimes. The trial itself was contrary to Hungarian and European judicial
>jurisprudence. I consider Bardossy guilty but I do not believe that he
>received a fair trial and a fair judgement. (See also Akos Major
>NEPBIRASKODAS FORRADALMI TORVENYESSEG, Budapest, 1988).
>

I don't think that I could summarize it better and, I think, Andras, it is
time to give up and admit that you have overstated the case. Occasionally we
can be wrong, and, however reluctantly, we must admit it.

No one is arguing here whether Bardossy was a nice man or not or whether his
countenance sends chills down on one's spine watching the original footage of
his trial. The question is whether, to quote Peter, "he received a fair trial
and a fair judgment" or not, and there seems to me enough evidence to say
that he did not.

By the way, your final sentence:

>Yet somehow, kangaroo court and all, one comes away from with the
>feeling that the world is a better place with Ba1rdossy executed. Not a nice
>safe place, not with this prosecutor and this judge, but still, the amount
of
>evil in the world was decreased.

is highly emotional and most likely unfair. Again, I must repeat: he was
condemned to death for declaring war on the Soviet Union--something he didn't
do, but even if he did, in civilized societies, one doesn't get hanged for
war declarations. I think your insistence on this issue is misplaced.

Eva Balogh

>
> > I think there is a merit in discussing the economic/political
> > system of the countries Hungarian policies are trying to follow.
> > A critical analysis of Stalin's USSR before following that system
> > would have been useful. You may say, that Hungary was forced
> > to copy that system.  Is Hungary forced now to copy monetarist
> > ancient free-for-all capitalism - I say, yes, and no matter who
> > is the prime-minister of the moment.
> > 
> >
>
> You are equivocating on your use of the term 'forced'.  If somebody comes
> to me and offers to kill me if I do not quaff a potion, then I am
> 'forced' into doing something against my will, by an external agent.  The
> potion could be good, or it could be harmful.  In the case mentioned, it
> was harmful.
>
> Consider the situation where I have quaffed the potion, and it was harmful,
> I am sick and about to die.  The doctor comes to me and gives me an
> anti-potion, and says, "if you don't take this medicine, you will die."
> Here, again, I am 'forced' to quaff the potion,  but this 'force' has a
> different meaning.  If I don't take the potion, I will die.  But the
> doctor will not kill me.  I will have been killed by the bloke who gave
> me the *first* potion to quaff.  In this case 'force' simply means there
> are no alternatives.
>
> jim doepp
>

And if you know, that the second doctor's potion is harmful, too,
from your experience, as you've tried it once,
shouldn't you give up old, poisonous medicines? Or at least
be a bit suspicious?      Hungary  was not more dead
from it's "socialism", than a lot of other countries from
capitalism  see: Haiti, Columbia, etc.

Trying to track down Janos and daughter Katie who came to live with us in
Ireland after the Revolution
in 1958 or so. He was an electrical engineer and I worked at Lucas in
England for a period of time in the 1960's. Janos would be 60-70 now.
Katie (spelling?) would be 38-40.

Katie came to live with our famuily as a refugee through the International
Red Cross. She was like a sister to me. I would like to trace them down.

Any hints would be great. Social clubs in England or is it conceivable
that they would go back to Hungary?

John McMahon - ex Ardee, Co.Louth, Ireland

In article >, Joe Szalai
> writes:

>But please do not try to negate my criticism of American policy by saying
>that this is the only policy that will, finely, end the suffering and
>killing. By saying this, you are also saying that a-n-y criticism of this
>policy means that the critic is less concerned about the suffering than
you
>are.  That just isin't the case!
>
>I don't want to get into an, "I'm more concerned than you are, so my
>argument is  more superior", debate.  That is not the point.
>
>Europeans could have stopped the conflict if they had the political will.
>With a little co-operation from the Americans, the job may not have taken
>long.  But that did not happen.  There was a massive failure of political
>will and leadership in the early days of this conflict.  Political roles
in
>a one superpower world are new to all the parties.
>
>The Americans will stop this war if they want to.  They certainly have
the
>power.  However, I have not seen any plans (American or European) to end
the
>war.  To me, there is a big difference between 'stop' and 'end'. For how
>long are the Americans willing to stop the war.  And at what cost?
>
>Unfortunately, if there is no plan to end the war, Americas  effort may
only
>result in the postponement of the killings.  Lets co-operate to end the
>suffering.
>
>Joe Szalai
>
>
>

I didn't say this is the only policy that will end the suffering. I did
say that America is the only nation currently able and willing to
undertake such a mission. And I'm glad you appreciate the crying need for
some kind of resolute action to stop the killing in Bosnia. Your earlier
posts seemed to be much more concerned about the U.S. projecting its
military might and cultural oppression into the Balkans.

There's an important lesson here for all of us, Americans, Canadians and
Hungarians alike. The basis for U.S. foreign policy throughout this
century seems to have swung back and forth from realpolitik to moralism.
The first has gotten us some of the entanglements with right-wing
dictators that people like Eva Durant love to blather on about as proof of
the United States somehow being an unmitigated evil on the world stage.
The latter pole has gotten us Vietnam, Beirut and Somalia. Our NATO
partners, particularly the British and the French, openly sneer at the
U.S. when it acts, as it has in Bosnia, out of moral commitment. And well
they might -- leading from the heart rather than the head was in large
part responsible for the military reverses suffered during every one of
the three interventions mentioned above.

And far from your contention that America didn't cooperate with the NATO
allies during the past three or four years, that is simply untrue. Our
major crime of complicity so far in Bosnia has been to bow to Western
European demands that finesse and endless diplomacy be applied to ending
the war. Senate Majority Leader Dole and President Clinton could, and
probably should, have worked out an agreement to begin arming the  Bosnian
Moslems and launching airstrikes at the Serbs within months after Clinton
took office in 1993. And let's be honest -- two weeks of intensive
American airstrikes are what brought the Serbs to Dayton after thumbing
their noses at the international community for years. The nadir of the
Western European approach came this summer when Dutch troops stood by and
did nothing while Bosnian Serb troops rounded up thousands of men in a
town they had just taken and massacred them.

Many Americans, myself included, are very conflicted by situations like
Bosnia. Our nation has the power to intervene and try to restore peace.
How comfortable are we with having that power and not using it? How do we
identify between those situations where we can fruitfully intervene
militarily and where we dare not try to come between warring parties?
These are very difficult questions for American

Durant:
I realize getting into any kind of extended discussion with you over your
slavish devotion to an outmoded ideology is useless. Please rest assured
that while you are feeling all warm and tingly about your superior
consciousness and concern for the exploited masses, a bunch of us
capitalists will be struggling to clean up a mess that somehow you never
could see rotting right under your nose.

Until Pres. Clinton decided to enforce the Dayton peace treaty by
committing American ground troops to Bosnia, I don't recall one goddamned
post on your part calling for someone, anyone, to stop the slaughter
there. Your outrage, in fact, was reserved for America. I have to give you
this -- you're consistent. I believe it would amaze everyone on this list
if you were ever able to think for yourself outside the narrow parameters
of Marxism-Leninism. This "above the fray" crap you try and dish up every
time you get caught twisting events to fit your own ideological prejudices
isn't fooling anyone.

You might want to be careful boasting about your innate Hungarianness and
your ties to the lower class. I understand the libel laws in Britain are a
good deal stricter than they are here in the United States.

Sam Stowe

Eva Durant wrote:

>I think there is a merit in discussing the economic/political
>system of the countries Hungarian policies are trying to follow.
>A critical analysis of Stalin's USSR before following that system
>would have been useful. You may say, that Hungary was forced
>to copy that system.  Is Hungary forced now to copy monetarist
>ancient free-for-all capitalism - I say, yes, and no matter who
>is the prime-minister of the moment.


Thanks Eva.  I couldn't have said it better!  I suppose the major difference
between Stalin's USSR and the US is that in the US 'soul searching' is/was
allowed.  When the 'soul searchers' get uncomfortable, as some readers of
this list have, then you know that the process is working and we may all
benifit.

I would also like to say that a lot of list writers are in favour of
democracy.  I am too.  It sure beats authoritarianism.  The problem is that
we don't really have democracy.  Oh, yea, we can elect any party we want,
but they had better operate within a capitalist framework.  Five years ago,
here in Ontario, we elected a social democratic party to govern the
province.  The party made all kinds of promises (as political parties always
do) but they had to abandon most of their programme.  Why?  Because they
were more or less forced to govern like a mainstream pro-business party.
There was no choice in the matter.  The only thing the party was allowed to
do was to pass progressive social legislation, as long as it didn't cost too
much money.

Where is the democracy in all this?   Who elected the bankers?  If democracy
means that we can only legislate social issues but not economic ones, then
we don't really have a democracy.  Hungarians are learning this all over
again.  Under Soviet domination the economic system was not open to change
or debade.  In capitalist society it's exactly the same.

Joe Szalai

On Fri, 1 Dec 1995, Eva Durant wrote:

> And if you know, that the second doctor's potion is harmful, too,
> from your experience, as you've tried it once,
> shouldn't you give up old, poisonous medicines? Or at least
> be a bit suspicious?      Hungary  was not more dead
> from it's "socialism", than a lot of other countries from
> capitalism  see: Haiti, Columbia, etc.
> 
>

Well, two people might both be dead.  Don't you think it
important to determine the cause of the death?  One might be
dead of multiple injuries in a train wreck, the other of
poisoning.  And if both by poisoning, don't we have nevertheless
to determine whether the poisons were the same?  Is food poisoning
the same as exposure to nerve gas?

The present economic difficulties in Hungary are traceable to
numerous bad moves on the part of the MDF government in its incompetent
efforts at dismantling the goulash economy and instituting privatization.

The greatest of these mistakes, it seems to me, was the failure
even to investigate, much less intervene with or prosecute, the
(previously communist) managements of the state enterprises,
managements which pocketted the liquid funds of their companies,
sold off what assets could be sold, purposely drove firms into
bankruptcy so that they could be repurchased cheap by the managers
themselves or by friendly agents, then rehired a much smaller work-
force at much lowered wages....  Stories of such deals are endless,
and are not in any way restricted to Hungary!

But that "problem" in turn was exacerbated by the inner workings of
goulash capitalism itself--the reckless trashing of the environment,
the failure to bring factories or products up to modern world
standards, the ridiculous (from an economic point-of-view) accounting
systems, the failure of the state auditing bureau to investigate
flagrant misappropriation of funds, the inane "distribution" systems,
the rank exploitation of labor under the guise of full employment,
the misuse of monies borrowed from the West to provide consumer goods
for the public instead of modernizing the infrastructure....

And I suppose the worst poison of all was the deal cut between the
abdicating communists with their opposition...that the apparatus
would not be prosecuted by the new government.  Thus, as in Poland, the
"progressive communists" took over the now "freed" economy, and have
been ruthlessly running it for their own benefit.

This message is something of a tirade, for which I suppose I should
apologize in advance.  I mean it is a provocation.

So let me ask a question of the participants in this discussion
group.  Are there *in English* any sound, well-argued treatments of the
issues I raise above?  Do any of you yourselves know anything specific and
verifiable about such matters?

Thank You,

Richard Alexander
)

Joe Szalai wrote:

: Who elected the bankers?

or the butchers, the bakers, and the candle-stick makers?


--Greg Grose

Keresem Europa Kiado cimet (Konyv kiado), regi cime: Vorosmarty ter 1,
1051 Budapest.
Akarmilyen informaciot rola nagyon koszonom!

In article >,
Michael Csiki > wrote:
>Mary McKinley wrote:
>>According to yesterday's Nepsabadsag, the less-than-brilliant remarks
>>made by Torgyan during a visit to Cleveland are making the rounds on
>>the Internet to the embarrassment of certain folks here.
>>
>>Has anyone seen anything about it on the 'net?
>>
>>Mary McKinley
>
>       I am not even going to reply to this type of post.  :)
>
>       But I can say that it never and I mean NEVER ceases to amaze
>me the "busy-body" type of posts I see come through the two Hungarian
>newsgroups.  You can almost visualize two "cyberians" meeting at the
>corner of s.c.m and c.l.h and saying,
                     ^^^^^
                     b.l.h = bit.listserv.hungary
>
>       "Ooh, you'll never guess what I heard...."
>       "What?  What was it?  Please, DO TELL, DO TELL...."
>       "Well it's like this: 'so and so' said that 'so and so'
>        heard that old 'what's his name' was in Cleveland and
>        do you know what HE said ????"
>       "No, what?  I'm ready to burst, please tell me."
>       "Well it seems that blah, blah, blah blah....."
>       "Yadda, yadda, yadda...."
>       "Ramma lamma ding dong...."
>       :)
>
>
>By the way....Mary, I religious check my newsgroups everyday for new
>posts and I didn't see anything.  Maybe those of you who subscribe to
>the lists saw something?  But nothing here or in S.C.M as a singular
                                       ^^^^
                                       bit.listserv.hungary

>post said anything that I can recall about Torgyan in Cleveland.  I
>hope this lets you sleep better at nights, Mary.  Have a nice day.
>
>Sincerely,
>Mike in Chicago.  :)
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>

        By the way, Torgyan doesn't accept money to speak publically,
speaks the truth about what he knows and has seen going on in Hungary,
and cannot be paid off to either keep his opinions to himself or to
spew forth someone else's political view or doctrine - if this makes
him a bad person, I don't know, but in my day these attributes gave
a person integrity and class.

Mike.  :)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Mary McKinley wrote:
>According to yesterday's Nepsabadsag, the less-than-brilliant remarks
>made by Torgyan during a visit to Cleveland are making the rounds on
>the Internet to the embarrassment of certain folks here.
>
>Has anyone seen anything about it on the 'net?
>
>Mary McKinley

        I am not even going to reply to this type of post.  :)

        But I can say that it never and I mean NEVER ceases to amaze
me the "busy-body" type of posts I see come through the two Hungarian
newsgroups.  You can almost visualize two "cyberians" meeting at the
corner of s.c.m and c.l.h and saying,

        "Ooh, you'll never guess what I heard...."
        "What?  What was it?  Please, DO TELL, DO TELL...."
        "Well it's like this: 'so and so' said that 'so and so'
         heard that old 'what's his name' was in Cleveland and
         do you know what HE said ????"
        "No, what?  I'm ready to burst, please tell me."
        "Well it seems that blah, blah, blah blah....."
        "Yadda, yadda, yadda...."
        "Ramma lamma ding dong...."
        :)


By the way....Mary, I religious check my newsgroups everyday for new
posts and I didn't see anything.  Maybe those of you who subscribe to
the lists saw something?  But nothing here or in S.C.M as a singular
post said anything that I can recall about Torgyan in Cleveland.  I
hope this lets you sleep better at nights, Mary.  Have a nice day.

Sincerely,
Mike in Chicago.  :)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You don't make your argument stronger by saying that I am just wrong if I
don't see things the same way as you do.  Your nationalism colours the way
you view world events.  Are you capable of admitting that you may be wrong?

You try to discredit your opponents view by giving intolerant, reductive
answers.  You write that Eva Durants' "outmoded ideology is useless".  I
guess that makes your ideology 'modern and useful'?  You certainly believe
it.  But please don't be so agressive when your foreign policy is not
universally accepted.  I would suggest that you, and all Americans, do a
national crotch check.  It's still there boys!

Some writers' notion that capitalism, democracy, freedom, and America are
synonymous, pissis me off.  For writers to intone that there is no other
valid alternative to what we have today demonstrates a lack of intellectual
stamina.

Capitalism, by definition, undermines democracy and freedom.  If capitalism
is the only system that meets our needs, then we are a condemned species.
But I don't think we are.

All the defenders of the present system should remember that it was
capitalism that gave birth to communism and not the other way around.  A
system of inequality will always give birth to a system that tries to make
the world more equal.  Call that system what you want.

A specter is haunting the world!

Cheers,

Joe Szalai

On Thu, 30 Nov 1995, Joe Szalai wrote:

> I don't disagree with your points.  We may be in agreement that empires are
> not always as pretty as they present themselves.  At any rate you wont get
> me defending Soviet excesses in the world.
>
> Joe Szalai
>


Agreed.  Let's move on to topics a little more closely related to the
Hungarian situation today.




!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!

James D. Doepp
University of Miskolc (Hungary)
Department of Economic Theory



"Mr Turnbull had predicted evil consequences,...
and was now doing the best in his power to bring
about the verification of his own prophecies."

A. Trollope

!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!

On Fri, 1 Dec 1995, Eva Durant wrote:

> I think there is a merit in discussing the economic/political
> system of the countries Hungarian policies are trying to follow.
> A critical analysis of Stalin's USSR before following that system
> would have been useful. You may say, that Hungary was forced
> to copy that system.  Is Hungary forced now to copy monetarist
> ancient free-for-all capitalism - I say, yes, and no matter who
> is the prime-minister of the moment.
> 
>

You are equivocating on your use of the term 'forced'.  If somebody comes
to me and offers to kill me if I do not quaff a potion, then I am
'forced' into doing something against my will, by an external agent.  The
potion could be good, or it could be harmful.  In the case mentioned, it
was harmful.

Consider the situation where I have quaffed the potion, and it was harmful,
I am sick and about to die.  The doctor comes to me and gives me an
anti-potion, and says, "if you don't take this medicine, you will die."
Here, again, I am 'forced' to quaff the potion,  but this 'force' has a
different meaning.  If I don't take the potion, I will die.  But the
doctor will not kill me.  I will have been killed by the bloke who gave
me the *first* potion to quaff.  In this case 'force' simply means there
are no alternatives.

jim doepp




!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!

James D. Doepp
University of Miskolc (Hungary)
Department of Economic Theory



"Mr Turnbull had predicted evil consequences,...
and was now doing the best in his power to bring
about the verification of his own prophecies."

A. Trollope

!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!