This is the very last time I will reply to one of Leo Quirk's perennial "criticisms" of my columns.
If Quirk really found problems with my analyses, he would not need to quote me so out of context as to lead readers to think I said something that I never did say. For example, in his latest letter, Quirk quotes me as saying "I differ from Dr. King ..." What I actually said was that "I differ from Dr. King only in that I do not concede that the unjust codes he refers to rise to the dignity of law at all." Kind of different, no?
And I then explain very clearly the difference between a genuine law and a pseudolaw. I did not say that pseudolaws are unreal, as Quirk claims.
As my article itself notes, there are some very bad political systems where most legislation takes the form of pseudolaws. Pseudolaws are thus all too real. Bur perhaps Quirk does not believe in reading an author's words in context.
If Mr. Quirk, or any Gazette-Times reader for that matter, would like further understanding of the difference between genuine laws and pseudolaws, my recently published book, "Beyond Capitalism: A Classless Society With (Mostly) Free Markets," is entirely devoted to this distinction and to what the world could look like if all pseudolaws were replaced by genuine laws. A link to where it can be obtained can be found on my website, www.deLespinasse.org.
Corvallis (Sept. 6)