Fascism, etc. (reply from Scott Erb to rdr)
Scott Erb
different perspectives on some of these issues...
rdr wrote:
> SE:
> The religious thing is out of date. Current radical liberals would
> be libertarians. In other countries, most free market/big business
> parties are called "liberals" (LDP - Liberal Democratic party in
> Japan, the party with ties to big business, or the FDP, Free
> Democrats in Germany, also called 'the liberals' -- these are just
> examples.
>
> rdr:
> The religious thing is a good indicator of just how far from it's
> roots Liberalism has traveled. If a communist society embraces
> capitalism, is it still communist in anything but name?
But, liberalism ultimately defeated religion, don't read more into an
1819 definition than is there. Liberalism was a part of modernism,
which rose to promote reason, science, and individuality against the
religious, aristocratic and conservative order that had dominated.
Early on religion was part of liberalism, but the emphasis on
individuality and science/rationality ultimately meant that liberal
ideals would confront religious traditions more dramatically. Pure
capitalism is the ultimate expression of liberalism taken to an extreme,
and conservatives and religious leaders were appalled that the market
would determine things like culture. Madonna instead of Beethoven?
So I see your point, but I think fundamentally liberalism was rooted in
values that confronted the religious point of view, and its not
surprising the two separated more and more as liberal ideals defeated
conservative ideals. (That also explains differences in the GOP -
social conservatives are closer to traditional conservatives, while the
'libertarian' wing is very liberal in its ideology).
> I don't agree that current radical liberals are libertarians.
> [Hillbillary Inc.] is currently described as radically liberal (while
> Gore tries to act like he is more centrist). The fact is that none of
> these people stand for Intellectual Liberty. I mean, who came up with
> PC anyway?
It was a joke originally. But almost every liberal I know hates "PC"
and finds attempts to enforce it appalling. I see such attempts at
intellectual bullying from the right. I'm "american style" liberal, but
I'm not PC. Above, though, I'm talking about ideological liberalism,
which is defined differently than how "liberal" is used in American
politics jargon.
> I just spent a bit of time reading Liberal(sic) essays and such and
> have found much subtle hypocrisy spread throughout lots of high
> sounding rhetoric. What I see is capitalist collectivism and that
> sounds like Fascism to me.
I don't have any idea how you come to those conclusions, since you don't
give examples. We have a mixed economy based on pragmatism. Markets
work, planned economies don't. Markets aren't perfect, rational
regulation, and an emphasis on social justice (using government to limit
the power of powerful non-governmental actors and making sure the have
nots aren't left behind) seems in line with even original liberal
ideals. But perhaps if you explain what you mean, I can respond better.
> > Or do we see them supporting quite the opposite?
>
> SE:
> Overall the political system has evolved, most everyone supports a
> mixed system. I'd say BOTH political parties in the US have their
> basis in the liberal ideology you describe above. After 1819 (when
> that
> definition is from), liberalism in Britain changed as people like
> John Stuart Mill saw that just leaving government out doesn't really
> allow true libertarian, as powerful non-governmental actors can use
> their power to enforce their will on the masses. Hence liberalism
> came to mean government protecting individual liberty, even if that
> means limiting the power of big business and other non-governmental
> actors.
>
> rdr:
> ISTM, Liberalism as a political movement has it's roots in the
> Protestant/Catholic difficulties of the UK. I still contend that it
> has died and what is described as Modern Liberalism more closely
> resembles Chartism.
What is called "modern liberalism" in the US is related to, but
different, to classical liberalism, as I note above.
> Char.tism: noun
> Etymology: Medieval Latin charta charter, from Latin, document
> Date: 1839
> : the principles and practices of a body of 19th century English
> political reformers advocating better social and industrial
> conditions for the working classes.
>
> Now, looking at the earlier roots of the word Liberalism...
The chartists probably had justice on their side, looking at working
conditions in Britain at the time, and are one example of what was
pushing British liberals to recognizing that true freedom and individual
liberty cannot be achieved if the powerful can oppress the workers and
those with less power. The goal remained liberty, with recognition that
social justice was needed for liberty. As for religion, Jesus' teaching
was very much in line with an emphasis on social justice, and the values
that drive even modern liberals like Lieberman and Gore clearly have
religious roots, even for those who don't believe the religion any more.
> lib.er.al: adjective
> Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin liberalis
> suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to
> Old English lEodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
> Date: 14th century
> 1 a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts b archaic : of or
> befitting a man of free birth
> The current Liberal(sic) leadership's opposition to our inalienable
> and individual right to self defense denies this.
Who denies a right to self-defense? Many liberals I know own guns or
take tae kwon doe classes, and believe in self-defense. I don't see
where you get this. Most believe some kind of gun control is needed to
protect innocents, such as child safety locks or checks to make sure
convicted felons and criminals don't get guns. One can debate whether
or not those policies would work, but the right to self-defense is not
denied.
Also: don't just read a definition. Check out some basic books on
political ideology:
Political Ideologies, by Leon Baradat.
Political Ideologies, by Thohaben and Funderburk
These are two good texts comparing different ideologies and showing
their development.
> 2 a : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED b : given or provided in a
> generous and openhanded way c : AMPLE, FULL
>
> The current Liberal(sic) leadership's "openhandedness" mocks this
> one.
This is a definition of the use of the term "liberal" in a way outside
political ideology. It is liberal like, "be liberal with the whipped
cream, I love a lot of it on my sundae." It is not part of the
definition of liberal as an ideology.
> 3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : LICENTIOUS
>
> Ya got me here ;)
> 4 : not literal or strict : LOOSE
>
> ditto
Yeah, but clearly, words have various meanings. I'm politically
"liberal" but in my personal life I'm quite conservative in a number of
my own choices. If you mix different aspects of a definition with the
political definition, it gets a bit tricky.
> 5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism,
> orthodoxy, or traditional forms
>
> Again I refer to the authoritarian nature of PC.
I see all self-proclaimed liberals as OPPOSED to having to be PC, only a
few radicals are PC, and right wing extremists have their own brand of
PC (you can't insult the US, etc.). That's a straw man. Liberals
almost universally are appalled by attempts to enforce "PC" standards.
> Furthermore, what
> are EO's if not dictated decrees? How come the current liberal(sic)
> leadership uses them so much? Doesn't their use indicate a
> *preference* for authoritarianism?
All Presidents, liberal or conservative, use executive orders. Its a
power thing, that transcends parties and political ideologies.
> 6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b
> capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or
> associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially :
> of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated
> with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater
> individual participation in government, and constitutional,
> political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these
> objectives.
>
> So, I still cannot see where the current liberal(sic) leadership
> favors these principles (except for 3 & 4 but I don't think anyone
> wants to brag about that;)
I think it was clear above in the earlier post where I compared it to
John Stuart Mill's move towards new liberalism. The belief that social
justice is necessary to allow all to have true freedom. Its an
evolution from classical liberalism, but still focused on individual
liberty and freedom, two concepts I as a so-called modern liberal
believe in fervently.
> SE:
> The goal remains the same though -- respect for individual liberty
> (and basic western values which reflect a lot of Christian thought,
> even though that part of your definition is rather obsolete.)
>
> rdr:
> But the current crop of Liberals(sic) seem to deny that individual
> rights even exist. They seem fixated on collectivist ideas. This is
> the crux of the biscuit; Liberals(sic) put the words "individual
> freedom" in their propaganda, but if you look at the record we see
> them trampling on them. I mean, unless you can show me some recent
> liberal-promoted laws which *increase* individual freedom?
How about parental leave laws, that allow workers time with their
children and families, and don't force them to give up their career just
to spend some time at home with their family? How about laws that
demand product labels that give more information, allowing consumers to
better know what they are buying, and make more informed choices?
> > How about, "a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom
> from
> > restraint and usually based on free competition, the
> self-regulating
> > market, and the gold standard? I don't see them supporting this
> > either.
>
> SE:
> The gold standard is victim to globalization, it is totally obsolete.
> But the general ideals of capitalism guide both major political
> parties in the US, with differences on how capitalism is to be
> limited in order to assure fairness.
>
> rdr:
> ISTM, If the gold standard was truly obsolete there would be no
> reason for Bank's and Gov't to hold bullion. Since they do, I wonder.
Many are selling it off. I think its old habits, or fear of some
disaster. But government sales of gold have been pretty significant
over the past decade.
> And about this insuring fairness thing. I agree it is the stated
> ideal, but in reality what I see is both parties using capitalism to
> further their own agenda. Fairness hardly enters into the picture.
Oh, you're probably right there, though I think people in both political
parties have a desire for fairness, they disagree on what it means.
Often, though, they don't take it as seriously as they should.
> > Last chance, "a political philosophy based on belief in progress,
> the
> > essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the
> > individual and standing for the protection of political and civil
> > liberties." Nope. ISTM that if they believed in the essential
> > goodness of man they would not be pushing GunControl. And this bit
> > about protection of Liberty...GMAB
>
> SE:
> Well, the essential goodness of man doesn't mean a naive belief man
> will do no harm. Still, you have a point -- the typical liberal view
> on any law is that it has to be to protect life, liberty or property,
> or equal opportunity. Some believe gun control is necessary to do
> that.
>
> rdr:
> But the belief is founded in lies. That is obvious to anyone with the
> slightest bit of common sense.
Note: I learned long ago (in a debate class in high school) that if
someone starts out by claiming that an opponent's position is obviously
wrong to anyone who knows whats happening, that probably suggests a poor
argument. Its overstated. There are legitimate differences on issues
of gun control and its impact, and powerful reasons to think it can
work, especially comparing US violent crime with violent crime in
countries with stricter gun laws. I'm ambivalent myself about the
issue, but I think both sides make arguments which have merit, its not
clearly one way or the other.
>The current liberal(sic) leaderships
> clinging to these lies indicates to me "close-mindedness" which is
> the opposite of Liberalism.
Your inability to even consider their arguments (you dismiss them out of
hand) suggests closed mindedness on your part. I don't mean that in a
mean spirit, but think about it. You are assuming you are right as
evidence that you are right. That's a fallacious argument (you can't
assume the truth of a proposition and use that assumption to prove the
proposition.)
> Furthermore, can one hope to protect an individual's "life" at the
> expense of individual "property" and individual "liberty" and still
> call themselves a liberal? Which is more important in the big
> picture; Life, or Liberty?
That's the reason these things aren't easy. Liberty cannot exist
without life, so life must come first. But life cannot have meaning
without liberty, so liberty must be a paramount value. Its like the
issue of social programs. You have to use power to force taxation and
regulate companies, limiting their freedom, but if you don't, those
companies can use their power to limit the freedom of those with few or
no resources. The goal becomes one of making balancing calls,
recognizing there is no one clear answer. To me government needs to be
held accountable through elections and rule of law; beyond that,
government has to hold powerful interests in society accountable, and
work to assure freedom is universal, not just for those with the
resources.
How this is done is a tough call. Both Republicans and Democrats in the
US are ideologically liberal, but one side leans towards less
government, the other is more skeptical of big money and wants
government to limit them. Each, I believe, truly is convinced their way
is the best way to maximize freedom, and each has some arguments on
their side. That is why these issues aren't easy.
-snip bits that would probably get repetitive-
> I'm still not convinced, it seems to a tad unfair to allow the face
> of Liberalism to have changed so much without considering that
> Fascism has also.
You can make that case, but in my studies of political ideology, fascism
doesn't compare (again, note the books I cited up there), its bases are
so different.
BTW, good quote below. Did you know that Grotius is considered the
founder of international law, and is one of the leading theoretical
figures by those who promote a stronger United Nations and World Court?
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "A man cannot govern a nation if he cannot govern a city; he cannot
> govern a city if he cannot govern a family; he cannot govern a family
> unless he can govern himself; and he cannot govern himself unless his
> passions are subject to reason." [Hugo Grotius]
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
rdr
>Thanks for the interesting reply, I have a few disagreements or
>different perspectives on some of these issues...
Likewise. If I may parahrase Mark Twain, "With-out dis-agreements,
horse races would be boring".
>rdr wrote:
>> SE:
>> The religious thing is out of date. Current radical liberals
would
>> be libertarians. In other countries, most free market/big
business
>> parties are called "liberals" [...]
>> rdr:
>> The religious thing is a good indicator of just how far from it's
>> roots Liberalism has traveled. If a communist society embraces
>> capitalism, is it still communist in anything but name?
>But, liberalism ultimately defeated religion, don't read more into
an
>1819 definition than is there. Liberalism was a part of modernism,
>which rose to promote reason, science, and individuality against the
>religious, aristocratic and conservative order that had dominated.
Excuse my pedantry but I feel that "religion" is one of the most
mis-used words in existance. IM(H)O, it has little to do with
dogmatic systems and has everything to do with simply caring about
[orhans, etc.], and keeping ones nose clean as regards the Golden
Rule [see James 1:27 KJB]. What liberalism seems to have defeated is
TheMasses blind faith in dogmatic theologies, (which I think is a
good thing).
"Liberalism" was a word that came into popular usage in 1819. Given
that it takes time for a new concept to take root, I wonder that
Liberalism as a politcal philosophy grew out of the Anti-Papism that
shook Londen in the late 1700's. ISTM Protestants realized they had
no choice but to promote "reason, science, and individuality". The
old order wasn't working anymore and intolerance coupled with
ignorance had ghastly consequences for everyone.
>Early on religion was part of liberalism, but the emphasis on
>individuality and science/rationality ultimately meant that liberal
>ideals would confront religious traditions more dramatically. Pure
>capitalism is the ultimate expression of liberalism taken to an
extreme,
>and conservatives and religious leaders were appalled that the
market
>would determine things like culture. Madonna instead of Beethoven?
Well put. The capitalism=liberalism thingy is a bit hard to wrap my
mind around though;)
>So I see your point, but I think fundamentally liberalism was rooted
in
>values that confronted the religious point of view, and its not
>surprising the two separated more and more as liberal ideals
defeated
>conservative ideals.
Theology aside, the problem I see is that Liberalism seems to have
become oppressively dogmatic which runs contrary to the very
principles of Intellectual Liberty it purports to espouse.
>(That also explains differences in the GOP -
>social conservatives are closer to traditional conservatives, while
the
>'libertarian' wing is very liberal in its ideology).
I don't see Libertarianism as a wing of any party. It stands alone on
it's own merits as a counter to authoritarianism.
>> I don't agree that current radical liberals are libertarians.
>> [Hillbillary Inc.] is currently described as radically liberal
(while
>> Gore tries to act like he is more centrist). The fact is that none
of
>> these people stand for Intellectual Liberty. I mean, who came up
with
>> PC anyway?
>
>It was a joke originally. But almost every liberal I know hates
"PC"
>and finds attempts to enforce it appalling. I see such attempts at
>intellectual bullying from the right. I'm "american style" liberal,
but
>I'm not PC. Above, though, I'm talking about ideological
liberalism,
>which is defined differently than how "liberal" is used in American
>politics jargon.
Hence my exporations into this paradigm shift.
Regardless of how the majority may feel, the Liberal(sic) Leadership
is very much into PC ( and other anti-liberal attacks on both
intellectual and phyical liberty. I find this an alarming development
as it makes the rest of us look bad ;)
>> I just spent a bit of time reading Liberal(sic) essays and such
and
>> have found much subtle hypocrisy spread throughout lots of high
>> sounding rhetoric. What I see is capitalist collectivism and that
>> sounds like Fascism to me.
>I don't have any idea how you come to those conclusions, since you
don't
>give examples.
Yes, I thought of that, I have a bit on my plate at the moment and
will have to get back to you.
[...]
>> SE:
>> Overall the political system has evolved, most everyone supports a
>> mixed system. I'd say BOTH political parties in the US have their
>> basis in the liberal ideology you describe above. After 1819
(when
>> that definition is from), liberalism in Britain changed...
It was quite a mistake on my part not including my source (Websters
On-Line)
www.yourdictionary.com
Theology aside, The goals of Liberty are slowly being replaced with
promises of Security. I find that an alarming development.
>> lib.er.al: adjective
>> Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin
liberalis
>> suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to
>> Old English lEodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
>> Date: 14th century
>> 1 a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts b archaic : of
or
>> befitting a man of free birth
>
>> The current Liberal(sic) leadership's opposition to our
inalienable
>> and individual right to self defense denies this.
>
>Who denies a right to self-defense? Many liberals I know own guns
or
>take tae kwon doe classes, and believe in self-defense. I don't see
>where you get this. Most believe some kind of gun control is needed
to
>protect innocents, such as child safety locks or checks to make sure
>convicted felons and criminals don't get guns. One can debate
whether
>or not those policies would work, but the right to self-defense is
not
>denied.
The present laws would have a huge effect on crime if they were
enforced. IM(H)O, the arguments that appeal to parental instincts are
nefarios. The problems they purport to address are minimal. Freedom
has always demanded the blood of innocents.
The Brits certainly deny an effective means of self-defense to their
subjects. Look what it has gotten them. I'm working with an Aussie
this week who was worrying about leaving a laptop in a common area. I
remarked that crime was rare in this area and few people lock up. He
said, "yeah mate, Oz used to be like that but lately..." I then said
that I had heard it had something to do with the Gun Confiscation. He
said, "Exactly". ExcessiveGunControl denies the right to effectively
defend Life, Liberty, Property. History proves that.
>Also: don't just read a definition. Check out some basic books on
>political ideology:
>Political Ideologies, by Leon Baradat.
>Political Ideologies, by Thohaben and Funderburk
Thanks, I shall put them on the list.
> > 2 a : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED b : given or provided in
a
>> generous and openhanded way c : AMPLE, FULL
>> The current Liberal(sic) leadership's "openhandedness" mocks this
>> one.
>This is a definition of the use of the term "liberal" in a way
outside
>political ideology. It is liberal like, "be liberal with the
whipped
>cream, I love a lot of it on my sundae." It is not part of the
>definition of liberal as an ideology.
I think it is more involved than you suggest
[...]
>Yeah, but clearly, words have various meanings. I'm politically
>"liberal" but in my personal life I'm quite conservative in a number
of
>my own choices. If you mix different aspects of a definition with
the
>political definition, it gets a bit tricky.
It get's even trickier to mix ideologies. FWIW I was just the
opposite but become increasing libertarian with each passing law.
>> 5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism,
>> orthodoxy, or traditional forms
>> Again I refer to the authoritarian nature of PC.
>I see all self-proclaimed liberals as OPPOSED to having to be PC,
only a
>few radicals are PC, and right wing extremists have their own brand
of
>PC (you can't insult the US, etc.). That's a straw man. Liberals
>almost universally are appalled by attempts to enforce "PC"
standards.
Hillbillary Inc. is opposed to PC? It is a big problem in this
country, why haven't they addressed it?
>> Furthermore, what
>> are EO's if not dictated decrees? How come the current
liberal(sic)
>> leadership uses them so much? Doesn't their use indicate a
>> *preference* for authoritarianism?
>
>All Presidents, liberal or conservative, use executive orders. Its
a
>power thing, that transcends parties and political ideologies.
Yes, it is tyranny, not liberalism
[...]
>I think it was clear above in the earlier post where I compared it
to
>John Stuart Mill's move towards new liberalism. The belief that
social
>justice is necessary to allow all to have true freedom. Its an
>evolution from classical liberalism, but still focused on individual
>liberty and freedom, two concepts I as a so-called modern liberal
>believe in fervently.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt but not the politicos. If you
will be so kind as to provide a listing of some top liberal
politicians in DC, I will research a reply to this and attempt to tie
it in with my point about collectivism.
>> SE:
>> The goal remains the same though -- respect for individual liberty
>> (and basic western values which reflect a lot of Christian
thought,
>> even though that part of your definition is rather obsolete.)
>> rdr:
>> But the current crop of Liberals(sic) seem to deny that individual
>> rights even exist. They seem fixated on collectivist ideas. This
is
>> the crux of the biscuit; Liberals(sic) put the words "individual
>> freedom" in their propaganda, but if you look at the record we see
>> them trampling on them. I mean, unless you can show me some recent
>> liberal-promoted laws which *increase* individual freedom?
>How about parental leave laws, that allow workers time with their
>children and families, and don't force them to give up their career
just
>to spend some time at home with their family?
Remember that one of the goals of Liberalism is a "self-regulating"
market. These kind of laws are contradictory to that principle. I
will admit the phenomenon you allude to is fairly new upon the scene
and I'm open to ideas, but I do not think more laws is a good answer
nor do I think they represent liberalism. Evolved Chartism perhaps;)
Bottom line is that trading one individual's liberty for another's is
not an increase.
>How about laws that
>demand product labels that give more information, allowing consumers
to
>better know what they are buying, and make more informed choices?
While you touch on a subject (inter-... commerce) which probably does
actually fall under the jurisdiction of Congress. I still don't see
where ones freedom to choose is increased by knowledge of the
available choices. Medical Marijuana is a case in point
[...]
>> SE:
>> The gold standard is victim to globalization, it is totally
obsolete.
>> But the general ideals of capitalism guide both major political
>> parties in the US, with differences on how capitalism is to be
>> limited in order to assure fairness.
>> rdr:
>> ISTM, If the gold standard was truly obsolete there would be no
>> reason for Bank's and Gov't to hold bullion. Since they do, I
wonder.
>Many are selling it off. I think its old habits, or fear of some
>disaster. But government sales of gold have been pretty significant
>over the past decade.
"fear of some disaster"? Doesn't that indicate a faith in an
underlying value? And there is still the question of the buyers...
>> And about this insuring fairness thing. I agree it is the stated
>> ideal, but in reality what I see is both parties using capitalism
to
>> further their own agenda. Fairness hardly enters into the picture.
>Oh, you're probably right there, though I think people in both
political
>parties have a desire for fairness, they disagree on what it means.
>Often, though, they don't take it as seriously as they should.
The rank and file of most political movements desire fairness. All
movements also have a fringes where fairness is ignored. It's when
hypocritical liars gain leadership that real problems arise. Like we
see, today.
Noted:) Overstated or not though, it is the truth. The lies are
obvious to anyone who honestly looks. 13 "kids(sic) ", a million(sic)
"moms(sic)". The list goes on and on and I think such lies suggest a
much poorer argument than my overstatements ever will.
>There are legitimate differences on issues
>of gun control and its impact, and powerful reasons to think it can
>work,
The only way I see GunControl working is in a police state, or a
utopian pipe-dream. History has proven that an armed citizenry is
then surest defense against threats to life, liberty, and property.
It is one of the founding principles of the American Experiment.
Modern experiance upholds this fact. This might not be a pleasent
thought but we can't just ignore it.
I have turned many of these angles over in my mind but If you think
you know some "powerful reasons to think it can work". I am curious.
>especially comparing US violent crime with violent crime in
>countries with stricter gun laws.
Once one takes ratios into account the numbers arent all that
startling. The UK is just starting to feel the consequences of their
experiment in GunControl. Violent crime is skyrocketing and that is
no understatement. An honest look at the numbers and time-lines can
be quite enlightening.
>I'm ambivalent myself about the
>issue, but I think both sides make arguments which have merit, its
not
>clearly one way or the other.
I think laws against knowingly providing guns to violent crims are
enough. More to the point I think GunControl denies peaceful citizens
of choices as to the best means to effectively defend life, liberty
and property. I feel this runs contray to the ideal of both
itellectual and individual liberty. Contrary to Liberal ideals. A
true liberal believes in letting people make such personal decisions
themselves.
>>The current liberal(sic) leaderships
>> clinging to these lies indicates to me "close-mindedness" which is
>> the opposite of Liberalism.
>Your inability to even consider their arguments (you dismiss them
out of
>hand) suggests closed mindedness on your part. I don't mean that in
a
>mean spirit, but think about it. You are assuming you are right as
>evidence that you are right. That's a fallacious argument (you
can't
>assume the truth of a proposition and use that assumption to prove
the
>proposition.)
I appreciate what you are saying but I have seen these arguments go
round and round for a while now and GunControl still make no sense.
Like I said, If you know a new one, I'm curious.
>> Furthermore, can one hope to protect an individual's "life" at the
>> expense of individual "property" and individual "liberty" and
still
>> call themselves a liberal? Which is more important in the big
>> picture; Life, or Liberty?
>That's the reason these things aren't easy. Liberty cannot exist
>without life, so life must come first. But life cannot have meaning
>without liberty, so liberty must be a paramount value. Its like the
>issue of social programs. You have to use power to force taxation
and
>regulate companies, limiting their freedom, but if you don't, those
>companies can use their power to limit the freedom of those with few
or
>no resources. The goal becomes one of making balancing calls,
>recognizing there is no one clear answer. To me government needs to
be
>held accountable through elections and rule of law; beyond that,
>government has to hold powerful interests in society accountable,
and
>work to assure freedom is universal, not just for those with the
>resources.
I would agree if the gov't actually was just in the busness of
regulating companies, collecting tariffs and what-not. Instead they
are going stepping into the bounds of individual rights and that
again seems contrary to the liberal ideal.
>-snip bits that would probably get repetitive-
>
>> I'm still not convinced, it seems to a tad unfair to allow the
face
>> of Liberalism to have changed so much without considering that
>> Fascism has also.
>You can make that case, but in my studies of political ideology,
fascism
>doesn't compare (again, note the books I cited up there), its bases
are
>so different.
I'll look further into it.
>BTW, good quote below. Did you know that Grotius is considered the
>founder of international law, and is one of the leading theoretical
>figures by those who promote a stronger United Nations and World
Court?
No, but hey, no-one's perfect;)
rdr
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> "A man cannot govern a nation if he cannot govern a city; he
cannot
>> govern a city if he cannot govern a family; he cannot govern a
family
>> unless he can govern himself; and he cannot govern himself unless
his
>> passions are subject to reason." [Hugo Grotius]
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but
they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain
a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse
them, which would include their own government.
George Washington
--
Temp. sigAd follows :(trying out new News Feeds)
Check Headers of suspicious posts.
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
With Servers In California, Texas And Virginia - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
Scott Erb
rdr wrote:
>
> Scott Erb wrote...
> >Thanks for the interesting reply, I have a few disagreements or
> >different perspectives on some of these issues...
>
> Likewise. If I may parahrase Mark Twain, "With-out dis-agreements,
> horse races would be boring".
At the very least, no one would take much interest in the newsgroups :)
To save space, I'll snip out most of the older bits, though if lurkers
find these arguments interesting, I would urge them to read back.
> >rdr wrote:
> >But, liberalism ultimately defeated religion, don't read more into
> an
> >1819 definition than is there. Liberalism was a part of modernism,
> >which rose to promote reason, science, and individuality against the
> >religious, aristocratic and conservative order that had dominated.
>
> Excuse my pedantry but I feel that "religion" is one of the most
> mis-used words in existance. IM(H)O, it has little to do with
> dogmatic systems and has everything to do with simply caring about
> [orhans, etc.], and keeping ones nose clean as regards the Golden
> Rule [see James 1:27 KJB]. What liberalism seems to have defeated is
> TheMasses blind faith in dogmatic theologies, (which I think is a
> good thing).
OK, that makes sense, I was thinking in terms of religion as a world
view that rejects science and reason in favor of mythology or dogma.
Liberalism basically took away the "common sense" view of the world
people had -- that life was simply to prepare for the afterlife, and
thus one should do ones' duty and not strive to progress. So we seem to
start out with some agreement.
> "Liberalism" was a word that came into popular usage in 1819. Given
> that it takes time for a new concept to take root, I wonder that
> Liberalism as a politcal philosophy grew out of the Anti-Papism that
> shook Londen in the late 1700's. ISTM Protestants realized they had
> no choice but to promote "reason, science, and individuality". The
> old order wasn't working anymore and intolerance coupled with
> ignorance had ghastly consequences for everyone.
Liberalism is usually associated with the thinking of philosophers like
John Locke and Adam Smith, those beliefs underlie classical liberal
ideology. The idea: there is natural law (originally said to come from
God, later liberals would posit human nature or something more abstract
as its source), and that guarantees all humans natural rights of life,
liberty and property. Even Locke, though recognized that these aren't
all absolute, that having too much property might be wrong. He didn't
really understand Smith's capitalism or later socialist ideas on that
issue, he had a vague, 'we need property to survive but too much in too
few hands is bad' sense.
> >Early on religion was part of liberalism, but the emphasis on
> >individuality and science/rationality ultimately meant that liberal
> >ideals would confront religious traditions more dramatically. Pure
> >capitalism is the ultimate expression of liberalism taken to an
> extreme,
> >and conservatives and religious leaders were appalled that the
> market
> >would determine things like culture. Madonna instead of Beethoven?
>
> Well put. The capitalism=liberalism thingy is a bit hard to wrap my
> mind around though;)
So far, agreement. Perhaps the problem is I jumped into this thread
thinking of liberalism philosophically, and NOT in terms of its modern
political slang usage in the US. (Also my area of speciality is
European politics, where liberal parties are the most pro-business ones
for the reasons stated above -- and conservative parties started the
first modern social welfare system). I'll try to be clear on my usage.
> >So I see your point, but I think fundamentally liberalism was rooted
> in
> >values that confronted the religious point of view, and its not
> >surprising the two separated more and more as liberal ideals
> defeated
> >conservative ideals.
>
> Theology aside, the problem I see is that Liberalism seems to have
> become oppressively dogmatic which runs contrary to the very
> principles of Intellectual Liberty it purports to espouse.
I'm not sure what you mean. If anything, true "dogmatic liberalism"
would be libertarianism, the idea that life, liberty and property are
absolute rights which governments should not infringe. "new liberals"
from Mill on argued that if government doesn't limit some people's
"rights" to these things, they will amass power and property enough to
deny other people those "rights." IOW, non-governmental actors can take
away life, liberty and property just as well as governmental actors, and
therefore government needs to be involved to assure at least equal
opportunity.
Modern "progressive" liberals tend to take that farther, arguing that to
have equal opportunity and true liberty a certain set of conditions need
to exist (equal access to health care, education, minimal standards of
living, etc.). They are different from socialists who argue more that
outcomes are equal (though current social democrats tend towards
liberalism in accepting markets, albeit with stronger social welfare
states).
> >(That also explains differences in the GOP -
> >social conservatives are closer to traditional conservatives, while
> the
> >'libertarian' wing is very liberal in its ideology).
>
> I don't see Libertarianism as a wing of any party. It stands alone on
> it's own merits as a counter to authoritarianism.
I think libertarianism is anti-conservative, though some in the GOP tend
to cling to it for its embrace of non-intervention in the market.
However, most all democratic ideologies are anti-authoritarian.
Authoritarianism is an ideology based on centralized political power
absent open interest intermediation and political competition.
> Regardless of how the majority may feel, the Liberal(sic) Leadership
> is very much into PC ( and other anti-liberal attacks on both
> intellectual and phyical liberty. I find this an alarming development
> as it makes the rest of us look bad ;)
I guess I just don't see that happening. I've never felt under
pressure, and I tend to be a PC person, I say what I think. In fact,
there is as much 'right wing' PC stuff -- no talkig bad about the flag
or country, etc. But seriously, most liberals I know are extremely
anti-censorship and oppose efforts to force people to speak a certain
way.
> >I don't have any idea how you come to those conclusions, since you
> don't
> >give examples.
>
> Yes, I thought of that, I have a bit on my plate at the moment and
> will have to get back to you.
I think there are examples out there, but I see them usually from a few
extremists, or people who are a bit mixed up (from both the left and
right).
-snip mostly old bits-
> Theology aside, The goals of Liberty are slowly being replaced with
> promises of Security. I find that an alarming development.
I don't think that is really happening. I think what is happening is
that most people argue that a modicum of security is necessary if people
are truly going to be free to explore their potential. Also, relating
back to the non-denominational religious aspect of the term, I think
people also say that in a society so wealthy, if people are below
certain standards and have no security in terms of education, health
care, basic retirement, and a major crisis, then they really lack true
opportunity and basic human rights. That is different than the kind of
security communist systems promised, which was cradle to grave
everything from the state. No one wants that here.
And the point is to build on that secure base to achieve more both
personally and for ones' society. Think of it this way: we've reached a
stage where people shouldn't have to struggle just to survive or get
food or medicine. Those things can be basic. Yet our human desire to
create and initiate means only that a society which has those things as
standard will be more innovative and expansion and successful than one
which does not. Perhaps that explains the amazing success of post-WWII
20th century democratic systems, up to and including the current time
period.
> The present laws would have a huge effect on crime if they were
> enforced. IM(H)O, the arguments that appeal to parental instincts are
> nefarios. The problems they purport to address are minimal. Freedom
> has always demanded the blood of innocents.
Why does freedom demand the blood of innocents? I would say that life
entails risk, and laws eliminating risk would eliminate freedom, so in
the sense that freedom entails a risk, I agree. I wouldn't say it
demands the blood of innocents though, that seems a bit overstated.
> The Brits certainly deny an effective means of self-defense to their
> subjects.
Heck, they don't even have a written constitution, the parliament can do
whatever it wants. That may be limited now, though, by the European
Court of Justice. Still, I can't say that they deny an effective means
of self-defense. Guns and those kind of weapons are not really the best
means of self-defense in most cases, and it certainly is rational to
think that if the number of those weapons are limited, most people can
defend themselves with legal and usually (but not always) less deadly
weapons. Again, I'm not emotionally tied to any side of the gun debate,
I tend to think it is more culture and society than it is availability
of weapons, and I wouldn't want the US to adopt European standards for
various reasons.
>Look what it has gotten them. I'm working with an Aussie
> this week who was worrying about leaving a laptop in a common area. I
> remarked that crime was rare in this area and few people lock up. He
> said, "yeah mate, Oz used to be like that but lately..." I then said
> that I had heard it had something to do with the Gun Confiscation. He
> said, "Exactly". ExcessiveGunControl denies the right to effectively
> defend Life, Liberty, Property. History proves that.
Anyone who would shoot someone for trying to take their laptop has no
sense of proportionality! Petty crime like that -- should I have shot
the little gypsy girl in Rome who reached her hand in my pocket to take
my wallet (I knew what she was up to so I held it with my other hand --
she had shoved a paper in my belly pretending to sell it, presumably to
distract me from her pick pocket attempt)? Most places you have to
worry that people might swipe property. Very few are that low, but
there are always some. But having guns around probably wouldn't change
that. Most thefts occur when no one is around, and again, shooting
people for trying to take property is putting "stuff" above "life." I
find that morally wrong.
In Europe you are unlikely to be robbed at gun point or threatened with
deadly force. That is also unlikely in almost all of America. I think
people tend to over estimate the level of crime. I do NOT think more
guns anywhere would make anyone safer, but I also tend to doubt that gun
control would change things that much either.
More later.
cheers, scott
Scott Erb
rdr wrote:
(again, old bits snipped)
> >This is a definition of the use of the term "liberal" in a way
> outside
> >political ideology. It is liberal like, "be liberal with the
> whipped
> >cream, I love a lot of it on my sundae." It is not part of the
> >definition of liberal as an ideology.
>
> I think it is more involved than you suggest
OK, I see your point.
> [...]
>
> >Yeah, but clearly, words have various meanings. I'm politically
> >"liberal" but in my personal life I'm quite conservative in a number
> of
> >my own choices. If you mix different aspects of a definition with
> the
> >political definition, it gets a bit tricky.
>
> It get's even trickier to mix ideologies. FWIW I was just the
> opposite but become increasing libertarian with each passing law.
I consider myself "left libertarian." I like a lot of libertarian
ideals, but I find most libertarians are blind to the ability of big
business and big money to be just as powerful as big government, and
potentially more so if government didn't limit them. This means there
is no easy ideological answer, and requires pragmatism at making the
balance.
My own view: decentralization of power and less bureaucracy is necessary
to prevent governmental abuse of power; I also am very skeptical of the
imperial or interventionist foreign policies of western democracies.
However, I think you need regulations and laws to both keep powerful
non-governmental actors under control, and taxes to assure not equal
outcomes, but that those who "win" don't have the ability to create
structural advantages which deny "losers" and their progeny equal
opportunity to use their talent to succeed. To me this would focus on a
few basics being guaranteed to all: health care, education, shelter,
basic foods, and protections against discrimination and other forms of
denying equal opportunity.
> Hillbillary Inc. is opposed to PC? It is a big problem in this
> country, why haven't they addressed it?
I don't think its a huge problem, I think its an exaggerated straw man.
I don't see PC cops around, or anything like that. I don't see that
there is really a problem.
> >All Presidents, liberal or conservative, use executive orders. Its
> a
> >power thing, that transcends parties and political ideologies.
>
> Yes, it is tyranny, not liberalism
Ah, but it happens outside governments too. Mafias, big corporations,
etc. are similar. Here's the deal: governments are just one of many
concentrations of power. Big business is another. Big banking is
another. And the latter two hold a lot of power over big government.
Reducing government regulations would be good, BUT if it is done in a
way that only empowers big business and big money, then its a shift of
the tyranny from governmental to non-governmental actors, and it
accomplishes little good. Thus the key to me is to limit abuse of power
(or hold use of power accountable) by ALL organizations that concentrate
power: government, business, banking, etc.
> >I think it was clear above in the earlier post where I compared it
> to
> >John Stuart Mill's move towards new liberalism. The belief that
> social
> >justice is necessary to allow all to have true freedom. Its an
> >evolution from classical liberalism, but still focused on individual
> >liberty and freedom, two concepts I as a so-called modern liberal
> >believe in fervently.
>
> I'll give you the benefit of the doubt but not the politicos. If you
> will be so kind as to provide a listing of some top liberal
> politicians in DC, I will research a reply to this and attempt to tie
> it in with my point about collectivism.
Look at the Democratic platform, what Al Gore is saying, Joe Lieberman,
Bill Clinton, Tom Daschle... Look, I have some HUGE disagreements with
the democrats on many issues, so I'm not going to defend everything they
do. I don't vote straight ticket, nor do I see major differences
between the two parties on ideology (something I suspect you agree with
me on, given your rejection of politics as usual.)
> >How about parental leave laws, that allow workers time with their
> >children and families, and don't force them to give up their career
> just
> >to spend some time at home with their family?
>
> Remember that one of the goals of Liberalism is a "self-regulating"
> market.
But Mill and company started moving away from treating that as dogma, as
it recognized that markets are not self-regulating in the real world.
A classic example is sex trade. Women are kidnapped, lured into going
to a foreign country, and sold as slaves, used as prostitutes, beaten,
raped, and often killed. This generates $12 billion of revenue world
wide a year. These women are a perishable commodity, but one which can
yield a high profit margin. To consumers, they are tools of sexual
gratification. The market will not regulate this, the market does not
know human rights or ethics, it knows only money. You need rule of law
and regulation to stop this, you need government.
Now, most examples aren't that dramatic, but clearly the improvement of
conditions for workers and normal citizens has not always been because
of markets, but because workers join to put political pressure on those
in the market. The alternative, of course, would have been revolution.
But more: self-regulation theoretically requires all parts being equal
in potential power and knowledge. That means they make decisions and
can act on the decisions. But in reality some have a lot of power, and
more knowledge, and thus are advantaged. Markets will not change this,
in fact, those with power can skew markets in their favor. Thus,
regulation to create true equal opportunity is necessary to allow
markets to function as good as possible (a goal we haven't achieved),
and without violation of the political values of liberalism, true
individual liberty.
>These kind of laws are contradictory to that principle. I
> will admit the phenomenon you allude to is fairly new upon the scene
> and I'm open to ideas, but I do not think more laws is a good answer
> nor do I think they represent liberalism. Evolved Chartism perhaps;)
I understand your concern, but think of it this way: if laws give
consumers better information, that makes a more informed marketplace and
a better functioning market. Parental leave is more a social concern
than anything else, but I think it is a quality of life issue that is
legitimate. Let's avoid the mistake Karl Marx made in thinking
everything is economics!
More later,
cheers, scott
Scott Erb
rdr wrote:
To continue, again, cutting old bits...
> Bottom line is that trading one individual's liberty for another's is
> not an increase.
Thought experiment. I admit in advance that this is an extreme, and
accept the criticism. But it illustrates a point: A nazi owns a well
in a small town. A catastrophe hits and for awhile they have no access
to outside water, and the nazi's well is all that will keep them alive
for a week until new water comes. The Nazi says "It is my property, I
will allow all to come and drink from the well, but they can take no
water with them. Also, no Jews."
There are ten Jews in this town. They will die without water. The
public decides: should we violate the liberty of this property owner to
save these ten lives? Is that moral? Would it be immoral NOT to? By
limiting the liberty of the well owner to use his property as he sees
fit, ten lives might be saved, and, of course, their liberty protected
(if you're dead, you have no liberty).
Obviously, this is an extreme example, and can be used as a life vs.
liberty issue, not just a trading of liberties. But the point it
illustrates is that sometimes limiting liberty can actually increase
total liberty IF you are limiting the ability of powerful actors to use
that power to limit the liberty of others. And more. If acts that in a
small way limit the total liberty of some empower those who are
relatively unable to exercise their liberty (lack of equal opportunity
for various reason), you have a more free society overall.
Remember: not just government can limit liberty. Any powerful actor or
powerful organization of humans can do that. Without government,
powerful corporations or banks could form defacto governments and use
their power to limit liberty or insure their own status. Government
should be LIMITED in scope, but should be powerful enough to regulate
potentially powerful non-governmental actors.
In terms limiting government, I think we need to do more. Governments
must be held accountable for their use of power. I would decentralize,
and in fact force all government documents and most meetings to be open
to the public. Governments should have no secrets, unless the meetings
potentially could harm individuals.
> >How about laws that
> >demand product labels that give more information, allowing consumers
> to
> >better know what they are buying, and make more informed choices?
>
> While you touch on a subject (inter-... commerce) which probably does
> actually fall under the jurisdiction of Congress. I still don't see
> where ones freedom to choose is increased by knowledge of the
> available choices. Medical Marijuana is a case in point
Knowledge means making informed decisions. In economics markets only
work "perfectly" if you assume perfect knowledge. Markets work better
if knowledge is closer to perfect, and markets are more fair if
knowledge is evenly distributed. Thus if consumers have more knowledge
of what their products contain, their calories, fat, protein, etc., then
they can make more informed choices and the market will function better.
It is also protection against misleading statements and fraud.
> >Many are selling it off. I think its old habits, or fear of some
> >disaster. But government sales of gold have been pretty significant
> >over the past decade.
>
> "fear of some disaster"? Doesn't that indicate a faith in an
> underlying value? And there is still the question of the buyers...
I read the other day though that most economists think that money in the
future will be "digital" and that stocks of a metal probably are
obsolete. I think the October 1998 issue of *Discover* had a huge
section on money and its development through civilization. They
reported then how many countries were selling down their gold supplies,
and that has increased over the past couple years. The European Central
Bank will keep about 15% of its reserves in gold, the rest in foreign
currencies. But while GOLD is still valuable, the GOLD STANDARD is what
is considered obsolete. Money is now a market commodity, not something
fixed to the value of a metal.
> The rank and file of most political movements desire fairness. All
> movements also have a fringes where fairness is ignored. It's when
> hypocritical liars gain leadership that real problems arise. Like we
> see, today.
I think you've got a point, but I'd note that hypocritical liars can
gain leadership of businesses, banks, governments, and any organization
of power. The key is hold the use of power accountable. I don't
believe markets alone can do it, so government is necessary. But
government must also be held accountable, and THAT is something we're
not doing a good job on these days!
> Noted:) Overstated or not though, it is the truth. The lies are
> obvious to anyone who honestly looks. 13 "kids(sic) ", a million(sic)
> "moms(sic)". The list goes on and on and I think such lies suggest a
> much poorer argument than my overstatements ever will.
I know people who are strongly supportive of gun control, and I can
assure you they believe their arguments. They are convinced, just as
those on the other side are convinced that gun control is a bad idea. I
don't think they're lying -- though many of the commercials for either
side may lie -- lying is the business of the advertising agency after
all! ;) There are good arguments on each side.
My view: its the economy. Crime is down now because the economy is
good. Prosperity and a real chance for the poor will do more to
decrease crime than all the jails and laws you can build. I suspect
from your post so far this is another thing you'll agree with me on,
though I also suspect we may have different ideas on how to reach that
prosperity.
> >There are legitimate differences on issues
> >of gun control and its impact, and powerful reasons to think it can
> >work,
>
> The only way I see GunControl working is in a police state, or a
> utopian pipe-dream. History has proven that an armed citizenry is
> then surest defense against threats to life, liberty, and property.
Really? I'm not sure, again, Europe and Japan are very, very safe
compared to the US, especially in terms of violent crime, and they have
strict gun laws. I am not arguing we should adopt their laws (I don't
think we should), but I am skeptical of your claim.
History has also shown that an armed citizenry makes descent into chaos
and murder more likely. The Yugoslav conflict was started by armed
Serbs in the Krajina who stood up against the Croat police. Then in
1997 when Albania drifted in to short term chaos, the armories were
looted, and hundreds of thousands of small arms were given to a
terrorist organization known as the UCK (or KLA), who then started an
uprising which became the Kosovo war. Sure, they were fighting against
oppression, but their style of fighting made it a violent struggle which
has created more harm than a peaceful path to change.
I don't think we'll go that route even if gun laws were eliminated. A
lot of it is culture and economic prosperity. That is why, when push
comes to shove, I tend to ignore the gun debates. If ever there was an
attempt to confiscate guns via some kind of police state, I'd be against
it, but gee, most LIBERALS I know owe guns legally (usually for hunting,
a few for self-protection), and they wouldn't want to be forced to give
them up.
> It is one of the founding principles of the American Experiment.
> Modern experiance upholds this fact. This might not be a pleasent
> thought but we can't just ignore it.
> I have turned many of these angles over in my mind but If you think
> you know some "powerful reasons to think it can work". I am curious.
The comparison to Europe and Japan are the most convincing. Many
advocates of strong gun control have lived or spent time over there and
know that those countries are safer. But I argue with them, noting that
the problem here isn't that we are less safe (in most of the US we are
as safe as Europeans...here in Farmington Maine where I'm posting from,
I know peole who haven't locked their house door for twenty years).
Most of us live in very safe circumstances. The problem is pockets of
crime in inner cities, and that really is deeper than something gun laws
can handle. So ultimately I'm not convinced by the gun control
arguments, even if I give them more respect than you do.
I do think the gun industry reaction to voluntary changes by Smith and
Wesson was disgusting.
> >especially comparing US violent crime with violent crime in
> >countries with stricter gun laws.
>
> Once one takes ratios into account the numbers arent all that
> startling. The UK is just starting to feel the consequences of their
> experiment in GunControl. Violent crime is skyrocketing and that is
> no understatement.
They've had gun control for over 50 years. If violent crime is just
starting to skyrocket (I can't say I know those figures), then obviously
the causal factor has to be something more recent. You can't blame gun
control for that.
>An honest look at the numbers and time-lines can
> be quite enlightening.
Perhaps -- though again, gun control has been intense there for
sometime. Social science has a problem with causal claims, its hard to
show causality. For instance, if violent crime starts rising for some
other cause, and the reaction is to increase gun control, and that
doesn't stop the rise, it might be tempting to blame gun control for the
continuing rise, when really it was simply an ineffectual way to curtail
the increase. But still, they've had gun control in Europe for a LONG
time.
> >I'm ambivalent myself about the
> >issue, but I think both sides make arguments which have merit, its
> not
> >clearly one way or the other.
>
> I think laws against knowingly providing guns to violent crims are
> enough. More to the point I think GunControl denies peaceful citizens
> of choices as to the best means to effectively defend life, liberty
> and property. I feel this runs contray to the ideal of both
> itellectual and individual liberty. Contrary to Liberal ideals. A
I disagree that guns are the best way to defend these things, and I have
no desire to own one. But when push comes to shove, I'd say you have
the right to believe it is effective, and I wouldn't want government to
deny you the right to own a gun. I don't think most people who want
control want anything more than child locks or background checks. Maybe
some limits on types of ammo.
> true liberal believes in letting people make such personal decisions
> themselves.
Again, most liberals I know wouldn't want to eliminate the right for
individuals to own guns for private protection.
-snip-
> >no resources. The goal becomes one of making balancing calls,
> >recognizing there is no one clear answer. To me government needs to
> be
> >held accountable through elections and rule of law; beyond that,
> >government has to hold powerful interests in society accountable,
> and
> >work to assure freedom is universal, not just for those with the
> >resources.
>
> I would agree if the gov't actually was just in the busness of
> regulating companies, collecting tariffs and what-not. Instead they
> are going stepping into the bounds of individual rights and that
> again seems contrary to the liberal ideal.
I think taxation, education, health care, and some social welfare
programs are necessary to promote equal opportunity to succeed and end
structural discrimination (or limit it). But indivdual liberties are
essential. But you know, its conservatives who attack the ACLU, and
they are on the forefront of defending individual liberties. A
government cannot be held accountable if people aren't free.
Governments must be held accountable by the people, and so far that is
something we need to work on.
Perhaps if we decentralized more of the functions of government and
looked into increasing participation and accountability, some of these
problems wouldn't seem so severe.
George Washington from you sig file can have the last word this morning:
rdr
>rdr wrote:
>> Scott Erb wrote...
>> >Thanks for the interesting reply, I have a few disagreements or
>> >different perspectives on some of these issues...
>> Likewise. If I may parahrase Mark Twain, "With-out dis-agreements,
>> horse races would be boring".
>At the very least, no one would take much interest in the newsgroups
:)
>To save space, I'll snip out most of the older bits, though if
lurkers
>find these arguments interesting, I would urge them to read back.
And thanks for splitting it up also. It makes it much easier for me.
If you don't mind I will leave the less obvious snippage to you. Feel
free to cut at will. Between work and [my friends telling me to get
off the net], I don't have huge amounts of time to spend on this most
enlightening activity. I also like absorb what I read before
replying so I hope no-one is in a hurry;)
>> >SE: But, liberalism ultimately defeated religion, don't read more
into an
>> >1819 definition than is there. Liberalism was a part of
modernism,
>> >which rose to promote reason, science, and individuality against
the
>> >religious, aristocratic and conservative order that had
dominated.
>> Excuse my pedantry but I feel that "religion" is one of the most
>> mis-used words in existance. IM(H)O, it has little to do with
>> dogmatic systems and has everything to do with simply caring about
>> [orhans, etc.], and keeping ones nose clean as regards the Golden
>> Rule [see James 1:27 KJB]. What liberalism seems to have defeated
is
>> TheMasses blind faith in dogmatic theologies, (which I think is a
>> good thing).
>OK, that makes sense, I was thinking in terms of religion as a world
>view that rejects science and reason in favor of mythology or dogma.
>Liberalism basically took away the "common sense" view of the world
>people had -- that life was simply to prepare for the afterlife, and
>thus one should do ones' duty and not strive to progress. So we
seem to
>start out with some agreement.
Certainly. I also understand that your definition is more in line
with current "common sense" but will note that most pure religion
intones for man to "go forth and prosper".
>> "Liberalism" was a word that came into popular usage in 1819.
Given
>> that it takes time for a new concept to take root, I wonder that
>> Liberalism as a politcal philosophy grew out of the Anti-Papism
that
>> shook Londen in the late 1700's. ISTM Protestants realized they
had
>> no choice but to promote "reason, science, and individuality". The
>> old order wasn't working anymore and intolerance coupled with
>> ignorance had ghastly consequences for everyone.
>Liberalism is usually associated with the thinking of philosophers
like
>John Locke and Adam Smith, those beliefs underlie classical liberal
>ideology. The idea: there is natural law (originally said to come
from
>God, later liberals would posit human nature or something more
abstract
>as its source),
While I fear to venture into the subject, I feel we should look at
this. I don't have any problems with the concept of God. As a child I
wrote a ditty: "God is a word, used by man, to explain everything, we
don't understand." This still hold true for me. The fact that I
understand *so little* tells me I should be very careful when dealing
with this concept. What I'm getting at is, perhaps Liberalisms
rejection of this mysterious concept is at the root of the corruption
I complain of?
Furthermore, ISTM true liberals should be the last people to be
defining what "God" is, or is not, to others.
>and that guarantees all humans natural rights of life,
>liberty and property. Even Locke, though recognized that these
aren't
>all absolute, that having too much property might be wrong. He
didn't
>really understand Smith's capitalism or later socialist ideas on
that
>issue, he had a vague, 'we need property to survive but too much in
too
>few hands is bad' sense.
I see no guarantees in this world. I agree that securing these rights
for all people is a noble and worthy quest but the fact remains that
the natural order of things is "Wolf eats Bambi". (In that way, is
"socialism" un-natural?)
ISTM, trying to force the lamb to lie down with the lion usually ends
up with a happy lion looking for his next meal.
>> >Early on religion was part of liberalism, but the emphasis on
>> >individuality and science/rationality ultimately meant that
liberal
>> >ideals would confront religious traditions more dramatically.
Pure
>> >capitalism is the ultimate expression of liberalism taken to an
extreme,
>> >and conservatives and religious leaders were appalled that the
market
>> >would determine things like culture. Madonna instead of
Beethoven?
>> Well put. The capitalism=liberalism thingy is a bit hard to wrap
my
>> mind around though;)
>So far, agreement. Perhaps the problem is I jumped into this thread
>thinking of liberalism philosophically, and NOT in terms of its
modern
>political slang usage in the US. (Also my area of speciality is
>European politics, where liberal parties are the most pro-business
ones
>for the reasons stated above -- and conservative parties started the
>first modern social welfare system).
Yes, this is the crux of my argument. Slang, as in; corruption
>I'll try to be clear on my usage.
That is why I add (sic) when referring to that which I consider
corrupted.
>> >So I see your point, but I think fundamentally liberalism was
rooted in
>> >values that confronted the religious point of view, and its not
>> >surprising the two separated more and more as liberal ideals
defeated
>> >conservative ideals.
>> Theology aside, the problem I see is that Liberalism seems to have
>> become oppressively dogmatic which runs contrary to the very
>> principles of Intellectual Liberty it purports to espouse.
>I'm not sure what you mean. If anything, true "dogmatic liberalism"
>would be libertarianism, the idea that life, liberty and property
are
>absolute rights which governments should not infringe. "new
liberals"
>from Mill on argued that if government doesn't limit some people's
>"rights" to these things, they will amass power and property enough
to
>deny other people those "rights." IOW, non-governmental actors can
take
>away life, liberty and property just as well as governmental actors,
and
>therefore government needs to be involved to assure at least equal
>opportunity.
I understand dogma to mean "assertions to be accepted without
question". In that sense "dogmatic liberalism" would be an oxymoron.
I think Libertarianism *is* Liberalism, and those who have stolen the
term are imposters. This is re-inforced by the fact that you describe
yourself as a libertarian.
My basic problem with this is that the root (liber) is an appealling
word that nefarious types can use to subvert the naive.
>Modern "progressive" liberals tend to take that farther, arguing
that to
>have equal opportunity and true liberty a certain set of conditions
need
>to exist (equal access to health care, education, minimal standards
of
>living, etc.). They are different from socialists who argue more
that
>outcomes are equal (though current social democrats tend towards
>liberalism in accepting markets, albeit with stronger social welfare
>states).
The imposition of conditions is the antithesis of true liberty. What
we seem to be progressing towards is capitalist collectivism, which
can be seen as fascist socialism. Perhaps a new word is in order:)
>> >(That also explains differences in the GOP -
>> >social conservatives are closer to traditional conservatives,
while the
>> >'libertarian' wing is very liberal in its ideology).
>> I don't see Libertarianism as a wing of any party. It stands alone
on
>> it's own merits as a counter to authoritarianism.
>I think libertarianism is anti-conservative, though some in the GOP
tend
>to cling to it for its embrace of non-intervention in the market.
>However, most all democratic ideologies are anti-authoritarian.
>Authoritarianism is an ideology based on centralized political power
>absent open interest intermediation and political competition.
I see libertarianism on a different axis of the political landscape.
It has both liberal and conservative adherants. Now, while idealogies
are one thing, reality is quite another. The reality I see is both
the Democrats and the Republicans embracing authoritarian principles.
This is becoming alarming, hence my prsence here. Also, what you
describe as Authoritarian I see as Totalitarian.
>> Regardless of how the majority may feel, the Liberal(sic)
Leadership
>> is very much into PC ( and other anti-liberal attacks on both
>> intellectual and phyical liberty. I find this an alarming
development
>> as it makes the rest of us look bad ;)
>I guess I just don't see that happening. I've never felt under
>pressure, and I tend to be a PC person, I say what I think. In
fact,
>there is as much 'right wing' PC stuff -- no talkig bad about the
flag
>or country, etc. But seriously, most liberals I know are extremely
>anti-censorship and oppose efforts to force people to speak a
certain
>way.
Yes, it is from both sides, case in point, the censorship of bomb
making instructions included in the Hatch/Fienstien bill S254
http://www.cacat.com/hatch.html . Furthermore, it is this "terrorist"
boogieman that reminds me of fascism. The problem is universal, most
people aren't paying attention. Meanwhile PC remains a dangerously
insideous attack on the 1st Ammendant protection of intellectual
liberty. While support of PC in general is hypocritical by nature,
liberal support is especially so. PC is intolerant of intolerance.
[...]
>I think there are examples out there, but I see them usually from a
few
>extremists, or people who are a bit mixed up (from both the left and
>right).
Mixed up is right ! The problem is when they sneak into power (from
either side.)
>-snip mostly old bits-
>> Theology aside, The goals of Liberty are slowly being replaced
with
>> promises of Security. I find that an alarming development.
>I don't think that is really happening.
Gun Laws, Seatbelt Laws, Child Protection(sic) Laws. (And it's always
for these mythical "children"). The list goes on and on. We were
warned about silent and steady encroachments and I fear they are now
upon us.
>I think what is happening is
>that most people argue that a modicum of security is necessary if
people
>are truly going to be free to explore their potential.
Hence the 2nd Amendment. An armed citizenry provides the only true
security for a free people. History has proven that over and over...
ad nauseum.
>Also, relating
>back to the non-denominational religious aspect of the term, I think
>people also say that in a society so wealthy, if people are below
>certain standards and have no security in terms of education, health
>care, basic retirement, and a major crisis, then they really lack
true
>opportunity and basic human rights. That is different than the kind
of
>security communist systems promised, which was cradle to grave
>everything from the state. No one wants that here.
Here is a new consideration, Through-out history religion has been
the provider of both morality and charity. By usurping that role,
does Liberalism eliminate religion, or make itself into a God?
>And the point is to build on that secure base to achieve more both
>personally and for ones' society. Think of it this way: we've
reached a
>stage where people shouldn't have to struggle just to survive or get
>food or medicine. Those things can be basic.
I still believe in the goodness of man and if these things could be
so basic, they would be.
>Yet our human desire to
>create and initiate means only that a society which has those things
as
>standard will be more innovative and expansion and successful than
one
>which does not. Perhaps that explains the amazing success of
post-WWII
>20th century democratic systems, up to and including the current
time
>period.
I agree with the first part but I think our current democratic
systems are neither amazing, nor particularly
successful. Humans are still fighting in the same old places, if
anything the gap between the rich and the poor is getting worse, our
rights are getting trampled, etc. etc. As sorry as I am to be writing
this. It seems the truth. What are these amazing successes you speak
of?
>> The present laws would have a huge effect on crime if they were
>> enforced. IM(H)O, the arguments that appeal to parental instincts
are
>> nefarios. The problems they purport to address are minimal.
Freedom
>> has always demanded the blood of innocents.
>Why does freedom demand the blood of innocents? I would say that
life
>entails risk, and laws eliminating risk would eliminate freedom, so
in
>the sense that freedom entails a risk, I agree. I wouldn't say it
>demands the blood of innocents though, that seems a bit overstated.
Guilty as charged :) History does lend a certain truth to my
rhetoric however.
> > The Brits certainly deny an effective means of self-defense to
their
>> subjects.
>Heck, they don't even have a written constitution, the parliament
can do
>whatever it wants. That may be limited now, though, by the European
>Court of Justice. Still, I can't say that they deny an effective
means
>of self-defense. Guns and those kind of weapons are not really the
best
>means of self-defense in most cases,
Most cases don't matter to a victim. The fact remains that a firearm
is the most effective means of personal defense in the everyday
world. Millions of Police can't be wrong ;). The old argument for
this is, "the small woman vs the big rapist", which happens far too
often.
>and it certainly is rational to
>think that if the number of those weapons are limited, most people
can
>defend themselves with legal and usually (but not always) less
deadly
>weapons.
It's an idea but it just doesn't work in the real world. Victims
understand this. Furthermore, the lions share of DGU (defensive Gun
uses) are hardly deadly.
>Again, I'm not emotionally tied to any side of the gun debate,
>I tend to think it is more culture and society than it is
availability
>of weapons, and I wouldn't want the US to adopt European standards
for
>various reasons.
Some boat we're on, Huh?
It is the idea of taking thier life in thier hands to steal that most
effectively deters thieves. Sad, but true. The recent upsurge in
crime is said to be brought on by criminals empowered by gun laws. I
live in one of the strictest Gun Control states (Hawaii) in the
nation, we still have gun crimes. The reason we don't have a huge
problem is exactly as you state, Society and Culture. Aloha is very
real.
>In Europe you are unlikely to be robbed at gun point or threatened
with
>deadly force. That is also unlikely in almost all of America. I
think
>people tend to over estimate the level of crime. I do NOT think
more
>guns anywhere would make anyone safer, but I also tend to doubt that
gun
>control would change things that much either.
Traditionally, GunControl leads to problems worse than people care to
imagine.
\iii/ - is a visible expression of;
Aloha
rdr
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"A noble life, crowned with a heroic death, rises above and outlives
the pride and pomp and glory of the mightiest empire" - James
Garfield.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
sigAd follows
rdr
>rdr wrote:
>(again, old bits snipped)
[...]
>I consider myself "left libertarian." I like a lot of libertarian
>ideals, but I find most libertarians are blind to the ability of big
>business and big money to be just as powerful as big government, and
>potentially more so if government didn't limit them. This means
there
>is no easy ideological answer, and requires pragmatism at making the
>balance.
I don't know enough Libertarians to be able to judge your statement
regarding big business. My limited experiance does contradict this
though. Most people seem aware of the dangers of Big Money/Business
and I don't understand why Libertarians would be any different.
Perhaps it is that Libertarians realize Freedom is directly
proportional to Risk.
>My own view: decentralization of power and less bureaucracy is
necessary
>to prevent governmental abuse of power; I also am very skeptical of
the
>imperial or interventionist foreign policies of western democracies.
>However, I think you need regulations and laws to both keep powerful
>non-governmental actors under control, and taxes to assure not equal
>outcomes, but that those who "win" don't have the ability to create
>structural advantages which deny "losers" and their progeny equal
>opportunity to use their talent to succeed.
I agree and will only add that I feel Taxes should be much more
"local".
>To me this would focus on a
>few basics being guaranteed to all: health care, education, shelter,
>basic foods, and protections against discrimination and other forms
of
>denying equal opportunity.
This is a fine goal, suitible for any religion. IMO these matters are
not the Gov't's business. I have yet to see it work as advertised and
instead see growing problems (bloat, neo-nepotism, and the petty
tyranny of beauracracy). I address this also in the #1 thread. The
problem I see with Socialism is that it denies the essential goodness
of man. It holds that man is not charitible and kind enough to look
after the unfortunate and must be forced to do so. For certain *that*
is not Liberal.
>> Hillbillary Inc. is opposed to PC? It is a big problem in this
>> country, why haven't they addressed it?
>I don't think its a huge problem, I think its an exaggerated straw
man.
>I don't see PC cops around, or anything like that. I don't see that
>there is really a problem.
I see the Thought Police mostly in the corporations. I left Corporate
America because of all the current political BS and now do contract
work for them. It is like a speck of debris in an evil oyster. It
results in ostericism for the *crime* of speaking your mind. I think
it is fascist.
Since leaving the corp. I have let my hair grow. There is one client
who hates it but has no choice but to hire me for certain specialized
jobs. It is amazing how much different I am treated due to
*appearance*. That is not PC. I lose money because of this. I used to
do lots of work for these guys.
Now, since I am attracted to the type of girls who like guys with
long hair... Is this a form of Sexual Discrimination? <bg>
PC is complete hypocrisy and should be totally denounced by anyone
who values truth.
>> >All Presidents, liberal or conservative, use executive orders.
Its a
>> >power thing, that transcends parties and political ideologies.
>> Yes, it is tyranny, not liberalism
>Ah, but it happens outside governments too. Mafias, big
corporations,
>etc. are similar. Here's the deal: governments are just one of many
>concentrations of power. Big business is another. Big banking is
>another. And the latter two hold a lot of power over big
government.
Agreed, The big problem is when they all crawl in bed together for an
orgy.
>Reducing government regulations would be good, BUT if it is done in
a
>way that only empowers big business and big money, then its a shift
of
>the tyranny from governmental to non-governmental actors, and it
>accomplishes little good. Thus the key to me is to limit abuse of
power
>(or hold use of power accountable) by ALL organizations that
concentrate
>power: government, business, banking, etc.
Absolutely
[...]
>> I'll give you the benefit of the doubt but not the politicos. If
you
>> will be so kind as to provide a listing of some top liberal
>> politicians in DC, I will research a reply to this and attempt to
tie
>> it in with my point about collectivism.
>Look at the Democratic platform, what Al Gore is saying, Joe
Lieberman,
>Bill Clinton, Tom Daschle... Look, I have some HUGE disagreements
with
>the democrats on many issues, so I'm not going to defend everything
they
>do. I don't vote straight ticket, nor do I see major differences
>between the two parties on ideology (something I suspect you agree
with
>me on, given your rejection of politics as usual.)
Thanks, I'll make a new post for these guys. And yes, we are agreed
on many of the issues.
[...]
>> Remember that one of the goals of Liberalism is a
"self-regulating"
>> market.
>But Mill and company started moving away from treating that as
dogma, as
>it recognized that markets are not self-regulating in the real
world.
Is it possible that the advent of the Internet makes this concept
more feasible? ISTM that the control of info has empowered many of
these abuses of the past. BTW if below is not a textbook example I am
much impressed :)
>A classic example is sex trade. Women are kidnapped, lured into
going
>to a foreign country, and sold as slaves, used as prostitutes,
beaten,
>raped, and often killed. This generates $12 billion of revenue
world
>wide a year. These women are a perishable commodity, but one which
can
>yield a high profit margin. To consumers, they are tools of sexual
>gratification. The market will not regulate this, the market does
not
>know human rights or ethics, it knows only money. You need rule of
law
>and regulation to stop this, you need government.
In the absence of religion you make a good point. The subject being
"the oldest profession in the world" makes this a complicated topic
and wonder that the issue is actually "slavery" which is pretty much
deplorable across the board.
Again, I must note an anti-liberal rejection of the common goodness
of man.
>Now, most examples aren't that dramatic, but clearly the improvement
of
>conditions for workers and normal citizens has not always been
because
>of markets, but because workers join to put political pressure on
those
>in the market. The alternative, of course, would have been
revolution.
George Washington rejected the concept of "parties" and felt
associations should be based on issues rather than ideologies. I can
see the wisdom in his words. The problem I see is that these
associations take on a life of their own and can become quite
monsterous. I understand the need to organize *occaisionally*. Yes,
this sometimes means revolution but the alternative is slavery.
Slavery is another one of those old and complicated topics. While war
is an ugly thing it is not the ugliest (Churchill?). I feel the
biggest danger of revolution is Ignorance trading one form of slavery
for another.
>But more: self-regulation theoretically requires all parts being
equal
>in potential power and knowledge. That means they make decisions
and
>can act on the decisions. But in reality some have a lot of power,
and
>more knowledge, and thus are advantaged. Markets will not change
this,
>in fact, those with power can skew markets in their favor. Thus,
>regulation to create true equal opportunity is necessary to allow
>markets to function as good as possible (a goal we haven't
achieved),
>and without violation of the political values of liberalism, true
>individual liberty.
As you allude to elsewhere, perhaps the key is open access to
information. (and that would certainly be Liberal:)
>>These kind of laws are contradictory to that principle. I
>> will admit the phenomenon you allude to is fairly new upon the
scene
>> and I'm open to ideas, but I do not think more laws is a good
answer
>> nor do I think they represent liberalism. Evolved Chartism
perhaps;)
>I understand your concern, but think of it this way: if laws give
>consumers better information, that makes a more informed marketplace
and
>a better functioning market. Parental leave is more a social
concern
>than anything else, but I think it is a quality of life issue that
is
>legitimate. Let's avoid the mistake Karl Marx made in thinking
>everything is economics!
I say lets make *none* of the mistakes Marx made <g> and wonder that
this statement hints at the Socialism hidden in Liberalism(sic)
Aloha
rdr
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Individualism, we are entitled to say is, if not truth, the nearest
thing we have to truth, no closer thing to the truth in the field of
social relations having appeared on the horizon" - William Buckley Jr
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
sigAd follows
Scott Erb
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I'm having trouble sending my reply
in one bit, so i'm going to break it up in two again...also so far this
is the only one of your responses I've gotten, so my server isn't
picking them up in order.
rdr wrote:
>
> Scott Erb wrote in message <39A512CF...@maine.edu>...
> >rdr wrote:
> >I consider myself "left libertarian." I like a lot of libertarian
> >ideals, but I find most libertarians are blind to the ability of big
> >business and big money to be just as powerful as big government, and
> >potentially more so if government didn't limit them. This means
> there
> >is no easy ideological answer, and requires pragmatism at making the
> >balance.
>
> I don't know enough Libertarians to be able to judge your statement
> regarding big business. My limited experiance does contradict this
> though. Most people seem aware of the dangers of Big Money/Business
> and I don't understand why Libertarians would be any different.
> Perhaps it is that Libertarians realize Freedom is directly
> proportional to Risk.
I think most libertarian party leaders tend to believe that the free
market will take care of almost everything, a belief I consider not only
naive, but factually wrong. I know many note that there can be
non-governmental oppression, but when I look at rhetoric from American
libertarians, it looks like a very radical form of capitalism. I also
am puzzled by the statement "freedom is directly proportional to risk."
Not only am I not sure what you mean, I also don't think that is
accurate. One can be free without much risk, one can have considerable
risk in life and not be free.
> >My own view: decentralization of power and less bureaucracy is
> necessary
> >to prevent governmental abuse of power; I also am very skeptical of
> the
> >imperial or interventionist foreign policies of western democracies.
> >However, I think you need regulations and laws to both keep powerful
> >non-governmental actors under control, and taxes to assure not equal
> >outcomes, but that those who "win" don't have the ability to create
> >structural advantages which deny "losers" and their progeny equal
> >opportunity to use their talent to succeed.
>
> I agree and will only add that I feel Taxes should be much more
> "local".
That is one view that I think will gain more prominence in the future
(not just Texas, but in general). I think the Left, Right, and others
will see that a lot of difficulties can be solved by localizing
government, even while maintaining certain constitutional and human
rights standards (e.g., no genocide, slavery, torture, racial
discrimination, etc.)
HOW this can be done is tricky, but with the advent of computer
technology and more power at local and even individual levels, I think
the old centralized bureaucratic nation-state will probably go the way
of the dinosaur. But replacing it is not easy; I think the EU's concept
of "subsidiarity" is helpful.
There they plan to localize as much as possible, but keep some issues
national or even supranational (like monetary policy). It'll be
interesting to watch how that plays out there.
> >To me this would focus on a
> >few basics being guaranteed to all: health care, education, shelter,
> >basic foods, and protections against discrimination and other forms
> of
> >denying equal opportunity.
>
> This is a fine goal, suitible for any religion. IMO these matters are
> not the Gov't's business.
Fair enough, and of course we all act politically based on our opinion
of what the government's business should be. The choice that is made,
though, SHOULD be democratically made, within constitutional guidelines.
I think the government can have more of a role than you do, though I see
the reasons for your concern.
> I have yet to see it work as advertised and
> instead see growing problems (bloat, neo-nepotism, and the petty
> tyranny of beauracracy). I address this also in the #1 thread. The
OK...these are showing up out of order, this one arrived first. I tend
to agree with you here. Go back to Sweden. Why does their social
democracy work? One reason is the culture accepts and wants it, and are
willing to pay taxes for it. That is known as "solidarity" in social
democratic circles. Can that be put on our society? No, we're too
diverse and far flung, with a population over thirty times that of
Sweden. I think real social democracy has a tough time in larger states
because there isn't the solidarity that smaller states have. Larger
states tend to get more bureaucratic for that reason (just as a small
corporation has less bureaucracy internally than a large one).
I think some smaller local governments can choose a path more like
Sweden's, some could have much smaller governments. At a local level,
the government could more easily reflect the culture, though I still
would not want sovereignty to be more important than fundamental human
rights.
> problem I see with Socialism is that it denies the essential goodness
> of man. It holds that man is not charitible and kind enough to look
> after the unfortunate and must be forced to do so. For certain *that*
> is not Liberal.
Socialism (as in social democracy) mostly is focused on
making sure that those who are not good, even if a minority, cannot use
their power unjustly. And we know that at least some people are not
good. Second, they focus on chosen social solidarity, rather than
forced. That is why communism failed, it was forced solidarity rather
than chosen solidarity. The difference between social democracy and
communism is immense, based on the fact social democrats accept market
economics and believe in individual liberty as a paramount goal. They
just disagree with liberals (philosophically defined as opposed to
government intervention in most cases and being very free market) on HOW
this accomplished.
At the very least its nice to know the goals are similar. :)
> I see the Thought Police mostly in the corporations. I left Corporate
> America because of all the current political BS and now do contract
> work for them. It is like a speck of debris in an evil oyster. It
> results in ostericism for the *crime* of speaking your mind. I think
> it is fascist.
OK, all I can say is that I haven't experienced problems, but that could
be my experience. Suffice it to say I'm radically civil libertarian and
agree with you that PC "thought police" crap is rotten, and if it
exists, I agree it should be stopped.
> Since leaving the corp. I have let my hair grow. There is one client
> who hates it but has no choice but to hire me for certain specialized
> jobs. It is amazing how much different I am treated due to
> *appearance*. That is not PC. I lose money because of this. I used to
> do lots of work for these guys.
OK, but even your example shows that PC isn't necessarily liberal. When
a corporate exec hates short hair, that's usually seen as
"conservative." I keep wanting to grow my hair longer, but my wife
keeps insisting that I let her cut it :) I figure I'm 40 now and my
hair isn't grey yet, I want to enjoy it as long as I can, but she gets
out the scissors...
> Now, since I am attracted to the type of girls who like guys with
> long hair... Is this a form of Sexual Discrimination? <bg>
>
> PC is complete hypocrisy and should be totally denounced by anyone
> who values truth.
I can agree there. I just think that, as your example shows, its
not a liberal or conservative problem alone, but to the extent it
happens, its something that, as you say, anyone who values truth should
condemn.
> >Ah, but it happens outside governments too. Mafias, big
> corporations,
> >etc. are similar. Here's the deal: governments are just one of many
> >concentrations of power. Big business is another. Big banking is
> >another. And the latter two hold a lot of power over big
> government.
>
> Agreed, The big problem is when they all crawl in bed together for an
> orgy.
Agreed.
> >Reducing government regulations would be good, BUT if it is done in
> a
> >way that only empowers big business and big money, then its a shift
> of
> >the tyranny from governmental to non-governmental actors, and it
> >accomplishes little good. Thus the key to me is to limit abuse of
> power
> >(or hold use of power accountable) by ALL organizations that
> concentrate
> >power: government, business, banking, etc.
>
> Absolutely
We seem to be coming from the some basic principles here, again, we seem
to just see different ways of turning them into reality.
more later, scott
Scott Erb
Picking up where I left off...
On markets:
> Is it possible that the advent of the Internet makes this concept
> more feasible? ISTM that the control of info has empowered many of
> these abuses of the past. BTW if below is not a textbook example I am
> much impressed :)
I agree that the internet and the technology revolution is changing
politics, and probably will drive the nation-state and sovereignty as we
now understand them out of business, at least over the next century.
But will an unregulated free market be able to work? I'm not going to
say that will never happen, but I don't forsee it soon because the
technology is still centralized in the industrialized West, and in the
third world that difference can lead to increased rather than decreased
exploitation. Second, markets are amoral. They simply communicate
demand via price, creating an efficient system of allowing buyers and
sellers to communicate wants and needs and know what they should do.
That's why markets are essential for the any economically active
society. But what kind of regulations need to be in place and how they
should operate, that's a tough issue. At the very least I think that
one has to look at the facts -- disparities in incomes, unequal
opportunities for people born in different situations, many being very
wealthy on speculation while others toil for barely enough to feed a
family, and I have to say that some kind of regulation and
redistribution is necessary. NOT to the extent that the rich simply
give to the poor, but that efforts are made to "help the poor help
themselves" with opportunity creation the major goal (esp. education).
I also agree the current system is over bureaucratized, and I relate to
anger
about its inefficiency and cost. I just don't think the answer is to
dump the programs and let the poor have to scratch and claw against odds
(not saying this is what you want, but some make that kind of argument),
rather I think we need to creatively address the problem, and I see some
kind of decentralization as a necessary first step. So far, the
mainstream "left" sees that as a dangerous and risky venture, but the
right doesn't take it seriously either (and I don't really trust how
they would do it). But this is something I think time will ultimately
force us to do, people will demand more local and individual power, and
the technologies will give them the tools to achieve it. State
governments will ultimately have to recognize that the times are
changing.
> >A classic example is sex trade. Women are kidnapped, lured into
> going
> >to a foreign country, and sold as slaves, used as prostitutes,
> beaten,
> >raped, and often killed. This generates $12 billion of revenue
> world
> >wide a year. These women are a perishable commodity, but one which
> can
> >yield a high profit margin. To consumers, they are tools of sexual
> >gratification. The market will not regulate this, the market does
> not
> >know human rights or ethics, it knows only money. You need rule of
> law
> >and regulation to stop this, you need government.
>
> In the absence of religion you make a good point. The subject being
> "the oldest profession in the world" makes this a complicated topic
> and wonder that the issue is actually "slavery" which is pretty much
> deplorable across the board.
The fact is that these women are kidnapped and beaten (I personally have
no problem with people who want to choose prostitution as a profession.
I'd legalize it if I were dictator), and then forced into this. The
stories are heart wrenching. I don't see what religion has to do with
this, certainly religions aren't able to stop this. And the market
drives it. I think ethics is a better word than religion, but even
then, an absence of ethics certainly exists, but since markets are
amoral, ethics doesn't matter to the way demand is communicated.
I don't see any way to combat this without real intervention in the
market, with the development of stable rule of law.
> Again, I must note an anti-liberal rejection of the common goodness
> of man.
I personally (and, it has been accused, naively) believe humans are
basically good. But a lot of people behave very badly in different
situations. All of us do bad things at one time or another, but some
people seem to have pathologies where they have no sense of empathy, and
can rape, murder, torture, terrorize without regret (or they hide their
regret if they feel it). Its hard for me to accept that, I cannot
empathize with that kind of thinking. But it is real. How do we deal
with that? How do we protect innocents from such people while still
maintaining a world with freedom and not creating such a powerful
government that the cure is worse than the disease?
I don't know the answers. And I'm sure my opinions on these issues five
years from now will be different than now, in terms of what government
can or cannot do. But the ethical principles and quandries remain
rather constant.
> George Washington rejected the concept of "parties" and felt
> associations should be based on issues rather than ideologies. I can
> see the wisdom in his words. The problem I see is that these
> associations take on a life of their own and can become quite
> monsterous. I understand the need to organize *occaisionally*. Yes,
> this sometimes means revolution but the alternative is slavery.
Charles De Gaulle had similar disdain for parties, but ultimately
decided they were a "necessary evil" of democracy. A French scholar
named Michel coined the "iron rule of oligarchy." That states that any
revolutionary movement, once it gains power, inevitably has to organize
in order to accomplish its aims, and that inevitably creates a central
power elite who quickly lose the revolutionary zeal, and ultimately the
party or movement becomes systemic. An example is the Green party in
Germany. They were anti-NATO, pacifist, alternatives who at first tried
to prevent any party leader form holding on to a post more than a few
months.
Over time, though, they wanted power in the system. Now a Green is
Germany's Foreign Minister, who supported and even helped plan the first
use of German troops in military conflict in the Kosovo war, supporting
NATO. Their ideals and revolutionary zeal disappeared, they became like
the other systemic parties. Perhaps that's inevitable.
As to revolution, its sometimes needed but often its costs are greater
than any benefits it can achieve, especially violent revolutions. Still
I can see that in many cases it is necessary, though I prefer Gandhi's
peaceful style of non-compliance to an actual violent uprising.
Of course in the US and modern industrial states it can't work. As I
think one of the sixties radicals said, the government can always out
escalate you, they have the power, and here, extremely high levels of
support. The best path is the slow path of democratic change, trying to
persuade and convince others to look at things differently, recognizing
that the path may take centuries, and we may not see much progress in
any one lifetime. But the future is a long, long time, and someday this
era will be seen as a barbaric pre-history of humankind. Small steps
probably matter most; we'll never get some kind of perfect system
quickly.
> Slavery is another one of those old and complicated topics. While war
> is an ugly thing it is not the ugliest (Churchill?). I feel the
> biggest danger of revolution is Ignorance trading one form of slavery
> for another.
Yes.
-snip-
> >I understand your concern, but think of it this way: if laws give
> >consumers better information, that makes a more informed marketplace
> and
> >a better functioning market. Parental leave is more a social
> concern
> >than anything else, but I think it is a quality of life issue that
> is
> >legitimate. Let's avoid the mistake Karl Marx made in thinking
> >everything is economics!
>
> I say lets make *none* of the mistakes Marx made <g> and wonder that
> this statement hints at the Socialism hidden in Liberalism(sic)
I think that ideological labels are probably are more deceptive than
helpful. Marxism is very different from Social Democracy, and
liberalism has various forms. I guess I end up relating to the Billy
Joel song "shades of grey" -- different arguments have valid points, and
clear obvious answers don't seem to exist, we have to balance,
compromise, etc. Or as another rocker, Don Henley, noted in his last
CD: "An angry man can only get so far, until he reconciles the way he
thinks things ought to be, with the way they are."
Still, step by step, idea by idea, things change, and since I do believe
people are essentially good, I'm pretty sure we'll over the millenia end
up creating a system that is just and free...it just might take a lot of
stumbling and learning from mistakes to get there.
ciao, scott
rdr
Scott Erb wrote in message <39A51307...@maine.edu>...
>rdr wrote:
You raise some good points but I will note that your scenario depends
on unusual circumstances. It is quite well established that in times
of crisis, free people can and do willingly surrender _some_ rights
*temporarily* in the interest of [TheCommonGood]. TheConstitution
alludes to this, in a way, where it stipulates that [army
appropiations] should never exceed 2 years. So in a crisis situation
I believe we have a clear-cut case for justification of force.
Liberty is a elusive subject. Regardless of whether the German
willingly gives up the water, or not, the Jews _owe_ him a debt for
saving their lives. He had the foresight to protect a water source
when he could have fouled it. They also _owe_ the town the same debt.
This seems a slippery slope to me.
Pragmatically speaking; Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "if a man is
minority of one we lock him up". I think what he meant by that was,
if some-ones position is that extreme, they usually have "other"
problems as well.
>Obviously, this is an extreme example, and can be used as a life vs.
>liberty issue, not just a trading of liberties. But the point it
>illustrates is that sometimes limiting liberty can actually increase
>total liberty IF you are limiting the ability of powerful actors to
use
>that power to limit the liberty of others. And more. If acts that
in a
>small way limit the total liberty of some empower those who are
>relatively unable to exercise their liberty (lack of equal
opportunity
>for various reason), you have a more free society overall.
One would think so, but it never seems to turn out that way.
>Remember: not just government can limit liberty. Any powerful actor
or
>powerful organization of humans can do that. Without government,
>powerful corporations or banks could form defacto governments and
use
>their power to limit liberty or insure their own status. Government
>should be LIMITED in scope, but should be powerful enough to
regulate
>potentially powerful non-governmental actors.
>In terms limiting government, I think we need to do more.
Governments
>must be held accountable for their use of power. I would
decentralize,
>and in fact force all government documents and most meetings to be
open
>to the public. Governments should have no secrets, unless the
meetings
>potentially could harm individuals.
110% agreement. Openness is crucial to a free society.
>> >How about laws that
>> >demand product labels that give more information, allowing
consumers to
>> >better know what they are buying, and make more informed choices?
>> While you touch on a subject (inter-... commerce) which probably
does
>> actually fall under the jurisdiction of Congress. I still don't
see
>> where ones freedom to choose is increased by knowledge of the
>> available choices. Medical Marijuana is a case in point
>Knowledge means making informed decisions. In economics markets
only
>work "perfectly" if you assume perfect knowledge. Markets work
better
>if knowledge is closer to perfect, and markets are more fair if
>knowledge is evenly distributed. Thus if consumers have more
knowledge
>of what their products contain, their calories, fat, protein, etc.,
then
>they can make more informed choices and the market will function
better.
>It is also protection against misleading statements and fraud.
Yes, but fairness is not synomynous with freeness.
>> >Many are selling it off. I think its old habits, or fear of some
>> >disaster. But government sales of gold have been pretty
significant
>> >over the past decade.
>> "fear of some disaster"? Doesn't that indicate a faith in an
>> underlying value? And there is still the question of the buyers...
>I read the other day though that most economists think that money in
the
>future will be "digital" and that stocks of a metal probably are
>obsolete. I think the October 1998 issue of *Discover* had a huge
>section on money and its development through civilization. They
>reported then how many countries were selling down their gold
supplies,
>and that has increased over the past couple years. The European
Central
>Bank will keep about 15% of its reserves in gold, the rest in
foreign
>currencies. But while GOLD is still valuable, the GOLD STANDARD is
what
>is considered obsolete. Money is now a market commodity, not
something
>fixed to the value of a metal.
IM(H)O, a _*very*_ bad idea, which, I believe, is beyond the scope of
this discussion. One of my favorite Liberals, Thomas Jefferson, had
_alot_ to say about this subject;).
>> The rank and file of most political movements desire fairness. All
>> movements also have a fringes where fairness is ignored. It's when
>> hypocritical liars gain leadership that real problems arise. Like
we
>> see, today.
>I think you've got a point, but I'd note that hypocritical liars can
>gain leadership of businesses, banks, governments, and any
organization
>of power. The key is hold the use of power accountable. I don't
>believe markets alone can do it, so government is necessary. But
>government must also be held accountable, and THAT is something
we're
>not doing a good job on these days!
Honest debate on USENET seems so rare at times that this truly is a
breath of fresh air. I wonder that you and I represent the majority
of the US with our various agreements and dis-agreements.
Idealistically we look towards the essential goodness of man to carry
us forward. Pragmatically, in the face of the uncommon badness of
man, we look towards The Rule of Law to keep us there. A delicate
balance between freedom and fairness; Justice.
>> Noted:) Overstated or not though, it is the truth. The lies are
>> obvious to anyone who honestly looks. 13 "kids(sic) ", a
million(sic)
>> "moms(sic)". The list goes on and on and I think such lies suggest
a
>> much poorer argument than my overstatements ever will.
>I know people who are strongly supportive of gun control, and I can
>assure you they believe their arguments. They are convinced, just
as
>those on the other side are convinced that gun control is a bad
idea. I
>don't think they're lying -- though many of the commercials for
either
>side may lie -- lying is the business of the advertising agency
after
>all! ;) There are good arguments on each side.
Beyond the most common sense precautions, which relate to any deadly
device, I have yet to see a GunControl argument that makes sense. If
the issue was truly "safety", there are _much_ more viable issues.
While I don't accuse [25,000 or so Moms] of being liars, the
leadership is a different story. They know better. They know the
historical consequences of their actions. IMO, they are morally
reprehensible liars. IOW, Evil.
And very sad.
I respect that the GunControl Argument is "not your cup of tea" but
would ask that you really think these things through before defending
these people. Whatever this neo-fascism thing should really be
called, these people embody some of the worst of it.
>My view: its the economy. Crime is down now because the economy is
>good. Prosperity and a real chance for the poor will do more to
>decrease crime than all the jails and laws you can build. I suspect
>from your post so far this is another thing you'll agree with me on,
>though I also suspect we may have different ideas on how to reach
that
>prosperity.
Yes, crime is certainly proportional to prosperity though I'd imagine
there are some peculiar curves on the graph from a couple other
factors.
I think freedom allows humans to explore and hence excel, and
restrictions stifle these _natural_ instincts. So, the best route to
prosperity (and all it's attendant [glory]) seems the maximising of
Liberty. Socialism is a grey, drab apartment project full of
alchoholics. Perhaps the problem with forced equality, is it's forced
mediocrity.
>> The only way I see GunControl working is in a police state, or a
>> utopian pipe-dream. History has proven that an armed citizenry is
>> then surest defense against threats to life, liberty, and
property.
>Really? I'm not sure, again, Europe and Japan are very, very safe
>compared to the US, especially in terms of violent crime, and they
have
>strict gun laws. I am not arguing we should adopt their laws (I
don't
>think we should), but I am skeptical of your claim.
Most of these places enjoy no where near the liberty, and property
rights of Americans. More salient is the recent upswings across the
board. Americas crime is going down for various reasons, these
socialist experiments are experiancing the opposite. The common
thread is that More Guns=Less Crime(which is a book I haven't read by
a Dr Lott). This is well documented throughout history and up until
the present day.
>History has also shown that an armed citizenry makes descent into
chaos
>and murder more likely. The Yugoslav conflict was started by armed
>Serbs in the Krajina who stood up against the Croat police. Then in
>1997 when Albania drifted in to short term chaos, the armories were
>looted, and hundreds of thousands of small arms were given to a
>terrorist organization known as the UCK (or KLA), who then started
an
>uprising which became the Kosovo war. Sure, they were fighting
against
>oppression, but their style of fighting made it a violent struggle
which
>has created more harm than a peaceful path to change.
We certainly disagree here:). For one, The Yugoslav conflict is as
old as the hills and has only avoided chaos under strict regimes. Not
a fair example. Secondly we the modern example of Switzerland and the
US experience. George Washinton once said something like, "99% of our
nation is armed, and you can tell by there silence that they are in
sane and peaceful hands" This still hold true in many ways and to
threaten Liberty for US in the hope of preventing some obscure and
intractable enemies from hurting themselves is not only unfair, but
downright dangerous.
>I don't think we'll go that route even if gun laws were eliminated.
A
>lot of it is culture and economic prosperity. That is why, when
push
>comes to shove, I tend to ignore the gun debates. If ever there was
an
>attempt to confiscate guns via some kind of police state, I'd be
against
>it, but gee, most LIBERALS I know owe guns legally (usually for
hunting,
>a few for self-protection), and they wouldn't want to be forced to
give
>them up.
But they are confiscating guns using Police State tactics. California
and New York are making previously legal guns illegal. To not comply
makes one a felon who surrenders *all* of their rights. Waco is an
extreme example.This is scary stuff. The Assualt Weapon rhetoric is
absurd. Machine Guns are already *highly* taxed. Besides that, the
most commonly cited,(by both sides;) SCOTUS case (Miller) stated that
for a weapon to be protected under the second it had to be suitible
for use in the miltia. What is a more suitlible personal weapon
system for a soldier than a fully capable automatic rifle and
sidearm?
>> It is one of the founding principles of the American Experiment.
>> Modern experiance upholds this fact. This might not be a pleasent
>> thought but we can't just ignore it.
>> I have turned many of these angles over in my mind but If you
think
>> you know some "powerful reasons to think it can work". I am
curious.
>The comparison to Europe and Japan are the most convincing. Many
>advocates of strong gun control have lived or spent time over there
and
>know that those countries are safer.
Liberty has a price and a reward, ISTM that many of these people want
the reward without paying. If those people want to _feel_ "safe" they
are welcome to go back to those countries that reflect their beliefs.
I should warn them that times have changed. Besides that, Japan and
Europe has historically been under more "control" than America, using
them for a model seems like going backwards to me.
>But I argue with them, noting that
>the problem here isn't that we are less safe
>(in most of the US we are
>as safe as Europeans...here in Farmington Maine where I'm posting
from,
>I know peole who haven't locked their house door for twenty years).
A 37ft. Steel Ketch, quietly anchored in a sheltered cove of
Penobscot Bay..., Ahhh... that's what dreams are made of. So you are
just around the corner from Mexico, I trust you enjoy the mountains.
Thanks for the muse:)
>Most of us live in very safe circumstances. The problem is pockets
of
>crime in inner cities, and that really is deeper than something gun
laws
>can handle. So ultimately I'm not convinced by the gun control
>arguments, even if I give them more respect than you do.
Exactly, and I certainly respect that, but wonder if respect should
be used as a gauge in regards to dissention? America is the child of
adventurous rebels whom I admire, I'm jes trying to follow in thier
footsteps<g>. The deeper question is, who is first in line for our
respect.
>I do think the gun industry reaction to voluntary changes by Smith
and
>Wesson was disgusting.
Strong terminology?
Doesn't this relate to the point about open information and the
freedom of the marketplace? Whatever the gun industry may be I don't
think it is a cannibil. S&W is being brought down by people who
believe in freedom. I haven't spent a dime on firearms in decades,
but I fully support the boycott. The line must be drawn somewherere
and it is better to start it in the economic arena. Gov'ts use this
tactic of sanctions all the time. Only an extremist would be happy to
see S&W having problems. No-one likes seeing people have to re-enter
the job market. Unfortunatly S&W (a UK Co.) chose to get into bed
with a bunch of known liars over an issue ThePeople just won't stand
for.
>> >especially comparing US violent crime with violent crime in
>> >countries with stricter gun laws.
>> Once one takes ratios into account the numbers arent all that
>> startling. The UK is just starting to feel the consequences of
their
>> experiment in GunControl. Violent crime is skyrocketing and that
is
>> no understatement.
>They've had gun control for over 50 years. If violent crime is just
>starting to skyrocket (I can't say I know those figures), then
obviously
>the causal factor has to be something more recent. You can't blame
gun
>control for that.
Britain's experiment has been incremental, they made handguns illegal
50 years ago and are now on the verge of making _defending oneself_
illegal. It is this complete loss of defense rights which empowers
criminals. Australia's experiment is much more dramatic. Armed
Robbery up something like 40%.
>>An honest look at the numbers and time-lines can
>> be quite enlightening.
>Perhaps -- though again, gun control has been intense there for
>sometime. Social science has a problem with causal claims, its hard
to
>show causality. For instance, if violent crime starts rising for
some
>other cause, and the reaction is to increase gun control, and that
>doesn't stop the rise, it might be tempting to blame gun control for
the
>continuing rise, when really it was simply an ineffectual way to
curtail
>the increase. But still, they've had gun control in Europe for a
LONG
>time.
Yes, and that's why a bunch of independant minded folk left not that
long ago. Using Europe as a model is reactionary, the arch enemy of
Liberalism.
[...]
>I don't think most people who want
>control want anything more than child locks or background checks.
Maybe
>some limits on types of ammo.
My grandmother despises childproofing and the agony it causes her
arthritic hands. She knows that most any child can open these things
and they are actually Baby-Locks. Do the amount of babies involved
justify her pain? Not IMO. Background checks insinuate and breed
distrust. Very dangerous. The real solution would be a massive
restructering of the military involving the re-forming of Miltias,
and a restoration of civic pride. If nothing else, people tend to be
politer when everyone is armed. Hence the civilty of Duels.
>> true liberal believes in letting people make such personal
decisions
>> themselves.
>Again, most liberals I know wouldn't want to eliminate the right for
>individuals to own guns for private protection.
Bill Clinton and Al Gore certainly do.
>-snip-
I believe I have answered or agreed with most of this. The ACLU can
be quite selective in it's case load and that brings it's objectivity
into question.
>Perhaps if we decentralized more of the functions of government and
>looked into increasing participation and accountability, some of
these
>problems wouldn't seem so severe.
Its amazing to me that the gov't continues to grow in spite of the
fact that the majority of US seems to feel the same way. It is
ignorance, apathy and greed which kills countries, not guns.
>George Washington from you sig file can have the last word this
morning:
IMHO you do your country, yourself, and little ol me an honor
rdr
>> A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but
>> they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain
>> a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse
>> them, which would include their own government.
>> George Washington
--
Temp. sigAd follows :(trying out new News Feeds)
LurkerNoMore
>Hi again,
>Thanks for the thoughtful response. I'm having trouble sending my
reply
>in one bit, so i'm going to break it up in two again...also so far
this
>is the only one of your responses I've gotten, so my server isn't
>picking them up in order.
Likewise and my pleasure :) I seem to have the worst luck with
interesting threads :( If the missing posts don't show up soon,
perhaps I should e-mail a copy?
>rdr wrote:
>> Scott Erb wrote in message <39A512CF...@maine.edu>...
>> >rdr wrote:
[...]
>> I don't know enough Libertarians to be able to judge your
statement
>> regarding big business. My limited experiance does contradict this
>> though. Most people seem aware of the dangers of Big
Money/Business
>> and I don't understand why Libertarians would be any different.
>> Perhaps it is that Libertarians realize Freedom is directly
>> proportional to Risk.
>I think most libertarian party leaders tend to believe that the free
>market will take care of almost everything, a belief I consider not
only
>naive, but factually wrong. I know many note that there can be
>non-governmental oppression, but when I look at rhetoric from
American
>libertarians, it looks like a very radical form of capitalism.
If I understand you correctly, you see much naivete among the
leadership concerning these issues. Fair enough. As I study I shall
keep an eye out for this. Thanks. This radical form of capitalism
seems to have it's roots in Any Rand's theories. I enjoyed reading
her, and think she made some great points, but I certainly had some
dis-agreements also.
>I also
>am puzzled by the statement "freedom is directly proportional to
risk."
>Not only am I not sure what you mean, I also don't think that is
>accurate. One can be free without much risk, one can have
considerable
>risk in life and not be free.
Yes, I could have said that better. What I meant was, increasing
personal freedom = increasing personal risk. The word "risk" implies
a "chance" in which the unfree have little, or no, choice. Free
people live "risky" lives, [slaves] live "dangerous" ones, and the
devil is in the details. The difference is subtle but perhaps
important, The former regards a "possibility", the other a
"liability". IOW, The free say "if", slaves say "when".
I shall think more on this as I am still having a bit of trouble
expressing myself. For now say; A person is free to build a fence and
behind that fence enjoy certain freedoms with little risk. Is this
person really free? I say he is as free as he choose to be and if he
wanted more freedom it would entail more risk.
>> >My own view: decentralization of power and less bureaucracy is
necessary
>> >to prevent governmental abuse of power; I also am very skeptical
of the
>> >imperial or interventionist foreign policies of western
democracies.
>> >However, I think you need regulations and laws to both keep
powerful
>> >non-governmental actors under control, and taxes to assure not
equal
>> >outcomes, but that those who "win" don't have the ability to
create
>> >structural advantages which deny "losers" and their progeny equal
>> >opportunity to use their talent to succeed.
>> I agree and will only add that I feel Taxes should be much more
>> "local".
>That is one view that I think will gain more prominence in the
future
>(not just Texas, but in general). I think the Left, Right, and
others
>will see that a lot of difficulties can be solved by localizing
>government, even while maintaining certain constitutional and human
>rights standards (e.g., no genocide, slavery, torture, racial
>discrimination, etc.)
I think the main difference between what you are musing and the
original set-up is mistake in the Declaration of Independance where
they wrote "all *men* are created equal" where it seems more correct
to say all *people*... . (That looks so PC that I am having trouble
keeping my fingers from the kill switch;)
Again we see a case for Gov't setting up as a church dictating
morals. Dangerous stuff... More importantly, Didn't the US BoR
already protect those minimum standards you speak of? The only thing
that seems to have changed is, who it applies to.
>HOW this can be done is tricky, but with the advent of computer
>technology and more power at local and even individual levels, I
think
>the old centralized bureaucratic nation-state will probably go the
way
>of the dinosaur. But replacing it is not easy; I think the EU's
concept
>of "subsidiarity" is helpful.
Isn't that the *old* idea of a large nation of smaller states? The
idea that gave birth to the Art of Ancient Greece and the Industry of
Modern America?
Again I note the corporate terminology which rings a "fascism alert"
in my mind. Perhaps that is the term I am looking for; Corporatism...
Hmmm?
>There they plan to localize as much as possible, but keep some
issues
>national or even supranational (like monetary policy). It'll be
>interesting to watch how that plays out there.
I think it is natural that there would be lots of talk about keeping
things "local" while [the powers that be] are in the process of such
massive consolidation. I would think many people are quite anxious
about all this change and I am sure that such new concepts as "...
"subsidiarity" is helpful.", indeed;)
>> >To me this would focus on a
>> >few basics being guaranteed to all: health care, education,
shelter,
>> >basic foods, and protections against discrimination and other
forms of
>> >denying equal opportunity.
Shouldn't these subsidiaries be allowed to make these important
decisions on there own? Who is better equipped for making them?
a) faceless technocrat
b) [your neighbors]
For health care; the decision would depend on how well you get along
eh? That might help to control violence in our society...Hmmm?
For education; I have educators among friends and family, since the
liberals(sic) have gotten in power I have heard dire complaints of
being buried under regulatory requirements which is affecting their
effectiveness and, more importantly, moral. B seems to be the choice
Food and Shelter; It is only the truly disadvantaged who need help
with these things. This again would be a form of, "State Religion"
i.e. Charity. B still makes more sense.
And these other protections are already covered by the BoR for the
most part.
>> This is a fine goal, suitible for any religion. IMO these matters
are
>> not the Gov't's business.
>Fair enough, and of course we all act politically based on our
opinion
>of what the government's business should be. The choice that is
made,
>though, SHOULD be democratically made, within constitutional
guidelines.
>I think the government can have more of a role than you do, though I
see
>the reasons for your concern.
I have lost respect for FedGov. I would have to see some frank
confessions, honest apologies and a solid attempt at reform before I
begin to trust it again. And while I agree that things *should* be
decided via democratic ideals, unless people realize that *standing
for the lesser of two evils is a temporary stop on the stairway to
hell*, I think we're in for trouble. :(
>> I have yet to see it work as advertised and
>> instead see growing problems (bloat, neo-nepotism, and the petty
>> tyranny of beauracracy). I address this also in the #1 thread. The
>OK...these are showing up out of order, this one arrived first. I
tend
>to agree with you here. Go back to Sweden. Why does their social
>democracy work? One reason is the culture accepts and wants it, and
are
>willing to pay taxes for it. That is known as "solidarity" in
social
>democratic circles. Can that be put on our society? No, we're too
>diverse and far flung, with a population over thirty times that of
>Sweden. I think real social democracy has a tough time in larger
states
>because there isn't the solidarity that smaller states have. Larger
>states tend to get more bureaucratic for that reason (just as a
small
>corporation has less bureaucracy internally than a large one).
Yes, "Bureaucracy" is the main problem. It seems to have become a new
form of Gov't. I call it a Technocracy. Scary Stuff. We really need
to get back to controlling gov't and *not* visa versa or people will
one day wake up in a world *not* of their choosing.
>I think some smaller local governments can choose a path more like
>Sweden's, some could have much smaller governments. At a local
level,
>the government could more easily reflect the culture, though I still
>would not want sovereignty to be more important than fundamental
human
>rights.
Yes, such as Hawaii which had decent health care until everyone
copied it and *moved in*. It was fine when it was locally managed,
but now, with all the mergers, it's becoming quite the mess...
>> problem I see with Socialism is that it denies the essential
goodness
>> of man. It holds that man is not charitible and kind enough to
look
>> after the unfortunate and must be forced to do so. For certain
*that*
>> is not Liberal.
>Socialism (as in social democracy) mostly is focused on
>making sure that those who are not good, even if a minority, cannot
use
>their power unjustly. And we know that at least some people are not
>good.
Well, it is certainly not alone there and our Constitution does the
same thing.
>Second, they focus on chosen social solidarity, rather than
>forced.
Interesting that it goes over well in places where *choices* have
been rather *limited* historically. It may be a step forward for
them, but it is a step backwards for US.
>That is why communism failed, it was forced solidarity rather
>than chosen solidarity. The difference between social democracy and
>communism is immense, based on the fact social democrats accept
market
>economics and believe in individual liberty as a paramount goal.
Well heck, you say the lefts paramount goal is individual liberty,
others say thats the right's goal too. Meanwhile our individual
liberty is being eroded before our very eyes. Someone is up to some
(un)funny business!!!
>They
>just disagree with liberals (philosophically defined as opposed to
>government intervention in most cases and being very free market) on
HOW
>this accomplished.
>At the very least its nice to know the goals are similar. :)
I think alot of these guys are making it up as they go along. They
nationalize then they privitize...wassup wit dat?
[...]
>> Since leaving the corp. I have let my hair grow. There is one
client
>> who hates it but has no choice but to hire me for certain
specialized
>> jobs. It is amazing how much different I am treated due to
>> *appearance*. That is not PC. I lose money because of this. I used
to
>> do lots of work for these guys.
>OK, but even your example shows that PC isn't necessarily liberal.
When
>a corporate exec hates short hair, that's usually seen as
>"conservative."
Yes, but it is expected of a conservative. This woman, on the other
hand, seems a hypocrite. Furthermore, while corporations were
traditionally a bastion of conservatism, that is certainly no longer
the case.
>I keep wanting to grow my hair longer, but my wife
>keeps insisting that I let her cut it :) I figure I'm 40 now and my
>hair isn't grey yet, I want to enjoy it as long as I can, but she
gets
>out the scissors...
<BG> you don't seem to mind that much.
[...PC...]
>I can agree there. I just think that, as your example shows, its
>not a liberal or conservative problem alone, but to the extent it
>happens, its something that, as you say, anyone who values truth
should
>condemn.
[...corruption...]
>> Agreed, The big problem is when they all crawl in bed together for
an
>> orgy.
>Agreed.
>> >... Thus the key to me is to limit abuse of power
>> >(or hold use of power accountable) by ALL organizations that
concentrate
>> >power: government, business, banking, etc.
>> Absolutely
>We seem to be coming from the some basic principles here, again, we
seem
>to just see different ways of turning them into reality.
>more later, scott
Looking forward to it, you are providing quite a muse for me and I
might even have to dedicate the tale to your fine wif :)
Aloha
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"There may be said to be two classes of people in the world; those
who constantly divide the people into two classes and those who do
not" - Robert Benchley
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
Temp. sigAd follows :(trying out new News Feeds)
Scott D. Erb
LurkerNoMore wrote:
> Scott Erb wrote in message <39A99A2A...@maine.edu>...
> >Hi again,
>
> >Thanks for the thoughtful response. I'm having trouble sending my
> reply
> >in one bit, so i'm going to break it up in two again...also so far
> this
> >is the only one of your responses I've gotten, so my server isn't
> >picking them up in order.
>
> Likewise and my pleasure :) I seem to have the worst luck with
> interesting threads :( If the missing posts don't show up soon,
> perhaps I should e-mail a copy?
Yes please. So far they haven't turned up, were they posted to all the same groups
(I'm reading this in alt.society.liberalism). My server has been slow though, so its
quite possible they'll show up in time.
-snip old bits to save space-
> If I understand you correctly, you see much naivete among the
> leadership concerning these issues. Fair enough. As I study I shall
> keep an eye out for this. Thanks. This radical form of capitalism
> seems to have it's roots in Any Rand's theories. I enjoyed reading
> her, and think she made some great points, but I certainly had some
> dis-agreements also.
Yes, she does have some inspirational writing, and I find the emphasis on self-reliance
and taking responsibility for one's own life very important. But I think she
ultimately fails in trying to come up with a real, workable, philosophy.
> >I also
> >am puzzled by the statement "freedom is directly proportional to
> risk."
> >Not only am I not sure what you mean, I also don't think that is
> >accurate. One can be free without much risk, one can have
> considerable
> >risk in life and not be free.
>
> Yes, I could have said that better. What I meant was, increasing
> personal freedom = increasing personal risk. The word "risk" implies
> a "chance" in which the unfree have little, or no, choice. Free
> people live "risky" lives, [slaves] live "dangerous" ones, and the
> devil is in the details. The difference is subtle but perhaps
> important, The former regards a "possibility", the other a
> "liability". IOW, The free say "if", slaves say "when".
Though obviously slaves can have very risky lives and not be free, while a free person
with a lot of money could aviod risk. But that's nitpicking, I do understand your
point.
> I shall think more on this as I am still having a bit of trouble
> expressing myself. For now say; A person is free to build a fence and
> behind that fence enjoy certain freedoms with little risk. Is this
> person really free? I say he is as free as he choose to be and if he
> wanted more freedom it would entail more risk.
I look at it this way: we are all free to do whatever we want at any time, limited only
by our circumstances and the choices made by others. Those two provisos are similar,
actually, when you think about it. The question then comes: are the limitations from
circumstances or from the choices of others just. Circumstances from nature are almost
always by definition "just." Somethings are beyond our capability to choose, based on
the nature of human existence. But limitations caused by the free choices of others
are where the issue of ethics comes into play. When does my exercise of my free will
reflect an unjust limitation on yours? Is it just "initiation of physical force"? Can
it involve economic pressure, how power is structured, the use of laws? What about
social pressure (e.g., people won't trade with you unless you choose to conform to the
social norms in ways you might consider immoral or wrong).
Thats why politics to me is so damn tough but also fun. The issue comes down to
ethics, and there is no clear answer.
> I think the main difference between what you are musing and the
> original set-up is mistake in the Declaration of Independance where
> they wrote "all *men* are created equal" where it seems more correct
> to say all *people*... . (That looks so PC that I am having trouble
> keeping my fingers from the kill switch;)
:)
> Again we see a case for Gov't setting up as a church dictating
> morals. Dangerous stuff... More importantly, Didn't the US BoR
> already protect those minimum standards you speak of? The only thing
> that seems to have changed is, who it applies to.
I see your point, but politics is necessarily about ethics and morals. (Damn, that
looks so much like something the moral majority would say I have trouble keeping my
figures from the kill switch too!) But why would you limit things to the bill of
rights, or look at necessary limits to power if not for the fact that you have a strong
ethical conviction behind your belief. You're obviously not concerned with personal
power or even just self-interest, your view seems to come from ethical conviction. So
in a sense, you're also basing your position on a view of "morals" for government, even
if it is limit the role of government, or define it. My point is simply that I don't
think that, no matter how hard we try, we can escape the fact that politics is in some
way about ethics. (Or at least it should be...too often individuals play it as a game
just for power, something I experienced first hand when I worked in DC for a Senator
and left because I realized I couldn't play that game).
> >HOW this can be done is tricky, but with the advent of computer
> >technology and more power at local and even individual levels, I
> think
> >the old centralized bureaucratic nation-state will probably go the
> way
> >of the dinosaur. But replacing it is not easy; I think the EU's
> concept
> >of "subsidiarity" is helpful.
>
> Isn't that the *old* idea of a large nation of smaller states? The
> idea that gave birth to the Art of Ancient Greece and the Industry of
> Modern America?
Good point.
> Again I note the corporate terminology which rings a "fascism alert"
> in my mind. Perhaps that is the term I am looking for; Corporatism...
> Hmmm?
Well, in poli-sci there are two forms of corporatism. Authoritarian corporatism is
associated with fascism, and Latin American dictatorships like Peronism, etc. There
the government organizes interest groups and controls the way interests are
"intermediated" in the system. That is stable, but really dictated from above. In
Scandinavian countries there was "democratic corporatism," which tries to have interest
groups separate from government, in cooperation with government. So you have labor
unions, employers organizations and government cooperating to deal with different
problems, presumably all accountable to democratic institutions. I don't think that
is fascist (nor are all authoritarian corporatists fascists, some are just bland
authoritarians), but there are dangers. That is why I think decentralization of power
is necessary, the larger a corporatist system is, the more distant from and less
accountable its leaders are, creating the danger for elites basically playing a game
and pretending they are competing when they really are just dividing the pie for
themselves.
> >There they plan to localize as much as possible, but keep some
> issues
> >national or even supranational (like monetary policy). It'll be
> >interesting to watch how that plays out there.
>
> I think it is natural that there would be lots of talk about keeping
> things "local" while [the powers that be] are in the process of such
> massive consolidation. I would think many people are quite anxious
> about all this change and I am sure that such new concepts as "...
> "subsidiarity" is helpful.", indeed;)
I hope its not just talk. I believe that the changes these days are such that people
will demand more local and regional, even individual power, and states will realize,
either by choice or the hard way, that they can't deny it any more.
> >> >To me this would focus on a
> >> >few basics being guaranteed to all: health care, education,
> shelter,
> >> >basic foods, and protections against discrimination and other
> forms of
> >> >denying equal opportunity.
>
> Shouldn't these subsidiaries be allowed to make these important
> decisions on there own? Who is better equipped for making them?
Yes, as long as there were free movement between groups. But some issues such as
fundamental human rights seem so important that they transcend borders. The right of
an individual not to be tortured, enslaved, etc., are foundational. So I would say
that these units would have to be democratic in the sense that all individuals have
equal rights under the law, with the dignity of the individual unsassailable by even a
majority government. From there, they can deal with issues of health care, education,
and those other things. The foundational things that I don't think should be decided
only by the individual states/regions involve fundamental human rights.
> a) faceless technocrat
> b) [your neighbors
> For health care; the decision would depend on how well you get along
> eh? That might help to control violence in our society...Hmmm?
>
> For education; I have educators among friends and family, since the
> liberals(sic) have gotten in power I have heard dire complaints of
> being buried under regulatory requirements which is affecting their
> effectiveness and, more importantly, moral. B seems to be the choice
Oh yeah, I think decentralization is usually the best way to go on these things, but it
includes not just government, but also big money and big business.
> Food and Shelter; It is only the truly disadvantaged who need help
> with these things. This again would be a form of, "State Religion"
> i.e. Charity. B still makes more sense.
Again, politics is always about ethics, so I think you have to deal with the state
religion aspect even if the religion is saying government should be vastly limited.
But I will agree that the smaller units can make a lot of these decisions themselves.
If the larger unit is to standardize them, it should be a cooperative and free
decisions among the smaller units. However, I do think that basic human rights issues
such as slavery, torture, genocide, etc., are beyond that, BUT ultimately that has to
come from agreement too. Still, if I were to "decentralize" the United States, it
would have to be based on the principles of the Constitution, I think. Regions could
leave the union if they wanted, but chances are that would not be in their interest.
Also, I think free movement between regions is necessary if this is to work.
> And these other protections are already covered by the BoR for the
> most part.
...
> I have lost respect for FedGov. I would have to see some frank
> confessions, honest apologies and a solid attempt at reform before I
> begin to trust it again. And while I agree that things *should* be
> decided via democratic ideals, unless people realize that *standing
> for the lesser of two evils is a temporary stop on the stairway to
> hell*, I think we're in for trouble. :(
I understand your view -- having worked in DC and knowing the power games that go on
there (and I left because I was disgusted by them), I sympathize. But I don't see
anything out there better than democracy. The problem is that especially when the US
started to take an imperial role in world politics we had to build our military and
government to handle "world leadership," centralizing that much more power in
Washington, and I believe taking us farther away from our ideals. Undo that and things
would change quickly. Imperial powers tend to become internally weak and full of
contradictions between their ideals and their practices, and that's happening here.
-snip-
> Yes, "Bureaucracy" is the main problem. It seems to have become a new
> form of Gov't. I call it a Technocracy. Scary Stuff. We really need
> to get back to controlling gov't and *not* visa versa or people will
> one day wake up in a world *not* of their choosing.
I agree here. The thing that makes democracy potentially a good form of government
(Rather than just government as an excuse for the rulers to rule over the ruled) is the
issue of the people holding those who exercise power accountable. The more
bureaucratic and centralized things become, especially with media propaganda, the
harder that is to do.
> >I think some smaller local governments can choose a path more like
> >Sweden's, some could have much smaller governments. At a local
> level,
> >the government could more easily reflect the culture, though I still
> >would not want sovereignty to be more important than fundamental
> human
> >rights.
>
> Yes, such as Hawaii which had decent health care until everyone
> copied it and *moved in*. It was fine when it was locally managed,
> but now, with all the mergers, it's becoming quite the mess...
Yes, bigger bureaucracies, decisions made by those not knowing the context...
> >Socialism (as in social democracy) mostly is focused on
> >making sure that those who are not good, even if a minority, cannot
> use
> >their power unjustly. And we know that at least some people are not
> >good.
>
> Well, it is certainly not alone there and our Constitution does the
> same thing.
>
> >Second, they focus on chosen social solidarity, rather than
> >forced.
>
> Interesting that it goes over well in places where *choices* have
> been rather *limited* historically. It may be a step forward for
> them, but it is a step backwards for US.
I'm not sure how limited Scandinavian choices have been. Its interesting to study
Scandinavian history. Even the Vikings were very democratic in organization, and
decentralized in power structure. That created a sense of soldarity that changed over
time but I think is still reflected in their culture. Also in Scandinavia labor and
agriculture made an alliance which gave the "left" the balance of power, while on the
European contintent agriculture tended to be conservative. The US follows the European
model for the most part, but some states, most notably Minnesota, has a farm/labor
alliance that has traditionally made it a more "liberal" state. Is it coincidence that
it is also the state with the largest Scandinavian population? How much do our
politics reflect our culture?
> >That is why communism failed, it was forced solidarity rather
> >than chosen solidarity. The difference between social democracy and
> >communism is immense, based on the fact social democrats accept
> market
> >economics and believe in individual liberty as a paramount goal.
>
> Well heck, you say the lefts paramount goal is individual liberty,
> others say thats the right's goal too. Meanwhile our individual
> liberty is being eroded before our very eyes. Someone is up to some
> (un)funny business!!!
I think people disagree on what individual liberty is, and how to get it. Its that
ethical problem again: when are my choices an unjust limit on your choices? When can
you, exercising your free will, justly act in a way that limits the choices of someone
else? That is the question politics boils down to, I think. BUT...
> I think alot of these guys are making it up as they go along. They
> nationalize then they privitize...wassup wit dat?
...most politicians get lost in the personal power struggle and forget these higher
ideals. That is the problem, and we gotta figure out a way to hold them accountable.
I think they privatize after nationalizing just because nationalizing didn't work. The
trouble is, they control the process and tend to come out on top (or their friends
do). Politics would be fine if it wasn't for all the politicians. :)
(Or, to borrow from an old Bloom County strip...Opus: "What is a statesman?" Milo: "A
statesman is a dead politician." Opus: "Oh, we definitely need more statesmen!")
Still, not all politicians are corrupt, but the game tends to get corrupt the way its
played, especially at the national level.
> >> Since leaving the corp. I have let my hair grow. There is one
> client
> >> who hates it but has no choice but to hire me for certain
> specialized
> >> jobs. It is amazing how much different I am treated due to
> >> *appearance*. That is not PC. I lose money because of this. I used
> to
> >> do lots of work for these guys.
>
> >OK, but even your example shows that PC isn't necessarily liberal.
> When
> >a corporate exec hates short hair, that's usually seen as
> >"conservative."
>
> Yes, but it is expected of a conservative. This woman, on the other
> hand, seems a hypocrite. Furthermore, while corporations were
> traditionally a bastion of conservatism, that is certainly no longer
> the case.
Like the politicians, they get into the power game and lose their ethical sense, I
think. A book by Lloyd Etheredge looked at American decision makers and said that
since we see government as the most powerful force in society, people tend to get drawn
to government who are "hard ball politician" personality types, people who try to
compensate for a lack of self-esteem by being able to exercise power over others.
Again, my experience in DC suggests he has a point. I suspect that's also true in many
corporate bureaucracies too.
I love that quote!!!!!!
-scott
rdr
>Picking up where I left off...
>On markets:
>>[rdr] Is it possible that the advent of the Internet makes this
concept
>> more feasible? ISTM that the control of info has empowered many of
>> these abuses of the past. BTW if below is not a textbook example I
am
>> much impressed :)
>[SE] I agree that the internet and the technology revolution is
changing
>politics, and probably will drive the nation-state and sovereignty
as we
>now understand them out of business, at least over the next century.
I imagine [the web] will dramatically change the face of politics but
this "sovereignty" issue is separate in my eyes. "Sovereignty"
involves "property rights" and is based very deeply into the soul of
cultures (*not* races). Being a natural lover of cultural variety, I
instinctually re-act to all mention of it's demise. I think
"Sovereignty" could, and should, always be retained by TheLocals. I
think free movement would ideally be allowed and that would
eventually lead to a "greying of the species", but that seems more
natural to me. What I see however, is alot of forced movement
The easiest way I see Globalism to work is to remember that it all
hinges on the "security" arrangements. What many people seem to be
forgetting, in this quest for "peace", is the very words of the
Second Amendment. "A well regulated militia, being the best security
of a free state,..."
When the Globalists want to; let everyone be armed, abolish armies,
and institute a new militia based on the simple principles discovered
by the FFs, People will start trusting them. That stands to reason. I
can think of few good reasons *not* to do this and *many* reasons to.
History repeats itself when people no longer recognize Wisdom.
>But will an unregulated free market be able to work? I'm not going
to
>say that will never happen, but I don't forsee it soon because the
>technology is still centralized in the industrialized West, and in
the
>third world that difference can lead to increased rather than
decreased
>exploitation.
Such things take time, I figure I won't live to see that day but
hell, if it worked, it sure would be nice. So, I feel I might as well
work towards that, especially when the other choices are so
authoritarian. Futhermore, much of the change seems contrived and
forced so I guess, in a way, I am a conservative. ISTM that in the
hurry for appearances of equality, we don't raise up the exploited as
much as bring down the free. Some have said that The (Un)Civil War
did not free the blacks but rather enslaved the rest of US. There is
a truth in that statement that I think we should be aware of, so as
to not make the same mistake again.
>Second, markets are amoral. They simply communicate
>demand via price, creating an efficient system of allowing buyers
and
>sellers to communicate wants and needs and know what they should do.
Not necessarily true, many consumers make buying choices with
consideration of ethics. I know many people who continue to shop the
Mom&Pops and care little about price and alot about service. This
service they seek is usually another example of (agreeable) ethics.
Boycotts and Sanctions are other vivid examples of when "ethics"
enters the market. ISTM that a market loses touch with reality in
proportion to it's size. A classic example would be the hometown
Doctor of yesteryear vs, the HMO of today. Morality used to be valued
much more.
>That's why markets are essential for the any economically active
>society. But what kind of regulations need to be in place and how
they
>should operate, that's a tough issue. At the very least I think
that
>one has to look at the facts -- disparities in incomes, unequal
>opportunities for people born in different situations, many being
very
>wealthy on speculation while others toil for barely enough to feed a
>family, and I have to say that some kind of regulation and
>redistribution is necessary.
The only kind of regulation and redistribution I think is necessary
is that of FedGov power. By allowing The States to decide these
tricky issues on their own (sovereignty) we would see solutions
tailored more to the needs and desires of the residents. Furthermore
the variety of solutions should in turn foster even more creative
solutions. In a perfect world, disparity of income should be directly
related to diversity of work ethics.
Concerning opportunity, I feel in a free society wealth would
naturally redistribute. An ambitous family might gain a fortune but
as the fortune gets older the heirs tend to lose this ambition and
some other family rises to the top. The biggest problem I see in our
country is that we have not been free (in a constitutional context)
in quite a while so we really don't know what the true potential of
the ghetto dwellers is.
>NOT to the extent that the rich simply
>give to the poor, but that efforts are made to "help the poor help
>themselves" with opportunity creation the major goal (esp.
education).
I think if the rich *really* wanted to help the poor the would _just
give_ the money to the poor. (Perhaps with the stipulation that it be
used to fund a community school where the parents maintain control of
curriculem etc.)
>I also agree the current system is over bureaucratized, and I relate
to
>anger
>about its inefficiency and cost. I just don't think the answer is
to
>dump the programs and let the poor have to scratch and claw against
odds
>(not saying this is what you want, but some make that kind of
argument),
>rather I think we need to creatively address the problem, and I see
some
>kind of decentralization as a necessary first step. So far, the
>mainstream "left" sees that as a dangerous and risky venture, but
the
>right doesn't take it seriously either (and I don't really trust how
>they would do it). But this is something I think time will
ultimately
>force us to do, people will demand more local and individual power,
and
>the technologies will give them the tools to achieve it. State
>governments will ultimately have to recognize that the times are
>changing.
Yes, I agree. I would be happy with just about any speed as long as
it was towards freedom rather than authoritarianism.
[...slavery in prostitution...]
>>
>> In the absence of religion you make a good point. The subject
being
>> "the oldest profession in the world" makes this a complicated
topic
>> and wonder that the issue is actually "slavery" which is pretty
much
>> deplorable across the board.
>
>The fact is that these women are kidnapped and beaten (I personally
have
>no problem with people who want to choose prostitution as a
profession.
>I'd legalize it if I were dictator), and then forced into this. The
>stories are heart wrenching. I don't see what religion has to do
with
>this, certainly religions aren't able to stop this. And the market
>drives it. I think ethics is a better word than religion, but even
>then, an absence of ethics certainly exists, but since markets are
>amoral, ethics doesn't matter to the way demand is communicated.
A religion that involves charity and reverence for life stands in
opposition to such [evil]. Also, I have a brother that is a
missionary in Thailand, while I will agree that religion has not
stopped it, they do fight it. So I guess the question is which entity
is better suited to fight [evil]? I would have to weigh in on the
side of the religious, as the individuals involved are traditionally
less susceptible to corruption.
>I don't see any way to combat this without real intervention in the
>market, with the development of stable rule of law.
Thailands sex market suffers from the negative publicity of it's
slave trade. This is ethics affecting the market. What is needed is
wide distribution of information. Then the essential goodness of man
is given a chance to minimize and possibly eliminate the problem.
>> Again, I must note an anti-liberal rejection of the common
goodness
>> of man.
>I personally (and, it has been accused, naively) believe humans are
>basically good. But a lot of people behave very badly in different
>situations. All of us do bad things at one time or another, but
some
>people seem to have pathologies where they have no sense of empathy,
and
>can rape, murder, torture, terrorize without regret (or they hide
their
>regret if they feel it). Its hard for me to accept that, I cannot
>empathize with that kind of thinking. But it is real. How do we
deal
>with that? How do we protect innocents from such people while still
>maintaining a world with freedom and not creating such a powerful
>government that the cure is worse than the disease?
What you are decribing is the freedom/risk ratio. I think the
original intent of our founders gave US a great start, and
personally, I am not against the death-penalty for remorseless and
murderous socio-paths.
>I don't know the answers. And I'm sure my opinions on these issues
five
>years from now will be different than now, in terms of what
government
>can or cannot do. But the ethical principles and quandries remain
>rather constant.
Your honesty is refreshing and don't sell yourself short. You've
already stated some decent solution material.
Well said. And I think we agree that decentralization is the right
direction. I think as we regain our soveriegnty we will start to see
diversification of "parties", away from the old 2 party system and
more tailored to the local needs and desires. Prior to the (un)Civil
War the parties of America were much more dynamic.
>> Slavery is another one of those old and complicated topics. While
war
>> is an ugly thing it is not the ugliest (Churchill?). I feel the
>> biggest danger of revolution is Ignorance trading one form of
slavery
>> for another.
>Yes.
>-snip-
>
[...]
>> >legitimate. Let's avoid the mistake Karl Marx made in thinking
>> >everything is economics!
>> I say lets make *none* of the mistakes Marx made <g> and wonder
that
>> this statement hints at the Socialism hidden in Liberalism(sic)
>I think that ideological labels are probably are more deceptive than
>helpful. Marxism is very different from Social Democracy, and
>liberalism has various forms.
Yes, and to me the same holds true for "parties". People tend to
gather around "Old Glory" for nostalgias sake and neglect to notice
when the "bars" have been reversed.
>I guess I end up relating to the Billy
>Joel song "shades of grey" -- different arguments have valid points,
and
>clear obvious answers don't seem to exist, we have to balance,
>compromise, etc. Or as another rocker, Don Henley, noted in his last
>CD: "An angry man can only get so far, until he reconciles the way
he
>thinks things ought to be, with the way they are."
Yes.
>Still, step by step, idea by idea, things change, and since I do
believe
>people are essentially good, I'm pretty sure we'll over the millenia
end
>up creating a system that is just and free...it just might take a
lot of
>stumbling and learning from mistakes to get there.
>ciao, scott
That's the idea :)
>> Aloha
>> rdr
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Beware the fury of the patient man." John Dryden
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
sigAd follows
Scott Erb
rdr wrote:
>
> Scott Erb wrote in message <39A99A3B...@maine.edu>...
Continuing...
> A religion that involves charity and reverence for life stands in
> opposition to such [evil]. Also, I have a brother that is a
> missionary in Thailand, while I will agree that religion has not
> stopped it, they do fight it. So I guess the question is which entity
> is better suited to fight [evil]? I would have to weigh in on the
> side of the religious, as the individuals involved are traditionally
> less susceptible to corruption.
Religions can do a lot of good, but also they can be an excuse for a lot
of evil too. The reason is that religion is, well, like markets to the
extent that it is as evil or as good as the ethics of the humans who act
in the name of that religion. I have to admit that despite the fact my
Granddad was the last German Lutheran Minister to give German sermons in
South Dakota, a very religious man, I'm skeptical of organized religion,
and the apparent 'brain washing' that takes place concerning the
mythology. ON THE OTHER HAND, perhaps because of my upbringing, I agree
almost completely with Christian ethics (or Judeo-Christian ethics, and
really Muslim ethics are similar, fundamentalists of any religion can
twist them). Heck, even Hindu and Buddhist ethics aren't that much
different.
To me that suggests there are fundamental ethical truths that religions
all get a glimpse of. To the extent they promote those ethics, great.
But if they get too caught up in their particular story or mythology,
they can be counterproductive.
> Thailands sex market suffers from the negative publicity of it's
> slave trade. This is ethics affecting the market. What is needed is
> wide distribution of information. Then the essential goodness of man
> is given a chance to minimize and possibly eliminate the problem.
I have to agree on this. I do think local laws to help these women can
make a difference. Education and making this known might create
pressure in countries with the problems to choose to change.
> What you are decribing is the freedom/risk ratio. I think the
> original intent of our founders gave US a great start, and
> personally, I am not against the death-penalty for remorseless and
> murderous socio-paths.
But you know, humans are fallable, so ultimately I figure that respect
for life means that given the chance a mistake may have been made, I
don't want to put another human to death. I don't want to lower myself
to the level of the socio-path...though I don't want to let the
sociopath run free either!
> >I don't know the answers. And I'm sure my opinions on these issues
> five
> >years from now will be different than now, in terms of what
> government
> >can or cannot do. But the ethical principles and quandries remain
> >rather constant.
>
> Your honesty is refreshing and don't sell yourself short. You've
> already stated some decent solution material.
Ultimately the solutions can't be forced on people, people have to
choose to act ethically in order to get a working free society. That's
a long term project, I think!
-snip-
> Well said. And I think we agree that decentralization is the right
> direction. I think as we regain our soveriegnty we will start to see
> diversification of "parties", away from the old 2 party system and
> more tailored to the local needs and desires. Prior to the (un)Civil
> War the parties of America were much more dynamic.
Our electoral system tends to push us to two parties, though regional
parties could emerge as well. I doubt America will decentralize until
we stop trying to play such a huge world role. I hear on the news we're
planning more air strikes against Iraq if they attack the Kurds. That's
not only playing with fire, but maintaining a such an "imperialist"
policy really helps centralize power domestically. I look back to the
turn of the century when politicians (including some from Maine) fought
against America's policy of imperialism in the South Pacific and Mexico,
arguing that we were threatening our ideals of a democratic republic by
becoming like the world powers of Europe. The "anti-imperialists" lost,
and I think that was a blow to the type of Republic we could have.
> Yes, and to me the same holds true for "parties". People tend to
> gather around "Old Glory" for nostalgias sake and neglect to notice
> when the "bars" have been reversed.
Thanks again for the interesting ideas!
ciao, scott
Scott Erb
rdr wrote:
>
> Scott Erb wrote in message <39A99A3B...@maine.edu>...
> I imagine [the web] will dramatically change the face of politics but
> this "sovereignty" issue is separate in my eyes. "Sovereignty"
> involves "property rights" and is based very deeply into the soul of
> cultures (*not* races).
Is it sovereignty itself, or something more fundamental? I ask this
because sovereignty as a concept for nation-states is rather recent. I
think Hugo Grotius (whom you quoted in a sig file awhile back) is the
first one who used the term as defining the rights of nation-states in
international law, and it was first made a principle of the
international system with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. Perhaps
legal sovereignty could change to something else (in some ways it
already has) without endangering the fundamental trait of cultures you
talk about. But I interjected, so back to your words...
> Being a natural lover of cultural variety, I
> instinctually re-act to all mention of it's demise. I think
> "Sovereignty" could, and should, always be retained by TheLocals. I
> think free movement would ideally be allowed and that would
> eventually lead to a "greying of the species", but that seems more
> natural to me. What I see however, is alot of forced movement
No real disagreement. I'm not sure what you mean by forced movements
though. I prefer to see it as power being vested as close to the
individual as possible, moving "up the ladder" on issues where it is
pragmatically necessary. Trade disputes might need a supranational
authority, as might some kind of enforcement of human rights (by
sanctions or something). Monetary policy and some other issues that
cross borders (environment, population, etc.) may also need cooperative
authority above the local level.
> The easiest way I see Globalism to work is to remember that it all
> hinges on the "security" arrangements. What many people seem to be
> forgetting, in this quest for "peace", is the very words of the
> Second Amendment. "A well regulated militia, being the best security
> of a free state,..."
Well, thats been the general view of nation-states -- peace through
strength and all that. But I think that economic links between cultures
and peoples will make the idea of war simply irrational. Sure, you have
to be able to defend against irrational folk whow ill still have the
idea, but organized warfare is organized mass murder, and sooner or
later I think people are going to reject it. (That's one reason I can
agree with you on local control and more local power -- smaller armies
are less likely to engage in horrid wars than large powerful armies).
> When the Globalists want to; let everyone be armed, abolish armies,
> and institute a new militia based on the simple principles discovered
> by the FFs, People will start trusting them. That stands to reason. I
> can think of few good reasons *not* to do this and *many* reasons to.
> History repeats itself when people no longer recognize Wisdom.
OK, though I think even gun laws have to be local, the 2nd amendment
can't be applied to other countries, just as we don't want them to apply
their standards to us. Abolishing armies and having smaller militias is
potentially a good step, but there is the danger these militias could
become like mafia gangs and start growing and becoming the same kind of
armies.
> Such things take time, I figure I won't live to see that day but
> hell, if it worked, it sure would be nice.
I always say that we need to keep perspective: the human race has 6000
years of recorded history, we probably have HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS years
more. We're still in the barbaric era, many will see this as savage as
we now see primative cave men. That doesn't give much comfort when we
see injustice in the here and now, but time doesn't rush for our whims.
I figure our ideas and acts make small movements, and just like drops of
water can breakdown rock over time, so can the sum of those acts.
> So, I feel I might as well
> work towards that, especially when the other choices are so
> authoritarian. Futhermore, much of the change seems contrived and
> forced so I guess, in a way, I am a conservative. ISTM that in the
> hurry for appearances of equality, we don't raise up the exploited as
> much as bring down the free. Some have said that The (Un)Civil War
> did not free the blacks but rather enslaved the rest of US. There is
> a truth in that statement that I think we should be aware of, so as
> to not make the same mistake again.
Its tricky though. CNN had a report that the wealthiest 1% had income
growth of near 50% in the last decade, while the rest were at about 4%.
If this is all a result of hard work and reward for risk, that's one
thing. But if its the game being stacked in favor of others, that's
different. I don't think equality should be the goal, but some
semblance of equal opportunity. Practically, I don't think big
disparities in wealth are stable in the long run, especially now where
people have more power to react.
> Not necessarily true, many consumers make buying choices with
> consideration of ethics.
True. But the markets aren't ethical or unethical, the consumers are.
Just like any tool or mechanism, markets can be used ethically and
unethically. If you had an ethical society, markets could work fine.
Of course, that begs the question on what an ethical society would look
like!
>I know many people who continue to shop the
> Mom&Pops and care little about price and alot about service. This
> service they seek is usually another example of (agreeable) ethics.
> Boycotts and Sanctions are other vivid examples of when "ethics"
> enters the market. ISTM that a market loses touch with reality in
> proportion to it's size. A classic example would be the hometown
> Doctor of yesteryear vs, the HMO of today. Morality used to be valued
> much more.
That is economic logic and self-interest in action. I think you touch
on a weakness of pure capitalism. A lot of our "ethical" interests and
preferences aren't reflected in our choices. I admit to that. I'll
shop at Walmart or the big grocery store because of convenience. I
don't buy CDs from Walmart because they refused to carry one of my
favorite artists because they didn't like one of her songs, but that's a
rather impotent boycott I suspect. The bottom line though is really an
insight that most seem to miss out on: its not so much the system that
is good or bad, but the choices of the people in it. If you have a
society of ethical people, then most problems would disappear.
> The only kind of regulation and redistribution I think is necessary
> is that of FedGov power. By allowing The States to decide these
> tricky issues on their own (sovereignty) we would see solutions
> tailored more to the needs and desires of the residents. Furthermore
> the variety of solutions should in turn foster even more creative
> solutions. In a perfect world, disparity of income should be directly
> related to diversity of work ethics.
I think (and I'm in a minority view on this) that the future is to have
smaller units exercise more power: state or regional/local government.
I think ultimately the technology revolution empowers smaller units and
makes big centralized bureaucracies potentially obsolete. There are a
lot of people who claim the opposite, that the internet links groups and
allows more central organization. Both tendancies exist. Ultimately I
suspect people will demand more local power.
> Concerning opportunity, I feel in a free society wealth would
> naturally redistribute.
But I don't think you really have a free society unless you have an
ethical society. Otherwise, powerful groups and people will use their
power to their own advantage, with or without government.
>An ambitous family might gain a fortune but
> as the fortune gets older the heirs tend to lose this ambition and
> some other family rises to the top. The biggest problem I see in our
Perhaps, but usually wealth can buy and hold position, and create
structural inequities: different classes of people. One doesn't have to
be a Marxist to recognize that there are real differences between social
classes, and a lot has to do with their role in society (status) and
that often relates to wealth.
> country is that we have not been free (in a constitutional context)
> in quite a while so we really don't know what the true potential of
> the ghetto dwellers is.
I think the real problem is we haven't been truly ethical. And freedom
without ethics could simply be freedom for the powerful or ruthless to
try to reign. But again, this begs the question of what ethical
behavior is exactly, and how best to try to promote it. My view is that
education, discussion and taking ethical questions seriously is how to
do that. As a society, we have a long way to go.
> I think if the rich *really* wanted to help the poor the would _just
> give_ the money to the poor. (Perhaps with the stipulation that it be
> used to fund a community school where the parents maintain control of
> curriculem etc.)
Yeah, money for people to help themselves is the most useful. Just
giving money doesn't always do much (though when a begger asks me for
money so he can get a beer, I usually give him a couple bucks because he
was honest!)
> Yes, I agree. I would be happy with just about any speed as long as
> it was towards freedom rather than authoritarianism.
Societies last to the extent their rules and laws reflect cultural
choices, and are not enforced. Authoritarianism is naturally less
stable than a society built on freedom. The problem is when societies
do not have a culture that supports ethical treatment of others, and
thus absence of government becomes license for evil. But yes, the
bottom line: freedom is a fundamental human need.
rest answerd in the next post!
cheers, scott
Scott Erb
newsgroup, so I'll send it again -- I apologize if you've already seen
it and answered it)
Hi again, thanks for another good, thought provoking post.
rdr wrote:
>
> Scott Erb wrote in message <39A99A3B...@maine.edu>...
> I imagine [the web] will dramatically change the face of politics but
> this "sovereignty" issue is separate in my eyes. "Sovereignty"
> involves "property rights" and is based very deeply into the soul of
> cultures (*not* races).
Is it sovereignty itself, or something more fundamental? I ask this
because sovereignty as a concept for nation-states is rather recent. I
think Hugo Grotius (whom you quoted in a sig file awhile back) is the
first one who used the term as defining the rights of nation-states in
international law, and it was first made a principle of the
international system with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. Perhaps
legal sovereignty could change to something else (in some ways it
already has) without endangering the fundamental trait of cultures you
talk about. But I interjected, so back to your words...
> Being a natural lover of cultural variety, I
> instinctually re-act to all mention of it's demise. I think
> "Sovereignty" could, and should, always be retained by TheLocals. I
> think free movement would ideally be allowed and that would
> eventually lead to a "greying of the species", but that seems more
> natural to me. What I see however, is alot of forced movement
No real disagreement. I'm not sure what you mean by forced movements
though. I prefer to see it as power being vested as close to the
individual as possible, moving "up the ladder" on issues where it is
pragmatically necessary. Trade disputes might need a supranational
authority, as might some kind of enforcement of human rights (by
sanctions or something). Monetary policy and some other issues that
cross borders (environment, population, etc.) may also need cooperative
authority above the local level.
> The easiest way I see Globalism to work is to remember that it all
> hinges on the "security" arrangements. What many people seem to be
> forgetting, in this quest for "peace", is the very words of the
> Second Amendment. "A well regulated militia, being the best security
> of a free state,..."
Well, thats been the general view of nation-states -- peace through
strength and all that. But I think that economic links between cultures
and peoples will make the idea of war simply irrational. Sure, you have
to be able to defend against irrational folk whow ill still have the
idea, but organized warfare is organized mass murder, and sooner or
later I think people are going to reject it. (That's one reason I can
agree with you on local control and more local power -- smaller armies
are less likely to engage in horrid wars than large powerful armies).
> When the Globalists want to; let everyone be armed, abolish armies,
> and institute a new militia based on the simple principles discovered
> by the FFs, People will start trusting them. That stands to reason. I
> can think of few good reasons *not* to do this and *many* reasons to.
> History repeats itself when people no longer recognize Wisdom.
OK, though I think even gun laws have to be local, the 2nd amendment
can't be applied to other countries, just as we don't want them to apply
their standards to us. Abolishing armies and having smaller militias is
potentially a good step, but there is the danger these militias could
become like mafia gangs and start growing and becoming the same kind of
armies.
> Such things take time, I figure I won't live to see that day but
> hell, if it worked, it sure would be nice.
I always say that we need to keep perspective: the human race has 6000
years of recorded history, we probably have HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS years
more. We're still in the barbaric era, many will see this as savage as
we now see primative cave men. That doesn't give much comfort when we
see injustice in the here and now, but time doesn't rush for our whims.
I figure our ideas and acts make small movements, and just like drops of
water can breakdown rock over time, so can the sum of those acts.
> So, I feel I might as well
> work towards that, especially when the other choices are so
> authoritarian. Futhermore, much of the change seems contrived and
> forced so I guess, in a way, I am a conservative. ISTM that in the
> hurry for appearances of equality, we don't raise up the exploited as
> much as bring down the free. Some have said that The (Un)Civil War
> did not free the blacks but rather enslaved the rest of US. There is
> a truth in that statement that I think we should be aware of, so as
> to not make the same mistake again.
Its tricky though. CNN had a report that the wealthiest 1% had income
growth of near 50% in the last decade, while the rest were at about 4%.
If this is all a result of hard work and reward for risk, that's one
thing. But if its the game being stacked in favor of others, that's
different. I don't think equality should be the goal, but some
semblance of equal opportunity. Practically, I don't think big
disparities in wealth are stable in the long run, especially now where
people have more power to react.
> Not necessarily true, many consumers make buying choices with
> consideration of ethics.
True. But the markets aren't ethical or unethical, the consumers are.
Just like any tool or mechanism, markets can be used ethically and
unethically. If you had an ethical society, markets could work fine.
Of course, that begs the question on what an ethical society would look
like!
>I know many people who continue to shop the
> Mom&Pops and care little about price and alot about service. This
> service they seek is usually another example of (agreeable) ethics.
> Boycotts and Sanctions are other vivid examples of when "ethics"
> enters the market. ISTM that a market loses touch with reality in
> proportion to it's size. A classic example would be the hometown
> Doctor of yesteryear vs, the HMO of today. Morality used to be valued
> much more.
That is economic logic and self-interest in action. I think you touch
on a weakness of pure capitalism. A lot of our "ethical" interests and
preferences aren't reflected in our choices. I admit to that. I'll
shop at Walmart or the big grocery store because of convenience. I
don't buy CDs from Walmart because they refused to carry one of my
favorite artists because they didn't like one of her songs, but that's a
rather impotent boycott I suspect. The bottom line though is really an
insight that most seem to miss out on: its not so much the system that
is good or bad, but the choices of the people in it. If you have a
society of ethical people, then most problems would disappear.
> The only kind of regulation and redistribution I think is necessary
> is that of FedGov power. By allowing The States to decide these
> tricky issues on their own (sovereignty) we would see solutions
> tailored more to the needs and desires of the residents. Furthermore
> the variety of solutions should in turn foster even more creative
> solutions. In a perfect world, disparity of income should be directly
> related to diversity of work ethics.
I think (and I'm in a minority view on this) that the future is to have
smaller units exercise more power: state or regional/local government.
I think ultimately the technology revolution empowers smaller units and
makes big centralized bureaucracies potentially obsolete. There are a
lot of people who claim the opposite, that the internet links groups and
allows more central organization. Both tendancies exist. Ultimately I
suspect people will demand more local power.
> Concerning opportunity, I feel in a free society wealth would
> naturally redistribute.
But I don't think you really have a free society unless you have an
ethical society. Otherwise, powerful groups and people will use their
power to their own advantage, with or without government.
>An ambitous family might gain a fortune but
> as the fortune gets older the heirs tend to lose this ambition and
> some other family rises to the top. The biggest problem I see in our
Perhaps, but usually wealth can buy and hold position, and create
structural inequities: different classes of people. One doesn't have to
be a Marxist to recognize that there are real differences between social
classes, and a lot has to do with their role in society (status) and
that often relates to wealth.
> country is that we have not been free (in a constitutional context)
> in quite a while so we really don't know what the true potential of
> the ghetto dwellers is.
I think the real problem is we haven't been truly ethical. And freedom
without ethics could simply be freedom for the powerful or ruthless to
try to reign. But again, this begs the question of what ethical
behavior is exactly, and how best to try to promote it. My view is that
education, discussion and taking ethical questions seriously is how to
do that. As a society, we have a long way to go.
> I think if the rich *really* wanted to help the poor the would _just
> give_ the money to the poor. (Perhaps with the stipulation that it be
> used to fund a community school where the parents maintain control of
> curriculem etc.)
Yeah, money for people to help themselves is the most useful. Just
giving money doesn't always do much (though when a begger asks me for
money so he can get a beer, I usually give him a couple bucks because he
was honest!)
> Yes, I agree. I would be happy with just about any speed as long as
> it was towards freedom rather than authoritarianism.
Societies last to the extent their rules and laws reflect cultural
rdr
>(I think I sent this, but I haven't seen it come up yet in the
>newsgroup, so I'll send it again -- I apologize if you've already
>seen it and answered it)
It seems posts are missing all over and there are lottsa loose ends.
Also, I've gotten a bit behind regardless. As soon as I get the
chance I'm going to try to put a backsplice on this yarn and tidy it
up a bit.
>Hi again, thanks for another good, thought provoking post.
<blush>
>rdr wrote:
>> Scott Erb wrote in message <39A99A3B...@maine.edu>...
>> I imagine [the web] will dramatically change the face of politics
but
>> this "sovereignty" issue is separate in my eyes. "Sovereignty"
>> involves "property rights" and is based very deeply into the soul
of
>> cultures (*not* races).
>Is it sovereignty itself, or something more fundamental? I ask this
>because sovereignty as a concept for nation-states is rather recent.
I
>think Hugo Grotius (whom you quoted in a sig file awhile back) is
the
>first one who used the term as defining the rights of nation-states
in
>international law, and it was first made a principle of the
>international system with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. Perhaps
>legal sovereignty could change to something else (in some ways it
>already has) without endangering the fundamental trait of cultures
you
>talk about. But I interjected, so back to your words...
Without studying the roots, I see "Sovereignty" as being, 'the king
of ones castle'. This concept/desire goes back to the earlest roots
of man. The nation/state aspect is a shallow film on a much deeper
pool, easily distorted with the tiniest of pebbles. IM(H)O, People
should not use the word lightly. It goes back to that quote about the
primary "ruler" of our lives. No matter appearances, man retains his
sovereignty and is free to die in the quest of desire. That said,
needs must be we begin to compromise this sovereignty *if* we wish to
enter into society. Mr. Grotius seemed to have been talking about
this _responsibility_ and it's priorities. The first responsibility
is to ones self and demands the greatest surrender, from there we
have our household, our community, our world, our universe, each
creating ethical choices in diminishing number. For surely the
ethical choices involved in deciding on a school for ones child is
deeper than ones ethical choice's involved in who to vote for.
Indeed, it is the experience of the school decision which give life
to the larger question.
Now it seems to me that many try to tell people that this truth is
the other way around. That our first and largest surrender should be
to the universe (which as silly as expecting a pre-contact
Amazonian to be making ethical choices based on my needs); our second
the world, etc... I just don't see how that is possible and if you
think about it, it is just a form of avoiding responsibility. Child's
Play.
>> Being a natural lover of cultural variety, I
>> instinctually re-act to all mention of it's demise. I think
>> "Sovereignty" could, and should, always be retained by TheLocals.
I
>> think free movement would ideally be allowed and that would
>> eventually lead to a "greying of the species", but that seems more
>> natural to me. What I see however, is alot of forced movement
>No real disagreement. I'm not sure what you mean by forced
movements
>though.
One of the more subtle examples is the way one doesn't advance in
large Corps unless one is ready to move all around the place.
Immigration/Refugee policies sometimes make me wonder also.
>I prefer to see it as power being vested as close to the
>individual as possible, moving "up the ladder" on issues where it is
>pragmatically necessary. Trade disputes might need a supranational
>authority, as might some kind of enforcement of human rights (by
>sanctions or something). Monetary policy and some other issues that
>cross borders (environment, population, etc.) may also need
cooperative
>authority above the local level.
I agree with most of this but would like to clarify the "human
rights" bit. Gov't "mandated" sanctions are too open to abuse. China
is quite the slave state yet we grant the trade rights due to some
proverbial "economic need". If more Americans knew what really goes
on in some of these places FedGov is in bed with, the outcry would be
enormous. Unfortunately, many seem afraid to look, for fear of
finding
their castles built of sand, and blood.
>> The easiest way I see Globalism to work is to remember that it all
>> hinges on the "security" arrangements. What many people seem to be
>> forgetting, in this quest for "peace", is the very words of the
>> Second Amendment. "A well regulated militia, being the best
security
>> of a free state,..."
<Homer>
(DOH!) should read "being necessary to the security of a free state"
</Homer>
>Well, thats been the general view of nation-states -- peace through
>strength and all that. But I think that economic links between
cultures
>and peoples will make the idea of war simply irrational. Sure, you
have
>to be able to defend against irrational folk whow ill still have the
>idea, but organized warfare is organized mass murder, and sooner or
>later I think people are going to reject it. (That's one reason I
can
>agree with you on local control and more local power -- smaller
armies
>are less likely to engage in horrid wars than large powerful
armies).
I agree 110% and look forward to the day that War finally is rejected
among us and we can concentrate on going out and finding some *other*
cultures to play with :)
>> When the Globalists want to; let everyone be armed, abolish
armies,
>> and institute a new militia based on the simple principles
discovered
>> by the FFs, People will start trusting them. That stands to
reason. I
>> can think of few good reasons *not* to do this and *many* reasons
to.
>> History repeats itself when people no longer recognize Wisdom.
>OK, though I think even gun laws have to be local, the 2nd amendment
>can't be applied to other countries, just as we don't want them to
apply
>their standards to us. Abolishing armies and having smaller
militias is
>potentially a good step, but there is the danger these militias
could
>become like mafia gangs and start growing and becoming the same kind
of
>armies.
It could be said of many of the larger armies of today are controlled
by mafia like gangs. As you state, smaller units, smaller problems.
With open communication if one community gets out of line, the victim
need only contact the surrounding communities and hope that human
decency prevails. This, of course, could spread outward to involve
the whole world but, if so, it is dealing with a much deeper problem
which obviously needs addressing.
I muse a Global BoR, the 2nd stating; Because a well regulated
militia
is the best security of a free people, the free person's right to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
>I always say that we need to keep perspective: the human race has
6000
>years of recorded history, we probably have HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS
years
>more. We're still in the barbaric era, many will see this as savage
as
>we now see primative cave men. That doesn't give much comfort when
we
>see injustice in the here and now, but time doesn't rush for our
whims.
>I figure our ideas and acts make small movements, and just like
drops of
>water can breakdown rock over time, so can the sum of those acts.
Yup.
>> So, I feel I might as well
>> work towards that, especially when the other choices are so
>> authoritarian. Futhermore, much of the change seems contrived and
>> forced so I guess, in a way, I am a conservative. ISTM that in the
>> hurry for appearances of equality, we don't raise up the exploited
as
>> much as bring down the free. Some have said that The (Un)Civil War
>> did not free the blacks but rather enslaved the rest of US. There
is
>> a truth in that statement that I think we should be aware of, so
as
>> to not make the same mistake again.
>Its tricky though. CNN had a report that the wealthiest 1% had
income
>growth of near 50% in the last decade, while the rest were at about
4%.
>If this is all a result of hard work and reward for risk, that's one
>thing. But if its the game being stacked in favor of others, that's
>different. I don't think equality should be the goal, but some
>semblance of equal opportunity. Practically, I don't think big
>disparities in wealth are stable in the long run, especially now
where
>people have more power to react.
Interesting that this has happened while Liberals(sic) have been in
power. I thought their focus was on narrowing the gap? Funny they are
so proud to claim responsibility...
>> Not necessarily true, many consumers make buying choices with
>> consideration of ethics.
>True. But the markets aren't ethical or unethical, the consumers
are.
>Just like any tool or mechanism, markets can be used ethically and
>unethically. If you had an ethical society, markets could work
fine.
>Of course, that begs the question on what an ethical society would
look
>like!
Yes, and I assume you see the parallels <g>, I do wonder that the
"market" is more than just it's housing (for a market with no
activity has little value, while other tools are quite valuable even
if never used.)
Exactly, and that is why your selective boycott is so important. It
truly is a drop of liquid added to the stream cutting the canyons of
our history. And unlike the blood, sweat, and tears which make up the
bulk of the river, drops of a simple, ethical nature tend to increase
clarity while neutralizing inordinate amounts of salinity.
>> The only kind of regulation and redistribution I think is
necessary
>> is that of FedGov power. By allowing The States to decide these
>> tricky issues on their own (sovereignty) we would see solutions
>> tailored more to the needs and desires of the residents.
Furthermore
>> the variety of solutions should in turn foster even more creative
>> solutions. In a perfect world, disparity of income should be
directly
>> related to diversity of work ethics.
>I think (and I'm in a minority view on this) that the future is to
have
>smaller units exercise more power: state or regional/local
government.
>I think ultimately the technology revolution empowers smaller units
and
>makes big centralized bureaucracies potentially obsolete. There are
a
>lot of people who claim the opposite, that the internet links groups
and
>allows more central organization. Both tendancies exist. Ultimately
I
>suspect people will demand more local power.
There is a new study out in the Harvard Business Review which
challenges many of the widely held views on globalization and in
essence seems to be coming to the conclusion that we are discussing
here. Bigger does *not* mean better, and quite often means worse.
ATT's problems are another indicator of the centralized dinosaurs. I
think as these monsters realize they cannot control themselves, and
are becoming their own worst enemy, they will [abdicate]. <The
Nationalization/Privatization Circle raises it's head>
>> Concerning opportunity, I feel in a free society wealth would
>> naturally redistribute.
>But I don't think you really have a free society unless you have an
>ethical society. Otherwise, powerful groups and people will use
their
>power to their own advantage, with or without government.
Yes, Free Society is a bit of a pipe-dream and ethics is of paramount
importance. While business has never been known to cater much to
ethics, gov't used to be a counter. But now that Gov't has become the
business...?
>>An ambitous family might gain a fortune but
>> as the fortune gets older the heirs tend to lose this ambition and
>> some other family rises to the top. The biggest problem I see in
our
>Perhaps, but usually wealth can buy and hold position, and create
>structural inequities: different classes of people. One doesn't
have to
>be a Marxist to recognize that there are real differences between
social
>classes, and a lot has to do with their role in society (status) and
>that often relates to wealth.
Yes, but wasn't that because wealth bought access and controlled
information? I don't think it is a coincidence that the concept of
Liberty and Justice for All showed such dramatic growth after
Gutenberg developed the press. Again, these things take time.
Please consider; What is a university, if not a library, where (both
freshmen and senior) scholars debate interpretations? Now, what is
the Internet?
In the old days a Degree was proof that the individual had access to
this "library". Because of this advantage one was more likely to land
in a 'better' position, but it was never guaranteed. Many people with
Degrees end up on skid row, and, more importantly, many with-out rise
to "success". I think this equalization has been silently encroaching
upon "class" society since Gutenberg first played with his blocks. I
, also, wonder that the internet may finally make the concept of
Degrees, _which western class distinction hinges on_, irrelevant. As
a side note, ISTM that the biggest lessons learned in "college" these
days have more to do with behavior amongst our peers than the pursuit
of Knowledge.
>> country is that we have not been free (in a constitutional
context)
>> in quite a while so we really don't know what the true potential
of
>> the ghetto dwellers is.
>I think the real problem is we haven't been truly ethical. And
freedom
>without ethics could simply be freedom for the powerful or ruthless
to
>try to reign. But again, this begs the question of what ethical
>behavior is exactly, and how best to try to promote it. My view is
that
>education, discussion and taking ethical questions seriously is how
to
>do that. As a society, we have a long way to go.
Yes, as you say education is of utmost importance. About these
ruthless types; Keeping in mind the above about western class
distinctions, I must say that due to the individuality of people we
will always have [disparity], and people with more ambition will
generally have more power. These people will attain power by seeking
out information and using it to their advantage. The Founding Fathers
figured the best way to keep these "upper [class]" types in line was
to make sure the "lower [class]" types kept the guns.
That said;
Traditionally it is religion that defines ethics which churches form
interpretations around and attempt to promote. I am becoming
increasingly convinced that the best role for gov't is the codifying
and enforcement of the ethics which the sum of religious thought has
agreed upon. Again I note that I believe many words are being twisted
in this day and age and the term, "religion" is among the foremost. I
believe true religion is Charity and Respect and that keeping those
two concepts in mind makes most ethical decisions easier.
>> I think if the rich *really* wanted to help the poor the would
_just
>> give_ the money to the poor. (Perhaps with the stipulation that it
be
>> used to fund a community school where the parents maintain control
of
>> curriculem etc.)
>Yeah, money for people to help themselves is the most useful. Just
>giving money doesn't always do much (though when a begger asks me
for
>money so he can get a beer, I usually give him a couple bucks
because he
>was honest!)
<g>
>> Yes, I agree. I would be happy with just about any speed as long
as
>> it was towards freedom rather than authoritarianism.
>Societies last to the extent their rules and laws reflect cultural
>choices, and are not enforced. Authoritarianism is naturally less
>stable than a society built on freedom. The problem is when
societies
>do not have a culture that supports ethical treatment of others, and
>thus absence of government becomes license for evil. But yes, the
>bottom line: freedom is a fundamental human need.
I don't quite understand this "absence" of gov't bit. ISTM that the
greatest evils of history have been promoted by gov'ts, not the
absence of them. Surely the Yugoslavian Atrocities attest to this.
>rest answerd in the next post!
>cheers, scott
Nostrovia(sp?:)
rdr
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"...they remember that every plan for general good life is dashed to
pieces on the wall of necessary profits" - John Steinbeck [on GI's
during WW2]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
sigAd follows
rdr
>rdr wrote:
<reformatting>
>Continuing...
rdr >> A religion that involves charity and reverence for life stands
in opposition to such [evil]. Also, I have a brother that is a
missionary in Thailand, while I will agree that religion has not
stopped it, they do fight it. So I guess the question is which entity
is better suited to fight [evil]? I would have to weigh in on the
side of the religious, as the individuals involved are traditionally
less susceptible to corruption.
SE > Religions can do a lot of good, but also they can be an excuse
for a lot of evil too. The reason is that religion is, well, like
markets to the extent that it is as evil or as good as the ethics of
the humans who act in the name of that religion. I have to admit
that despite the fact my Granddad was the last German Lutheran
Minister to give German sermons in South Dakota, a very religious
man, I'm skeptical of organized religion, and the apparent 'brain
washing' that takes place concerning the mythology. ON THE OTHER
HAND, perhaps because of my upbringing, I agree almost completely
with Christian ethics (or Judeo-Christian ethics, and really Muslim
ethics are similar, fundamentalists of any religion can twist them).
Heck, even Hindu and Buddhist ethics aren't that much different.
rdr- It stands to reason that evil will surround it's mortal enemy.
I have found that all of these branches of theology you mention have
alot to offer. I rejected Catholicism as a boy and have since read
many _old_ books. In the end I realized that the decent ones all led
to the same [place], and, (of all things), I found the Old Catholic
Bible the most compelling and intriguing of all. I figure it's
genetic <g>. I will still refer to the Analects, Vedas, etc. for
cross referencing, but have found the ol' good book pretty friggin
amazing. I feel similar to you about organized religion and there is
a bit in Isaiah (1) that absolutely rips them. "When you come to
appear before me, who has required this at your hand, to
tread my courts? Bring no more vain donations; your incense is
loathsome; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I
cannot away with; [it is] iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new
moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates: they are a trouble
unto me; I am weary to bear [them]."
In agree that Religions(sic) are dangerous but must note that
Religion has little to do with [them] anymore.
SE >To me that suggests there are fundamental ethical truths that
religions all get a glimpse of. To the extent they promote those
ethics, great. But if they get too caught up in their particular
story or mythology, they can be counterproductive.
rdr- Exactly
rdr >> Thailands sex market suffers from the negative publicity of
it's slave trade. This is ethics affecting the market. What is needed
is wide distribution of information. Then the essential goodness of
man is given a chance to minimize and possibly eliminate the problem.
SE > I have to agree on this. I do think local laws to help these
women can make a difference. Education and making this known might
create pressure in countries with the problems to choose to change.
rdr- See Above
rdr >> What you are decribing is the freedom/risk ratio. I think the
original intent of our founders gave US a great start, and
personally, I am not against the death-penalty for remorseless and
murderous socio-paths.
SE > But you know, humans are fallable, so ultimately I figure that
respect for life means that given the chance a mistake may have been
made, don't want to put another human to death. I don't want to
lower myself to the level of the socio-path...though I don't want to
let the sociopath run free either!
rdr- Yes, it is a most serious matter. I stress that I would not want
to use it in all but the most obviously of guilty cases where it may
become a matter of simple mercy. Jeffery Dahmer is a classic example.
I'm sure some of the victims families must have lived in unanswerable
torment until the day that the prisoners took the law in their own
hands and beat him to death. It would have been more merciful to all
involved to have killed him in public via prescribed methods.
[...]
SE > Ultimately the solutions can't be forced on people, people have
to choose to act ethically in order to get a working free society.
That's a long term project, I think!
>-snip-
rdr >> Well said. And I think we agree that decentralization is the
right direction. I think as we regain our soveriegnty we will start
to see diversification of "parties", away from the old 2 party system
and more tailored to the local needs and desires. Prior to the
(un)Civil War the parties of America were much more dynamic.
SE > Our electoral system tends to push us to two parties, though
regional parties could emerge as well. I doubt America will
decentralize until we stop trying to play such a huge world role. I
hear on the news we're planning more air strikes against Iraq if they
attack the Kurds. That's not only playing with fire, but maintaining
a such an "imperialist" policy really helps centralize power
domestically. I look back to the turn of the century when
politicians (including some from Maine) fought against America's
policy of imperialism in the South Pacific and Mexico, arguing that
we were threatening our ideals of a democratic republic by becoming
like the world powers of Europe. The "anti-imperialists" lost, and I
think that was a blow to the type of Republic we could have.
rdr- Exactly. It was the culmination of the Jefferson-Hamilton
debate. Republican Democracy vs. Federalism. The age old battle of
ThePeople vs. TheElite. Myself, I'd like to see ThePeople to start
winning a few for a change :)
SE >Thanks again for the interesting ideas!
rdr- easy, likewise
>ciao, scott
\iii/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Philosophy being nothing else but the study of wisdom and truth, it
may with reason be expected that those who have spent most time and
pains in it should enjoy a greater calm and serenity of mind, a
greater clearness and evidence of knowledge, and be less disturbed
with doubts and difficulties than other men. Yet so it is, we see the
illiterate bulk of mankind that walk the high-road of plain common
sense, and are governed by the dictates of nature, for the most part
easy and undisturbed. To them nothing that is familiar appears
unaccountable or difficult to comprehend. They complain not of any
want of evidence in their senses, and are out of all danger of
becoming Sceptics. But no sooner do we depart from sense and instinct
to follow the light of a superior principle, to reason, meditate, and
reflect on the nature of things, but a thousand scruples spring up in
our minds concerning those things which before we seemed fully to
comprehend. Prejudices and errors of sense do from all parts discover
themselves to our view; and, endeavouring to correct these by reason,
we are insensibly drawn into uncouth paradoxes, difficulties, and
inconsistencies, which multiply and grow upon us as we advance in
speculation, till at length, having wandered through many intricate
mazes, we find ourselves just where we were, or, which is worse, sit
down in a forlorn Scepticism." - George Berkeley
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/
Berkeley/HumanKnowledge/HumanKnowledge.html
--
sigAd follows
Scott Erb
rdr wrote:
>
> Scott Erb wrote...
-snips-
> rdr- It stands to reason that evil will surround it's mortal enemy.
>
> I have found that all of these branches of theology you mention have
> alot to offer. I rejected Catholicism as a boy and have since read
> many _old_ books. In the end I realized that the decent ones all led
> to the same [place], and, (of all things), I found the Old Catholic
> Bible the most compelling and intriguing of all. I figure it's
> genetic <g>. I will still refer to the Analects, Vedas, etc. for
> cross referencing, but have found the ol' good book pretty friggin
> amazing. I feel similar to you about organized religion and there is
> a bit in Isaiah (1) that absolutely rips them. "When you come to
> appear before me, who has required this at your hand, to
> tread my courts? Bring no more vain donations; your incense is
> loathsome; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I
> cannot away with; [it is] iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new
> moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates: they are a trouble
> unto me; I am weary to bear [them]."
>
> In agree that Religions(sic) are dangerous but must note that
> Religion has little to do with [them] anymore.
Humans can ruin all good ideas, and the way sometimes beautiful, ethical
teachings of various faiths have been twisted into something ugly by
people is proof of that.
> SE >To me that suggests there are fundamental ethical truths that
> religions all get a glimpse of. To the extent they promote those
> ethics, great. But if they get too caught up in their particular
> story or mythology, they can be counterproductive.
>
> rdr- Exactly
-snip a couple points of agreement-
> SE > But you know, humans are fallable, so ultimately I figure that
> respect for life means that given the chance a mistake may have been
> made, don't want to put another human to death. I don't want to
> lower myself to the level of the socio-path...though I don't want to
> let the sociopath run free either!
>
> rdr- Yes, it is a most serious matter. I stress that I would not want
> to use it in all but the most obviously of guilty cases where it may
> become a matter of simple mercy. Jeffery Dahmer is a classic example.
> I'm sure some of the victims families must have lived in unanswerable
> torment until the day that the prisoners took the law in their own
> hands and beat him to death. It would have been more merciful to all
> involved to have killed him in public via prescribed methods.
You know, I've never understood why the family of a victim would really
feel a need to see the prepetrator die. I really respect those who say,
"he killed my daughter and should be sent to prison, but I do not agree
with the death penalty." One lady (I forget what case it was) explained
her logic by saying that wherever life is, there is a chance that some
good can still come from the criminal, and since nothing can bring back
her lost loved one, she didn't see the point in simply trying for
revenge.
Desire for revenge is not something I consider admirable.
> [...]
>
> SE > Ultimately the solutions can't be forced on people, people have
> to choose to act ethically in order to get a working free society.
> That's a long term project, I think!
>
> >-snip-
>
> rdr >> Well said. And I think we agree that decentralization is the
> right direction. I think as we regain our soveriegnty we will start
> to see diversification of "parties", away from the old 2 party system
> and more tailored to the local needs and desires. Prior to the
> (un)Civil War the parties of America were much more dynamic.
I sometimes wonder what would have happened if slavery had been
abolished from the start of the country. The reason why the war became
so brutal was slavery. The practice clearly motivated many in the North
who might have agreed with more states rights to see the need to stop
that horrid practice in the South. To this day that, plus the South
using "states rights" arguments to fight segregation, is one of the
biggest reasons why there is such opposition to more state control from
so many people. To many people those cases proved that you NEED federal
involvement in order to assure real protection of individual rights. My
only hope is that when (and I think it is inevitable) power is devolved
again, it can be done in a way that will avoid something like that
happening again. I suspect that you'll never see states or localities
truly "sovereign" -- sovereignty is probably becoming obsolete due to
globalization and the info/technology revolution. But that isn't as bad
as you might think. The "loser" in that will be the current sovereign
actors: centralized nation states. International organizations will
gain some, but so will regions and more local forms of government.
How that plays itself out probably will determine whether the next 100
years are peaceful, prosperous and stable, or conflictual and difficult.
> SE > Our electoral system tends to push us to two parties, though
> regional parties could emerge as well. I doubt America will
> decentralize until we stop trying to play such a huge world role. I
> hear on the news we're planning more air strikes against Iraq if they
> attack the Kurds. That's not only playing with fire, but maintaining
> a such an "imperialist" policy really helps centralize power
> domestically. I look back to the turn of the century when
> politicians (including some from Maine) fought against America's
> policy of imperialism in the South Pacific and Mexico, arguing that
> we were threatening our ideals of a democratic republic by becoming
> like the world powers of Europe. The "anti-imperialists" lost, and I
> think that was a blow to the type of Republic we could have.
>
> rdr- Exactly. It was the culmination of the Jefferson-Hamilton
> debate. Republican Democracy vs. Federalism. The age old battle of
> ThePeople vs. TheElite. Myself, I'd like to see ThePeople to start
> winning a few for a change :)
Yeah, but the people still tend to be fooled by nationalist slogans and
beliefs, and most don't reflect too critically on this. I'm convinced
of one thing about human nature: people tend to overlook and ignore
problems while they are small enough to be solved, and wait until they
are so big that they can't be avoided to tackle them. I think this is
probably happening with a lot of environmental issues too. Humanity
seems to need crises sometimes to move ahead.
> SE >Thanks again for the interesting ideas!
>
> rdr- easy, likewise
BTW, congrats on another interesting sig file quote below!
rdr
is complete so am sending it anyway...
Scott Erb wrote in message <39BC0CE7...@maine.edu>...
>rdr wrote:
>> Scott Erb wrote...
>-snips-
[...]
>> In agree that Religions(sic) are dangerous but must note that
>> Religion has little to do with [them] anymore.
>Humans can ruin all good ideas, and the way sometimes beautiful,
ethical
>teachings of various faiths have been twisted into something ugly by
>people is proof of that.
And I guess this is what we are getting to, perhaps the essential
goodness of man is a bit over-rated, because the the remaining small
percentage can wield extraordinary power...
[...]
>-snip a couple points of agreement-
>
[...death penelty...]
>> rdr- Yes, it is a most serious matter. I stress that I would not want
>> to use it in all but the most obviously of guilty cases where it may
>> become a matter of simple mercy. Jeffery Dahmer is a classic example.
>> I'm sure some of the victims families must have lived in unanswerable
>> torment until the day that the prisoners took the law in their own
>> hands and beat him to death. It would have been more merciful to all
>> involved to have killed him in public via prescribed methods.
>You know, I've never understood why the family of a victim would really
>feel a need to see the prepetrator die. I really respect those who
say,
>"he killed my daughter and should be sent to prison, but I do not agree
>with the death penalty." One lady (I forget what case it was)
explained
>her logic by saying that wherever life is, there is a chance that some
>good can still come from the criminal, and since nothing can bring back
>her lost loved one, she didn't see the point in simply trying for
>revenge.
>Desire for revenge is not something I consider admirable.
I'll agree, but do not condemn those who wish to see such monsters dead.
I certainly agree that the spirit of forgiveness is among the most
valuable of ethics but as certainly am in no place to judge the father
of the victim. It is a historical fact that most people in such
predicaments are tormented. The sad fact is that the first target is the
perp, and until "that" is removed, most have no hope of facing the
darker parts of their trials. Hell, I don't know why... it goes back
millenia... While I do not consider revenge admirable, I don't *know*
that it is dis-honorable. That, of course, is a weak argument, how-ever,
I think you missed a bit of my point in that, JD was so dis-agreeable
with society that, once his behavior was exposed, to let him out in
general population could be construed as a cruel and unusual [death
sentance].
[...]
>> rdr >> Well said. And I think we agree that decentralization is the
>> right direction. I think as we regain our soveriegnty we will start
>> to see diversification of "parties", away from the old 2 party system
>> and more tailored to the local needs and desires. Prior to the
>> (un)Civil War the parties of America were much more dynamic.
>I sometimes wonder what would have happened if slavery had been
>abolished from the start of the country. The reason why the war became
>so brutal was slavery. The practice clearly motivated many in the
North
>who might have agreed with more states rights to see the need to stop
>that horrid practice in the South. To this day that, plus the South
>using "states rights" arguments to fight segregation, is one of the
>biggest reasons why there is such opposition to more state control from
>so many people. To many people those cases proved that you NEED
federal
>involvement in order to assure real protection of individual rights.
My
>only hope is that when (and I think it is inevitable) power is devolved
>again, it can be done in a way that will avoid something like that
>happening again.
The irony of this is that many of these northerners had made fortunes
from the slave trade and in fact more than a few were heavily involved
in both contemporary and later oppression of the slave race. While I am
woefully ignorant of many of the issues, my current curiosity is towards
the immigrant riots in NYC about this time.
>I suspect that you'll never see states or localities
>truly "sovereign" -- sovereignty is probably becoming obsolete due to
>globalization and the info/technology revolution. But that isn't as
bad
>as you might think. The "loser" in that will be the current sovereign
>actors: centralized nation states. International organizations will
>gain some, but so will regions and more local forms of government.
I wonder that Globalist Technocracy may be trying to kill the spirit of
Soveriegnty, and contend that would be a mistake. A free man is "King of
His Castle", and the idea of Nation/States is a different kettle of
fish. The very idea of a free state is that a person surrenders a *bit*
of their _natural_ soveriegnty in return for the benefits of society.
Please be aware of the distincition because, I am of a mind that,
soveriegnty is the thread with which the globalist tapestry could
peacefully be woven. Sovereignty reigns Supreme, and it's corruption is
to be fought on all fronts.
>How that plays itself out probably will determine whether the next 100
>years are peaceful, prosperous and stable, or conflictual and
difficult.
I imagine it will be all of these things :{
[..imperialism..]
>> rdr- Exactly. It was the culmination of the Jefferson-Hamilton
>> debate. Republican Democracy vs. Federalism. The age old battle of
>> ThePeople vs. TheElite. Myself, I'd like to see ThePeople to start
>> winning a few for a change :)
>Yeah, but the people still tend to be fooled by nationalist slogans and
>beliefs, and most don't reflect too critically on this. I'm convinced
>of one thing about human nature: people tend to overlook and ignore
>problems while they are small enough to be solved, and wait until they
>are so big that they can't be avoided to tackle them. I think this is
>probably happening with a lot of environmental issues too. Humanity
>seems to need crises sometimes to move ahead.
I pretty much agree, but think that the 'good' folk have woke up to
"environmental awareness", and things are getting better. This _could_
apply on more fronts, but I don't see much evidence yet...
>> SE >Thanks again for the interesting ideas!
>> rdr- easy, likewise
>BTW, congrats on another interesting sig file quote below!
Upon considering a bit of your contribution, I found Berkeley an
interesting counter. Glad you appreciated it.
>> >ciao, scott
>> \iii/
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[...]Prejudices and errors of sense do from all parts discover
>> themselves to our view; and, endeavouring to correct these by reason,
>> we are insensibly drawn into uncouth paradoxes, difficulties, and
>> inconsistencies, which multiply and grow upon us as we advance in
>> speculation, till at length, having wandered through many intricate
>> mazes, we find ourselves just where we were, or, which is worse, sit
>> down in a forlorn Scepticism." - George Berkeley
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"..., since it is only with the passions of others that we are ever
really familiar, and what we come to find out about our own can be no
more than what other people have shown us. Upon ourselves they react but
indirectly, through our imagination, which substitutes for our actual,
primary motives other, secondary motives, less stark and therefore more
decent." - Marcel Proust (Swann's Way {which is driving me batty with
boredom;}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
sigAd follows
http://www.alohaquest.com/story/index.htm
rdr
is complete so am sending it anyway...
Scott Erb wrote in message <39BC0CE7...@maine.edu>...
>rdr wrote:
>> Scott Erb wrote...
>-snips-
[...]
>> In agree that Religions(sic) are dangerous but must note that
>> Religion has little to do with [them] anymore.
>Humans can ruin all good ideas, and the way sometimes beautiful,
ethical
>teachings of various faiths have been twisted into something ugly by
>people is proof of that.
And I guess this is what we are getting to, perhaps the essential
goodness of man is a bit over-rated, because the the remaining small
percentage can wield extraordinary power...
[...]
>-snip a couple points of agreement-
>
[...death penelty...]
>> rdr- Yes, it is a most serious matter. I stress that I would not want
>> to use it in all but the most obviously of guilty cases where it may
>> become a matter of simple mercy. Jeffery Dahmer is a classic example.
>> I'm sure some of the victims families must have lived in unanswerable
>> torment until the day that the prisoners took the law in their own
>> hands and beat him to death. It would have been more merciful to all
>> involved to have killed him in public via prescribed methods.
>You know, I've never understood why the family of a victim would really
>feel a need to see the prepetrator die. I really respect those who
say,
>"he killed my daughter and should be sent to prison, but I do not agree
>with the death penalty." One lady (I forget what case it was)
explained
>her logic by saying that wherever life is, there is a chance that some
>good can still come from the criminal, and since nothing can bring back
>her lost loved one, she didn't see the point in simply trying for
>revenge.
>Desire for revenge is not something I consider admirable.
I'll agree, but do not condemn those who wish to see such monsters dead.
I certainly agree that the spirit of forgiveness is among the most
valuable of ethics but as certainly am in no place to judge the father
of the victim. It is a historical fact that most people in such
predicaments are tormented. The sad fact is that the first target is the
perp, and until "that" is removed, most have no hope of facing the
darker parts of their trials. Hell, I don't know why... it goes back
millenia... While I do not consider revenge admirable, I don't *know*
that it is dis-honorable. That, of course, is a weak argument, how-ever,
I think you missed a bit of my point in that, JD was so dis-agreeable
with society that, once his behavior was exposed, to let him out in
general population could be construed as a cruel and unusual [death
sentance].
[...]
>> rdr >> Well said. And I think we agree that decentralization is the
>> right direction. I think as we regain our soveriegnty we will start
>> to see diversification of "parties", away from the old 2 party system
>> and more tailored to the local needs and desires. Prior to the
>> (un)Civil War the parties of America were much more dynamic.
>I sometimes wonder what would have happened if slavery had been
>abolished from the start of the country. The reason why the war became
>so brutal was slavery. The practice clearly motivated many in the
North
>who might have agreed with more states rights to see the need to stop
>that horrid practice in the South. To this day that, plus the South
>using "states rights" arguments to fight segregation, is one of the
>biggest reasons why there is such opposition to more state control from
>so many people. To many people those cases proved that you NEED
federal
>involvement in order to assure real protection of individual rights.
My
>only hope is that when (and I think it is inevitable) power is devolved
>again, it can be done in a way that will avoid something like that
>happening again.
The irony of this is that many of these northerners had made fortunes
from the slave trade and in fact more than a few were heavily involved
in both contemporary and later oppression of the slave race. While I am
woefully ignorant of many of the issues, my current curiosity is towards
the immigrant riots in NYC about this time.
>I suspect that you'll never see states or localities
>truly "sovereign" -- sovereignty is probably becoming obsolete due to
>globalization and the info/technology revolution. But that isn't as
bad
>as you might think. The "loser" in that will be the current sovereign
>actors: centralized nation states. International organizations will
>gain some, but so will regions and more local forms of government.
I wonder that Globalist Technocracy may be trying to kill the spirit of
Soveriegnty, and contend that would be a mistake. A free man is "King of
His Castle", and the idea of Nation/States is a different kettle of
fish. The very idea of a free state is that a person surrenders a *bit*
of their _natural_ soveriegnty in return for the benefits of society.
Please be aware of the distincition because, I am of a mind that,
soveriegnty is the thread with which the globalist tapestry could
peacefully be woven. Sovereignty reigns Supreme, and it's corruption is
to be fought on all fronts.
>How that plays itself out probably will determine whether the next 100
>years are peaceful, prosperous and stable, or conflictual and
difficult.
I imagine it will be all of these things :{
[..imperialism..]
>> rdr- Exactly. It was the culmination of the Jefferson-Hamilton
>> debate. Republican Democracy vs. Federalism. The age old battle of
>> ThePeople vs. TheElite. Myself, I'd like to see ThePeople to start
>> winning a few for a change :)
>Yeah, but the people still tend to be fooled by nationalist slogans and
>beliefs, and most don't reflect too critically on this. I'm convinced
>of one thing about human nature: people tend to overlook and ignore
>problems while they are small enough to be solved, and wait until they
>are so big that they can't be avoided to tackle them. I think this is
>probably happening with a lot of environmental issues too. Humanity
>seems to need crises sometimes to move ahead.
I pretty much agree, but think that the 'good' folk have woke up to
"environmental awareness", and things are getting better. This _could_
apply on more fronts, but I don't see much evidence yet...
>> SE >Thanks again for the interesting ideas!
>> rdr- easy, likewise
>BTW, congrats on another interesting sig file quote below!
Upon considering a bit of your contribution, I found Berkeley an
interesting counter. Glad you appreciated it.
>> >ciao, scott
>> \iii/
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[...]Prejudices and errors of sense do from all parts discover
>> themselves to our view; and, endeavouring to correct these by reason,
>> we are insensibly drawn into uncouth paradoxes, difficulties, and
>> inconsistencies, which multiply and grow upon us as we advance in
>> speculation, till at length, having wandered through many intricate
>> mazes, we find ourselves just where we were, or, which is worse, sit
>> down in a forlorn Scepticism." - George Berkeley
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"..., since it is only with the passions of others that we are ever
really familiar, and what we come to find out about our own can be no
more than what other people have shown us. Upon ourselves they react but
indirectly, through our imagination, which substitutes for our actual,
primary motives other, secondary motives, less stark and therefore more
decent." - Marcel Proust (Swann's Way {which is driving me batty with
boredom;}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
sigAd follows
http://www.alohaquest.com/story/index.htm
rdr
is complete so am sending it anyway...
Scott Erb wrote in message <39BC0CE7...@maine.edu>...
>rdr wrote:
>> Scott Erb wrote...
>-snips-
[...]
>> In agree that Religions(sic) are dangerous but must note that
>> Religion has little to do with [them] anymore.
>Humans can ruin all good ideas, and the way sometimes beautiful,
ethical
>teachings of various faiths have been twisted into something ugly by
>people is proof of that.
And I guess this is what we are getting to, perhaps the essential
goodness of man is a bit over-rated, because the the remaining small
percentage can wield extraordinary power...
[...]
>-snip a couple points of agreement-
>
[...death penelty...]
>> rdr- Yes, it is a most serious matter. I stress that I would not want
>> to use it in all but the most obviously of guilty cases where it may
>> become a matter of simple mercy. Jeffery Dahmer is a classic example.
>> I'm sure some of the victims families must have lived in unanswerable
>> torment until the day that the prisoners took the law in their own
>> hands and beat him to death. It would have been more merciful to all
>> involved to have killed him in public via prescribed methods.
>You know, I've never understood why the family of a victim would really
>feel a need to see the prepetrator die. I really respect those who
say,
>"he killed my daughter and should be sent to prison, but I do not agree
>with the death penalty." One lady (I forget what case it was)
explained
>her logic by saying that wherever life is, there is a chance that some
>good can still come from the criminal, and since nothing can bring back
>her lost loved one, she didn't see the point in simply trying for
>revenge.
>Desire for revenge is not something I consider admirable.
I'll agree, but do not condemn those who wish to see such monsters dead.
I certainly agree that the spirit of forgiveness is among the most
valuable of ethics but as certainly am in no place to judge the father
of the victim. It is a historical fact that most people in such
predicaments are tormented. The sad fact is that the first target is the
perp, and until "that" is removed, most have no hope of facing the
darker parts of their trials. Hell, I don't know why... it goes back
millenia... While I do not consider revenge admirable, I don't *know*
that it is dis-honorable. That, of course, is a weak argument, how-ever,
I think you missed a bit of my point in that, JD was so dis-agreeable
with society that, once his behavior was exposed, to let him out in
general population could be construed as a cruel and unusual [death
sentance].
[...]
>> rdr >> Well said. And I think we agree that decentralization is the
>> right direction. I think as we regain our soveriegnty we will start
>> to see diversification of "parties", away from the old 2 party system
>> and more tailored to the local needs and desires. Prior to the
>> (un)Civil War the parties of America were much more dynamic.
>I sometimes wonder what would have happened if slavery had been
>abolished from the start of the country. The reason why the war became
>so brutal was slavery. The practice clearly motivated many in the
North
>who might have agreed with more states rights to see the need to stop
>that horrid practice in the South. To this day that, plus the South
>using "states rights" arguments to fight segregation, is one of the
>biggest reasons why there is such opposition to more state control from
>so many people. To many people those cases proved that you NEED
federal
>involvement in order to assure real protection of individual rights.
My
>only hope is that when (and I think it is inevitable) power is devolved
>again, it can be done in a way that will avoid something like that
>happening again.
The irony of this is that many of these northerners had made fortunes
from the slave trade and in fact more than a few were heavily involved
in both contemporary and later oppression of the slave race. While I am
woefully ignorant of many of the issues, my current curiosity is towards
the immigrant riots in NYC about this time.
>I suspect that you'll never see states or localities
>truly "sovereign" -- sovereignty is probably becoming obsolete due to
>globalization and the info/technology revolution. But that isn't as
bad
>as you might think. The "loser" in that will be the current sovereign
>actors: centralized nation states. International organizations will
>gain some, but so will regions and more local forms of government.
I wonder that Globalist Technocracy may be trying to kill the spirit of
Soveriegnty, and contend that would be a mistake. A free man is "King of
His Castle", and the idea of Nation/States is a different kettle of
fish. The very idea of a free state is that a person surrenders a *bit*
of their _natural_ soveriegnty in return for the benefits of society.
Please be aware of the distincition because, I am of a mind that,
soveriegnty is the thread with which the globalist tapestry could
peacefully be woven. Sovereignty reigns Supreme, and it's corruption is
to be fought on all fronts.
>How that plays itself out probably will determine whether the next 100
>years are peaceful, prosperous and stable, or conflictual and
difficult.
I imagine it will be all of these things :{
[..imperialism..]
>> rdr- Exactly. It was the culmination of the Jefferson-Hamilton
>> debate. Republican Democracy vs. Federalism. The age old battle of
>> ThePeople vs. TheElite. Myself, I'd like to see ThePeople to start
>> winning a few for a change :)
>Yeah, but the people still tend to be fooled by nationalist slogans and
>beliefs, and most don't reflect too critically on this. I'm convinced
>of one thing about human nature: people tend to overlook and ignore
>problems while they are small enough to be solved, and wait until they
>are so big that they can't be avoided to tackle them. I think this is
>probably happening with a lot of environmental issues too. Humanity
>seems to need crises sometimes to move ahead.
I pretty much agree, but think that the 'good' folk have woke up to
"environmental awareness", and things are getting better. This _could_
apply on more fronts, but I don't see much evidence yet...
>> SE >Thanks again for the interesting ideas!
>> rdr- easy, likewise
>BTW, congrats on another interesting sig file quote below!
Upon considering a bit of your contribution, I found Berkeley an
interesting counter. Glad you appreciated it.
>> >ciao, scott
>> \iii/
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[...]Prejudices and errors of sense do from all parts discover
>> themselves to our view; and, endeavouring to correct these by reason,
>> we are insensibly drawn into uncouth paradoxes, difficulties, and
>> inconsistencies, which multiply and grow upon us as we advance in
>> speculation, till at length, having wandered through many intricate
>> mazes, we find ourselves just where we were, or, which is worse, sit
>> down in a forlorn Scepticism." - George Berkeley
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"..., since it is only with the passions of others that we are ever
really familiar, and what we come to find out about our own can be no
more than what other people have shown us. Upon ourselves they react but
indirectly, through our imagination, which substitutes for our actual,
primary motives other, secondary motives, less stark and therefore more
decent." - Marcel Proust (Swann's Way {which is driving me batty with
boredom;}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
sigAd follows
http://www.alohaquest.com/story/index.htm
rdr
repetition... I am certainly interested!!!
???
rdr wrote in message <39bda...@news.uncensored-news.com>...
>Hi Scott, I got a couple other, older, replies half done, but this one
>is complete so am sending it anyway...
[...]
Scott Erb
rdr wrote:
>
> Hi Scott, I got a couple other, older, replies half done, but this one
> is complete so am sending it anyway...
>
> >Humans can ruin all good ideas, and the way sometimes beautiful,
> ethical
> >teachings of various faiths have been twisted into something ugly by
> >people is proof of that.
>
> And I guess this is what we are getting to, perhaps the essential
> goodness of man is a bit over-rated, because the the remaining small
> percentage can wield extraordinary power...
I still think humans are essentially good, and that it really comes down
to a simple fact: people should not treat other people as just a means
to an end, but as "ends" in their own right. The evil done is when
people look at others as objects who can be used for their own gain.
Often they "dehumanize" others by seeing them as somehow strange or less
than fully human. Greed, prejudice, fear...whatever the motivation, the
basic ethical principle isn't that tough: don't just use others as a
means to our own goals. If people are used as a means (e.g., a coach
sending a player into a game to score points), its OK if and only if the
experience and value of that person is considered an important end
itself.
The best way to do that is to switch places and make sure that whatever
you consider the right thing to do would be right if you were in either
position. A player would think, "yeah, as a coach I would put myself
in," the coach, "gee, I wish I was still a player who would be put in
the game." A slave, however, does not think the master is legitimate.
A master would not want to trade places with the slave.
> [...death penelty...]
> >Desire for revenge is not something I consider admirable.
>
> I'll agree, but do not condemn those who wish to see such monsters >dead.
Yeah, its understandable, and given the fact that often people do get
out and murder again, defensible.
> I certainly agree that the spirit of forgiveness is among the most
> valuable of ethics but as certainly am in no place to judge the father
> of the victim. It is a historical fact that most people in such
> predicaments are tormented. The sad fact is that the first target is >the perp, and until "that" is removed, most have no hope of facing the
> darker parts of their trials. Hell, I don't know why... it goes back
> millenia... While I do not consider revenge admirable, I don't *know*
> that it is dis-honorable. That, of course, is a weak argument, >how-ever,
My own view is that if someone is gone, one has to deal with that on its
own, and accept that the reality won't be changed. Wanting revenge
before you can do that seems counterproductive, if understandable. I
agree you can't really condemn that, its too common, though I really
admire those who don't go that route.
> I think you missed a bit of my point in that, JD was so dis-agreeable
> with society that, once his behavior was exposed, to let him out in
> general population could be construed as a cruel and unusual [death
> sentance].
Yeah, I can't argue with that. But I'd still keep him locked up rather
than want the death penalty. I can't say I felt any sorrow when he was
killed though.
> [...]
-on slaves-
> The irony of this is that many of these northerners had made fortunes
> from the slave trade and in fact more than a few were heavily involved
> in both contemporary and later oppression of the slave race. While I am
> woefully ignorant of many of the issues, my current curiosity is >towards the immigrant riots in NYC about this time.
Slavery is the classic example of using others as just a means to an
end. Current sex slave trade is a really sad example today, especially
in East Europe and the mideast where $12 billion is "earned" by
kidnapping, raping, and beating young girls, and then sending them out
as prostitutes. What kind of person can do that to another person? Are
such people any less evil than Jeff Dahmler? Most people are good, I
think (and my experience proves it to me), but you're right, there are
enough bad apples to really make things tough sometimes.
> >I suspect that you'll never see states or localities
> >truly "sovereign" -- sovereignty is probably becoming obsolete due to
> >globalization and the info/technology revolution. But that isn't as
> bad
> >as you might think. The "loser" in that will be the current sovereign
> >actors: centralized nation states. International organizations will
> >gain some, but so will regions and more local forms of government.
>
> I wonder that Globalist Technocracy may be trying to kill the spirit of
> Soveriegnty, and contend that would be a mistake. A free man is "King of
> His Castle", and the idea of Nation/States is a different kettle of
> fish. The very idea of a free state is that a person surrenders a *bit*
> of their _natural_ soveriegnty in return for the benefits of society.
I think that is the right way to look at it. Sovereignty begins at the
individual, and moves up only to the extent that is either voluntary or
ethically justified (e.g., removing Dahmler's sovereignty involuntarily
by removing him from society). The only way globalization is going to
work is if it combines with increased power "below" -- to regions,
localities, and governments closer to the people. Global bureaucracy
simply can't work ultimately.
I think I mentioned awhile back how the printing press really started a
change when it destroyed the authority of the church by "democratizing"
knowledge and taking it out of the hands of church elites. Computers do
that even more, and I think the trend is that despite global issues,
people demand a more decentralized placement of power. Of course, the
church only gave up its authority with a fight -- a brutal thirty years
war that ended in 1648. Hopefully power shifts today can be
peaceful...I'm optimistic, though realistically history doesn't provide
too much cause for optimism.
> Please be aware of the distincition because, I am of a mind that,
> soveriegnty is the thread with which the globalist tapestry could
> peacefully be woven. Sovereignty reigns Supreme, and it's corruption is
> to be fought on all fronts.
Globalism is inevitable, but I think it will only be peaceful and free
if it does avoid attempting to bring all "sovereign" power to the
center. To try to hold power in the center would mean a huge
bureaucracy, and bureaucracies tend to stagnate and become inflexible,
creating more and more problems. That route would be a mistake.
(rest deleted, except your sig file, which almost always has a quote
worth keeping in!) - scott