Subject:
|
Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 14 May 2001 03:13:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1065 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
I've snipped a good deal because I think we're getting down to our basic and
irreconcilable differences, just like the last time you and I went around the
table a few months back! 8^)
> You tell me "you're basically asserting that the flaws of your proposed system
> are okay because the same flaws in the current system are bad" in an attempt • to
> discredit that line of reasoning, right? You didn't follow through with a
> critique of it. I would like to assert that I think that stance is completely
> valid. If we have system X now, providing a set of services to a set of
> people, and we see that system Y would provide those same services at the same
> cost, but would also provide these other services to some or all of the people
> at no additional cost, then we can say that Y is better. Getting to agree that
> Libertopia is that kind of Y won't happen, I understand that, but I still
> think that it is valid to promote change that doesn't solve all the world's
> problems.
You've precisely identified my objection; we (as a society) can't seem to
agree that the Libertopian idea is the way to implement the changes we've
discussed. Further, given that the problems that exist now would continue to
exist in the new system, the realities of a rough transition period, coupled
with the uncertainty of attempting an unprecedented societal structure, many
people are simply unwilling to risk it all for the sake of a minority's
economic theories. I'm not saying I have a better solution, of course, but
until something concrete, reliable, and widely-accepted can be put forth, few
people are going to support such drastic change.
> > [Corporate armies] is a horrifying scenario, and nothing will convince
> > me that the first relative king of the hill won't put himself in place
> > as dictator...
>
> Why didn't that happen with the nations of the world? Oh wait...it did. And
> you seem to be OK with what we have now, so what's the beef?
The US and I aren't in a realistic position to deal with the dictatorships of
each respective country, but I would be greatly interested in preventing them
from arising here. If we grant private corporations authority over our
national defense, I would like more control over those companies than simply
the power to vote with my dollars.
>
> I tried for fewer sound-bytes but lost it at the end...sorry. :-)
You did just fine! I should state outright that if I omit an answer or a
comment from your posts, chances are it's because I've identified it as an
insoluble difference between our views, but it shouldn't be inferred as
forfeiture of the point. Similarly, if/when you omit parts of my posts, I
don't consider those to be tacitly ceded points (except when I'm obviously
right, of course 8^)
Sometimes, alas, the necessities of the world prevent us from running our
arguments to their every conclusion!
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
246 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
