Subject:
|
Re: Lets keep politics out of Lego
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 24 Nov 2000 16:43:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1031 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> I'm not sure politicians really do have power. Surly the power lies with the
> electorate?
Charmingly naiive, don't you think? Elections are held once in a while.
Politicians exert power every day. They DERIVE their power from the consent
of the governed but they exercise it, nonetheless. Elementary civics.
> > So if you want less corruption, make
> > sure your politicians have less power...
>
> The problem with your LP is that, those at the bottom of society would also
> have less “power”.
>
> > That's one of the outcomes of
> > Libertarianism
>
> The others include increased social division.
Feel free to demonstrate this either by working an example or by giving a
scholarly reference. Repeating it over and over doesn't make it so, I'm afraid.
> > 1 - See _The Road to Serfdom_ by Hayek. While it happens that he is much
> > admired by Libertarians, unless you've decided to irrationally reject
> > Libertarianism without basis, that fact is no reason to reject a Nobel Prize
> > winning scholar in and of itself. A parable: If your personal devil quoted
> > the bible, would you therefore reject the bible without critical examination?
>
> One would not use the bible to assess the bible. One would use an objective
> analysis of the bible to assess it. If I wanted an objective understanding
> of the bible, I'd worry if when I asked a christian for answers, they would
> not answer me - but instead and refer me to the pope.
Fortunately I'm not doing that. Exactly the oppposite, in fact. Hayek is a
well regarded (and not just by the LP) scholar who, among other things, did
extensive research into why government planning councils fail to produce
optimum results. He wrote up his findings on that, among other things, in
the book I cited... For the record, Hayek was not a member of the LP. But
his findings support the LP statements that government planning is bad. So I
cite Hayek to support my statements as well.
He's not the pope. The pope makes pronouncements that everyone has to accept
uncritically. There is no debate, no checking premises or validating
research, it's just take it or leave it. I know that's a confusing point
with you, since you seem to be an uncritical thinker, and in fact have in
the recent past even demonstrated that you don't grasp the diference between
being critical and being a critical thinker.
We were discussing why government planning councils are inevitably doomed to
failure. I'm satisfied that government planning councils don't work. I
COULD explain it to you in depth but since you haven't stated your
fundamental premises, it is tedious in the extreme to argue with you.
Nothing ever stays still with you, you cannot be pinned down to principle,
you just snipe away at whatever anyone says.
I find that frustrating but I just cannot let all of your misstatements lie,
once in a while, frustrated as I am, I have to try to set the record
straight. But since there's no profit in illuminating you, and no clear path
to do so, since you're not a critical thinker, I set the record straight for
those who care to think, not for you, personally.
Contrast your lack of articulated principles, your lack of rational
reasoning from premises and your potshots with my MO in 'debate. My
principles are on display. (because they are easy to articulate and
consistent, unlike yours as far as I can tell, perhaps because you never
have articulated them, perhaps because you don't have any, you just act on
expedience. I don't know which.)
I claim everything can be derived from them and I have in the past provided
derivations. Sometimes, instead of providing derivations, I provide a
cite.... Sometimes, instead of repeating the derivation in detail, which is
a fair bit of work, I point to what was said in the past. Sometimes someone
else provides a derivation that shows mine was logically invalid, and I
change my mind. But I don't change my approach, I don't go back on my
principles, I don't just snipe away.
In this case rather than repeating the arguments in detail, I provided a
reference. You attacked the reference without any demonstration that you'd
read it or knew of it. Perhaps you did know of it, but all you gave us was
an ad hominem. You can refute the reference if you like, but you'll have to
do better than use an attack like "it must be tainted because people who I
disagree with like it", which is the essence. And THAT is what my parable
was trying to illustrate.
That attack of yours doesn't hold water. It's pretty much par for the course
for you, though.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Lets keep politics out of Lego
|
| "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:G4JFsK.53n@lugnet.com... (...) the (...) consent (...) Well, here in the UK, I can go round and see my MP this weekend if I wish. I can tell her just what I think, and expect her to (...) (24 years ago, 24-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Lets keep politics out of Lego
|
| (...) I'm not sure politicians really do have power. Surly the power lies with the electorate? (...) The problem with your LP is that, those at the bottom of society would also have less “power”. (...) The others include increased social division. (...) (24 years ago, 24-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
70 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
