Subject:
|
Re: Lets keep politics out of Lego
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 24 Nov 2000 17:11:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
870 times
|
| |
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message
news:G4JFsK.53n@lugnet.com...
> 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.
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 represent my views.
>
> > > 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
He was actually a co-winner. I do not wish to detract from his prize (a
friend's father won the physics prize), but he is only one of 40 or so
economists who have won the prize since ~1970.
> > > 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.
Cited him yes. You did not argue your case using facts, only vague
assertions.
>
> He's not the pope. The pope makes pronouncements that everyone has to • accept
> uncritically.
Everyone? Really?
> There is no debate, no checking premises or validating
> research, it's just take it or leave it.
Have you done this with Hayek?
> 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.
You have demonstrated nothing to me Larry. I have raised punts with you -
have failed to answer them. Say what you will, but I understand the meaning
of subjective & objective - On this issue, I doubt you do.
>
> 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.
Go back. Read my posts. Answer my points.... as I have asked repeatedly.
> 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.
Do it now.... answer my points... every one of them.
> 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.
Your "principles" are simple LP dogma.
> (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 do have princples Larry. So much so, that I do not follow any dogma. I do
not follow and ideology. I do not support any single political party... i
approach each issue with my own perspective.
> I don't just snipe away.
Nope, you avoid the points. You squirm. You play to the crowd.
>
> 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.
Your refernce is standard LP dogma. Just about any LP text I have read
refers to this single guy.
> 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.
Answer my points Larry.
I liked this, it pretty much sums up my view of the LP:
Libertarians and their "I've got mine, Jack" philosphy are people who were
born on third base and think they've hit life's triple. In America's
egalitarian society it should surprise no one this cramped, neo-Victorian
philosophy has not caught on.
Russell Sadler, commentator, Jefferson Public Radio in Ashland, Oregon
Another point - within your understanding of LP website, will the state be
publicly owned or privately owned?
Scott A
>
> ++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Lets keep politics out of Lego
|
| (...) Ya, and I can call my congressman or go to his office. I can even share my views, and the office often does give help to constitutents. But if you equate that with "you're in control", somehow, you're confused. Your elections are when? At (...) (24 years ago, 24-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Lets keep politics out of Lego
|
| (...) According to my understanding of Catholic doctrine yes, or effectively yes. If a Catholic wishes to refute this, I'd welcome a response. My understanding of Catholicism includes the following points: 1. The pope is the leader of the Catholic (...) (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Lets keep politics out of Lego
|
| (...) 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. (...) Feel free to (...) (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
|
|
|
|
