t wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:28:22 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:
t wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:25:18 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 15, 6:55 pm, t wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:59:58 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:
t wrote:
National Rasmussen Tracking Obama 50, McCain 45 Obama +5
National Reuters/C-Span/Zogby Tracking Obama 49, McCain 43 Obama +6
National Hotline/FD Tracking Obama 48, McCain 42 Obama +6
National Gallup Tracking (Traditional)* Obama 51, McCain 45 Obama +6
National Gallup Tracking (Expanded)* Obama 53, McCain 43 Obama +10
National LA Times/Bloomberg Obama 50, McCain 41 Obama +9
National CBS News/NY Times Obama 53, McCain 39 Obama +14
Gee, you left off Zogby
Given the full court press for Obama by the press, is this any surprise?
Also, how much of this is attempting to shape opinion vs. measure it.
If the polls are right, your side is going to win, we are all going to get
to watch as the nation goes socialist. Hope that in 5 years you are all
happy with that which you have supported.
If you had read carefully, you would have seen Zogby in line two.
I'm still concerned about the Bradley problem. I wonder how many
points that is worth.
I suspect that you don't have a working definition of Socialism.
tom watson
I own a small business in Michigan. They are all looking bug-eyed at
the government for some kind of help.
Is that socialism?
yes
You know, Tim, perhaps I am manacled by my training but I was taught
to insist on a definition of terms as a precedent to the beginning of
an argument. You have often declined to present definitions for any
of the terms that you lob about like broken hand grenades.
If you are a serious man with serious intent, you must come to grips
with the definition of that which you fear. It is not enough to use a
term as a cudgel without shedding light on its elements.
Words like Socialism, Collectivism, etc. need to be unpacked before
any rational dialogue can occur.
In your discipline you may not be used to any kind of linguistic
analysis but it is coin of the realm in the arena of serious political
debate.
Try to come to a definition of one of your terms as a sort of personal
exercise. It has a wonderful capacity to focus the mind.
tom watson
"socialism" is one of the convenient shorthands for collectivism:
The premise that the good of the good trumps the interest of
the individual. Whatever the term, I object - on moral grounds -
to all collectivist systems.
I am willing to assume that the Petite Syrah has clouded your
reportage to the degree that you meant, "the good of the many trumps
the interests of the individual".
It wasn't the Syrah, but, yes, I'd meant to write that
collectivism in its many forms involves the good of the group
trumping the interest of the individual.
If, indeed, that is what your argument rejects, then you must reject
all government and slide from, "that government is best which governs
least", to, "that government is best which governs not at all", which
would put you in the camp of the anarchists.
Not so. One can stipulate to some limited government precisely
because it is *in* the interest of the individual. Government
that governs least is that government that exists solely in the
interest of preserving liberty. I think its not difficult to
show that the US Founders and their intellectual influences
had more-or-less this calculus of government in mind ... or
at least they evolved into it. Prior human government primarily
had collectivist forms:
Force - I'm in charge because I'm stronger
Tribal - The tribe decides who's in charge in its common interest
Theocracy - I'm in charge because God says so
Royalty - I'm in charge because I was born to the job
In each of these forms the "in charge" entity ruled the ... *group*.
Each of these forms began or devolved into violence against the
many to the benefit of the few. Each of these forms authored their
own poverty an misery.
Along come Locke, Jefferson, et al, and they say something profoundly
different: Government is not "in charge". You, the individuals are,
each of your own lives. Government is formed only to preserve
that fundamental privilege. Pretty profound stuff and incredibly
effective. In something less than 300 years that notion did more
good for more people than the previous recorded 9700 years of
human history combined. Pity this current generation of
beneficiaries of the Lockian/Jeffersonian ideal is so utterly
deaf to it.
It would be nice to live in the world posited by rational anarchists,
but a very long thread of human history demonstrates that liberty
is not the default condition of humans and that there must be
an instrument of force to preserve it. And that force being granted
to government is exactly why government's purview must be strictly
limited to matters of liberty. When government is permitted to use
force (or the threat thereof) beyond those matters that affect
and effect our liberty (defending the borders, interdicting domestically
in matters of force/fraud/threat between citizens) then an *imbalance*
of liberty occurs. When government, say, acts to prevent us from
beating each other up, we all benefit in a notionally equal amount.
But, say, when government redistributes wealth from those making
more than $250K/year to those making less, then there is a clear
*imbalance* created - the less wealthy benefit in direct proportion
to harm done to the wealthier citizen. The balance of liberty is undone.
Being mindful of your previous thought, I do not see you as an
anarchist but as some sort of what is colloquially called a
"libertarian".
That concept needs serious definition.
I am nearly completely libertarian in my views with two critical
differences:
1) Libertarians as a group gloss over the nuances and difficulties
of the abortion debate, and rather irrationally ignore the
legitimate demands of protections of citizenship that ought
to be accorded to the unborn but viable child. There is a
point at which the unborn child becomes a citizen with all
the privileges thereof. The fact that this moment is hard
to pinpoint does not make this issue irrelevant, but Libertarians
usually skip to "abortion is a matter of choice" without
showing their work. I dissent.
2) Libertarians have - in my view - an unworkable model for the
projection of military force. One does not have to wait until
the guy in the bar threatening to kill you actually raises and
swings the bottle at your head. If the threat is credible and
there is evidence he is moving to pick up that bottle you have
every moral and ethical right to prevent him from doing so
via *preemptive force*. So to it is with nations. One of
government's only legitimate tasks is to secure the borders.
A credible threat can and should be preemptively flattened
before any damage can be done - all the more so in a nuclear
world.
Call it hawkish, pro-life libertarianism.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/