Originally Posted by The Rani

The problem, as Odin stated, is that government works for those who hold economic power.
A society that helps one another is a great idea ... but it does not equal higher taxes and more government services.

It means that government needs to change its priorities. It may mean more government services and higher taxes in order to accomplish this.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

It means that government needs to change its priorities. It may mean more government services and higher taxes in order to accomplish this.

Ah yes. Give them more money and power so they'll stop abusing their money and power.

Good plan, that. Let me know how it works out.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Yeah, that's it exactly.

Glad to know my Metaphor Detection Ring is working!

Originally Posted by Odin

Maybe it has to do with the culture of the Upper Midwest, but I have never thought in such a dichotomy. In the mindset of Upper-Midwesterners Government is merely the apparatus of society, nothing more, we don't consider it as something "other".

I believe the same is true of New England. Many New Englanders did settle the Midwest, by the way.

The tradition of town hall meetings probably gave ordinary citizens a closer relationship with their elected officials.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Exactly! That's why everyone on public assistance should have to do community service.

Why not just hire them as employees to do this important work? Oh, wait...then you'd have to pay Social Security taxes and worker's comp insurance and all those other inconveniences.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

I prefer that my child learns to take credit and take on the responsibilty for her own success. I don't believe it's good to teach a kid that their success is reliant on me and society. All your doing is positioning yourself or the governmet to take away the credit for your childs success.

It's not an all-or-nothing proposition here. Government should support you, but it cannot and should not do all the work for you.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Geez, enough with the bullying. We all know that you don't like me, so give it a rest already!

Nobody's bullying you. I thought you were interested in the truth. It isn't pretty in this case.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

There's an interesting pattern developing here--this is the second time it's happened in just a couple of weeks. I say something to the Rani that seems to me rather obvious, and she asks me to explain myself. (The first time was when she quoted a post of mine back to me and I said, quite accurately, that it didn't reflect bragging about my position, money (such as it is), or background.) I'm not going to get bogged down in long, useless exchange and I'm not going to start looking up people's posts or keeping books on things people say. Every one else has read the posts in question and can make up their own mind.

More generally, I actually think that although we obviously don't know a great many things about one another--hell, it's quite possible that some people are pretending to be people they are not, even down to basic categories like gender--I think that we have learned a great deal about each other, and certainly enough to form likes and dislikes on something other than "prejudice."

Now moving right along to the actual subject of this argument, the irony is that economic activity, which some of us seem to think represents pure individualism, cannot take place without laws, currency, infrastructure, police forces, etc., all of which cost money, which in turn has to be provided by taxes, which people are not likely to pay if there isn't some fairness involved in them. And by the way, the word "progressive" means going forward, literally, and it's clear that many Tea Partiers specifically want to go backward, and Glenn Beck actually hit the nail on the head by naming Teddy Roosevelt, the member of the Progressive generation who is on Mt. Rushmore, as the source of all modern evil--he did introduce the idea that governmental power had to balance corporate power if our Constitution was not to become a joke and a travesty, and he was right.

I don't suppose many of the conservatives are likely to follow up on this suggestion but I wish they could take a look at pp. 7-25 of my book, Politics and War, which are about pre-modern or barely modern political life. The high nobility were a law unto themselves and walked around with armed retainers. Perhaps that is where our own would-be Howard Roarks want us to wind up? In any event, it was no fun, especially for ordinary middle class people like most of us happen to be. The National Association of Scholars has just released a report on the disappearance of Western Civilization courses from elite colleges and universities in the last 45 years. They have been replaced by World History courses which usually portray western civilization as disruptive and oppressive. Perhaps that's part of the reason why so many of our younger posters take so many of the geratest achievements of western civilization for granted and seem more than happy to toss some of them into the ash can. Pat is about 7 years older than I, I believe, and I can see that she, like me, really feels she's watching the eclipse of civilization as we know it. Ouch.

Would you consider a movement towards socialism, fascism or communism forward movements? You're not dealing with religious conservatives and religious fanactics anymore. You're dealing with core Americans now.

In baseball, I was the teams centerfielder. If the ball was hit to centerfield, I didn't rely on the team to run out and catch it for me. The team would do its thing and place its expectations on me while I relied upon myself to catch the ball. If the ball was hit to the shortstop, I'd do my thing as the centerfielded and place my expectations on the shortstop as the shortstop relied upon himself to catch the ball. I played on good teams. I played on bad teams. The success of a team relied upon the sum of the individual talent, a general likeless or respect between the individuals (players) on the team and a respected coach who knew how to manage a baseball game and the baseball team. In short, a baseball team isn't a baseball team without the coaches and baseball players. As a kid, the community created a league. The parents paid the fee for their kid to play in the league. The fee paid for the umpire, a T-shirt and a box of game balls. The parents provided everything else. This is our world, so to speak.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

The success of a team relied upon the sum of the individual talent, a general likeless or respect between the individuals (players) on the team and a respected coach who knew how to manage a baseball game and the baseball team. In short, a baseball team isn't a baseball team without the coaches and baseball players. As a kid, the community created a league. The parents paid the fee for their kid to play in the league. The fee paid for the umpire, a T-shirt and a box of game balls. The parents provided everything else. This is our world, so to speak.

There have been many teams that had great individual players, but poor cohesion and poor cooperative skills. They don't tend to win championships. It is the coach's job to create winning teams, not individual all-stars. You have to tamp down individual egos in order for the team to succeed as a collective effort.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Ah yes. Give them more money and power so they'll stop abusing their money and power.

Good plan, that. Let me know how it works out.

As if charities were all pure and spotless. *rolls eyes*

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

... the irony is that economic activity, which some of us seem to think represents pure individualism, cannot take place without laws, currency, infrastructure, police forces, etc., all of which cost money, which in turn has to be provided by taxes, which people are not likely to pay if there isn't some fairness involved in them. And by the way, the word "progressive" means going forward, literally, and it's clear that many Tea Partiers specifically want to go backward, and Glenn Beck actually hit the nail on the head by naming Teddy Roosevelt, the member of the Progressive generation who is on Mt. Rushmore, as the source of all modern evil--he did introduce the idea that governmental power had to balance corporate power if our Constitution was not to become a joke and a travesty, and he was right.

This is especially telling. There was no corporate power in America in the 18th Century. The first giant joint-stock enterprise, basically the first modern Big Business started as a giant corporation was DuPont Corporation in 1802. Not surprisingly it began largely as a defense contractor.

The Founding Fathers never established the principle that economic power was the rightful basis of political power. Such was a feudal principle seemingly in decay -- although in practice, fascists would enshrine the idea. That owners and managers best know what is in the best interest of employees (most charitably defined as the idea that 'forward-looking' corporations need to cut every possible cost, including wages and taxes) to promote economic growth is essential to a certain conception of progress defined solely in profits. But we now have political groups such as Club for Growth that seem to embrace such a mindset.

Any tendency whether through the mangling of the Constitution or through practice that establishes that Government must largely represent the interests of the shareholders and executives of giant corporations is as much a blow to the heritage of classical liberalism in America as would be a military coup.

I don't suppose many of the conservatives are likely to follow up on this suggestion but I wish they could take a look at pp. 7-25 of my book, Politics and War, which are about pre-modern or barely modern political life. The high nobility were a law unto themselves and walked around with armed retainers. Perhaps that is where our own would-be Howard Roarks want us to wind up? In any event, it was no fun, especially for ordinary middle class people like most of us happen to be.

Don't remind them of how nasty the Middle Ages were; many of the right-wingers would expect to be the big winners who would have the large retinue of servants -- perhaps even sexual servants in the harems that they enjoy in secrecy that nobody dares violate.

Aside from castles and cathedrals, the Middle Ages were a time of low achievement and even lower morals. The culture was best described as juvenile. Government, most infamously legal process, was best described as sadism with all the burnings at the stake, breaking at the wheel, and trials by ordeal. Superstition was the normal level of intellectual activity.

The National Association of Scholars has just released a report on the disappearance of Western Civilization courses from elite colleges and universities in the last 45 years. They have been replaced by World History courses which usually portray western civilization as disruptive and oppressive. Perhaps that's part of the reason why so many of our younger posters take so many of the geratest achievements of western civilization for granted and seem more than happy to toss some of them into the ash can. Pat is about 7 years older than I, I believe, and I can see that she, like me, really feels she's watching the eclipse of civilization as we know it. Ouch.

You have just shown a clear symptom of decadence in America. The great reason to study history isn't to identify with the heroes so much as it is to learn the easy way what many learned the hard way. Sure, Western civilization can be disruptive and oppressive -- but such is an individual choice among those who decide what constitutes the "Western civilization" of the time. Amorality entwines itself in all cultures, all classes, and all organizations. A culture incapable of examining its own inadequacies will surely drown in those inadequacies.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Would you consider a movement towards socialism, fascism or communism forward movements? You're not dealing with religious conservatives and religious fanactics anymore. You're dealing with core Americans now.

In baseball, I was the teams centerfielder. If the ball was hit to centerfield, I didn't rely on the team to run out and catch it for me. The team would do its thing and place its expectations on me while I relied upon myself to catch the ball. If the ball was hit to the shortstop, I'd do my thing as the centerfielded and place my expectations on the shortstop as the shortstop relied upon himself to catch the ball. I played on good teams. I played on bad teams. The success of a team relied upon the sum of the individual talent, a general likeless or respect between the individuals (players) on the team and a respected coach who knew how to manage a baseball game and the baseball team. In short, a baseball team isn't a baseball team without the coaches and baseball players. As a kid, the community created a league. The parents paid the fee for their kid to play in the league. The fee paid for the umpire, a T-shirt and a box of game balls. The parents provided everything else. This is our world, so to speak.

You have shown that you don't even understand what you are arguing against. All that you see is "socialism, fascism, or communism" in a critique of a moral failure of education to discern lessons from history. I remain convinced (and so, I suspect, does Mr. Kaiser) that a firm grounding in the basic truths that used to be taught in "Western Civ" can do far more to direct people away from extremist ideologies than can crass hedonism and indulgence -- or Little League.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

There have been many teams that had great individual players, but poor cohesion and poor cooperative skills. They don't tend to win championships. It is the coach's job to create winning teams, not individual all-stars. You have to tamp down individual egos in order for the team to succeed as a collective effort.

I was an individual all-star and a team player. I took plenty of lumps and swallowed my share of pride for the sake of the team. BTW, you're wrong, the coaches job is to atleast try to develope an all-star team.

Originally Posted by The Rani

All I know about you is what I've read on this forum, and I haven't even read most of your posts. I do think that saying "man that Kaiser is an asshole," or something like that, based on such a limited amount of information, would be pre-judging.
But if you want to believe otherwise, not much I can do about it, I suppose.

I think some one has to talk to you frankly.

You have said "that Kaiser is an asshole," or words to that effect, several times in the last month, and everybody here knows it. If you don't realize that, you have a problem. I mean, I can take it as well as dish it out, but you are trying to have it both ways, and it's ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

I was an individual all-star and a team player. I took plenty of lumps and swallowed my share of pride for the sake of the team. BTW, you're wrong, the coaches job is to atleast try to develope an all-star team.

A good coach should be inspiring his or her team to perform to their highest ability and teaching them to love the sport. It is not about individual all-stars.

I think you know this, based upon what you wrote in your second sentence.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

You have shown that you don't even understand what you are arguing against. All that you see is "socialism, fascism, or communism" in a critique of a moral failure of education to discern lessons from history. I remain convinced (and so, I suspect, does Mr. Kaiser) that a firm grounding in the basic truths that used to be taught in "Western Civ" can do far more to direct people away from extremist ideologies than can crass hedonism and indulgence -- or Little League.

I'm trying to figure out your side of the argument. I've been trying to figure out your side of the argument for years. I'm sorry, you guys aren't straight forward or stand up as far as what you actually want or support. As far as I can tell, you much pretty gather around one of those three trees. You all favor government control over most things. Well, government control over most things pretty leads us backwards with governments who controlled most things. Mogadishu would probably take a step forward with a government who controls most things. But, I don't believe Kaiser is talking to the people of Mogadishu. Sooner or later, you're going to have to step up and identify yourselves as something. Otherwise, we're pretty much left with making educated guess's.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

You all favor government control over most things.

That has been shown to be wrong, time and again. It's that all-or-nothing way of thinking that you have.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

I'm trying to figure out your side of the argument.

I consider myself a liberal, a humanist, and a classicist. I believe in liberalism because the alternatives are as a rule more objectionable, if not utterly horrible. I consider humanism the only viable ideology. I am a classicist because I recognize the need for knowledge of some specific knowledge among any putative leaders that prevents them from making the same old stupid mistakes that have always bedeviled humanity.

I've been trying to figure out your side of the argument for years. I'm sorry, you guys aren't straight forward or stand up as far as what you actually want or support. As far as I can tell, you pretty gather around one of those three trees.

I don't have a fixed ideology. If anything, ideology is the bane of modern government -- an excuse for doing evil because ideology blinds one to consequences.

You all favor government control over most things. Well, government control over most things pretty leads us backwards with governments who had control over most things.

Government control over some things -- but responsibility of government to the electorate.

Mogadishu would probably take a step forward with a government who controls most things.

Do you know what is meant by "failed state"? Somalia, which has no effective government, demonstrates what anarchy at its worst leads to. The country is a pirate haven.

Sooner or later, you're going to have to step up and identify yourselves with something. Otherwise, we're pretty much left with making educated guess's.

So far your guesses show a lack of education.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

That has been shown to be wrong, time and again. It's that all-or-nothing way of thinking that you have.

Well, you can't have it both ways. Capitalism has no interest in socialism or reason subject itself to socialism. This has been proven to be right, time and time again. Freedom has no interest in government control or no reason to competely subject itself to government control. This has been been proven time and time again. Once again, you're not going to have it both ways. At best, we devide and become two states and leave it to nature to decide who ends up where. The odds are that the majority of the nation will opt to remain in place.

Originally Posted by Odin

As if charities were all pure and spotless. *rolls eyes*

Totally worthy of eye-rolling.

But what does your comment have to do with anything?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

So far your guesses show a lack of education.

I would expect a highy educated individual like yourself to be atleast smart enough to figure out that I wasn't applying them at the time.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

There have been many teams that had great individual players, but poor cohesion and poor cooperative skills. They don't tend to win championships. It is the coach's job to create winning teams, not individual all-stars. You have to tamp down individual egos in order for the team to succeed as a collective effort.

I think the Bulls should have benched Michael Jordan for 1/2 of every game so the other players didn't feel bad when he scored 60 points. Sure, they probably would have lost a lot of games that way, but it would have been worth it.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Totally worthy of eye-rolling.

But what does your comment have to do with anything?

Just my opinion but I suspect that he means that private aid organizations also have problems with graft or at best simple incompetence with resources.

Originally Posted by The Rani

In the last month, I've pointed out that two things that you said were contradictory, and I've also pointed out that you have boasted about your academic credentials.
Now really, do you think that everyone who does those two things is an asshole? I don't. You are taking this stuff wayyyy too personally. And you sure as hell can't dish it out as well as take it either, because sooner or later you put everyone that you don't like on "ignore."

If that makes anyone an asshole then you and everyone else here must be one too, because I think we've all contradicted ourselves & made some appeal to our experience & education. I get a little miffed maybe if those appeals to educational authority are used to shut down discussion (cough nutrition) but it is also relevant nonetheless.

I guess I just don't get how disagreement becomes personal dislike. I agree with your earlier assertion that these kinds of discussions don't shed much light on the personality behind the opinions... for all I know everyone I disagree with is a good hearted and trust-worthy person. There are religious fundamentalists I would trust to watch my house or dog or even with my life, but I am not going to agree with them on much politically or socially. There are others who might claim to agree with those positions who would rip you off at the first chance they get.

Good people can support evil things for well-intentioned reasons, and vice versa.. assuming malice as a default intent just escalates conflict when assuming ignorance fosters education.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Totally worthy of eye-rolling.

But what does your comment have to do with anything?

Thos who are against government assistance think everyone should rely on charities.