Democrats versus Republicans

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

I propose to start with the charge of anti-intellectual. One that is commonly made here, without any supporting documentation. Tangentially to this is anti-science. So, "where's the beef"? Or, are we simply hearing the regurgitation of biased perception?

That's my challenge to the "enlightened" members who bandy the charge about, minus anything but their own bias.

John

I have been away golfing today.

I never accused conservatives of being anti-intellectual. In fact, William F. Buckley had a great mind. I said facsists were anti-intellectual.

I f you wish to equate the two, please feel free. I do not.

Jack

[craigimass]

Here is a pretty good listing:

Umberto Eco

In a 1995 essay "Eternal Fascism", the Italian writer and academic Umberto Eco attempts to list general properties of fascist ideology. . He uses the term "Ur-fascism" as a generic description of different historical forms of fascism.

The features of fascism he lists are as follows:

* "The Cult of Tradition", combining cultural syncretism with a rejection of modernism (often disguised as a rejection of capitalism).
* "The Cult of Action for Action's Sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself, and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
* "Disagreement is Treason" - fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action.
* "Fear of Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
* "Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
* "Obsession With a plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often involves an appeal to xenophobia or the identification of an internal security threat. He cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
* "Pacifism is Trafficking With the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent Warfare" - there must always be an enemy to fight.
* "Contempt for the Weak" - although a fascist society is elitist, everybody in the society is educated to become a hero.
* "Selective Populism" - the People have a common will, which is not delegated but interpreted by a leader. This may involve doubt being cast upon a democratic institution, because "it no longer represents the Voice of the People".
* "Newspeak" - fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.

------------------------------
Actually, it is pretty scary reading that - because we see a LOT of that in our country and media today. In fact, I have clearly seen ALL of it in the last decade.

[danjarch]

In the end, Government should be a tool which attempts to provide Justice and Fairness - but it is always an imperfect one. At the same time, the Barbarian way will be vastly worse!

Craig, when the government trys to provide fairness, it becomes the barbarian. It also stops providing justice. When you start believing you can pick and choose who gets to pay and who gets a hand, the government becomes the very thief that needs to be brought to justice.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by danjarch

Craig, when the government trys to provide fairness, it becomes the barbarian.

The might want to read Orwell. You would do him proud.

[PBzeer]

After a quick perusal, a few points.

The Interstate Highway system came into being as a means of rapid deployment of the military and/or supplies. That was the justification for federal involvement. The government's main role was in dishing out the bucks, not planning or building. The expansion of the system has been user oriented.

Far more troubling than closing dealerships, is the determination of what cars to build. Both though, intrude on policy decisions.

NASA is a quasi military operation, though managed by civilians.

The recent SS stimulus checks included ones to people not even enrolled, and others that have been dead for as much as 43 years. Supposedly, this was due to not having enough time to update their info. (and you want these kind of people doing your healthcare?)

I wonder if anyone can name a Federal agency with which they have had an enjoyable experience.

As to being Editor of the Harvard Law Review, that is an elected position, not one based on merit, scholarship, or any other achievement.

[craigimass]

I'd choose OUR government over the barbarians any day of the week!

What that means is that I choose the general opinion and outlook of the people that elect them.

If you look at the journey of our ancestors (through National Geo DNA maps), you will find that most of the males have a fairly straight route. The female DNA is another story. You can almost see the rape and pillage on the map! At least that is my interpretation of the map!

Government exists not to satisfy the majority and strong, but to protect the weak. And that is the whole thing about the fascism stuff, which is the complete opposite. That says we must destroy the weak.

Of course, many of the strong don't like it when the weak are protected. But I think it represents an advancement of mankind and civilization, and without bringing dogmatic religion into it, actually expresses the highest spiritual doctrines.

Blessed are the meek, the peacemakers, the poor and the hungry...and all that jazz.

[craigimass]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

I wonder if anyone can name a Federal agency with which they have had an enjoyable experience.

I have had no experience at all, which is the best possible experience!

But if you think the Feds are not into consumer satisfaction......well, you should try NJ. I mean it. I left that state 5 years ago and they are still after me constantly (for nothing.....)......

Ma, I must admit, has been quite good. I actually get people on the phone when needed, the web interfaces (for business) actually work, and the motor vehicle agency is responsive.

Oh, I did just remember. I did have a parlay with the EPA air management folks recently at a business function in Reno. Really nice folks, a man and a woman. Really knew their stuff and were interfacing with us (businesses which comply with EPA regs in numerous ways) and planning to help us educate the public on being cleaner in certain ways. No mandates. Just education. They were really excited about it all.

So there is my one experience so far....in 55 years...with the Federal Government. Other than that, I assume they have my back when the Russians land in Atlantic city.

[PBzeer]

Of course, Margret Sanger and the elite of her day had a way to "protect" the weak. A little program called eugenics. Eliminate the weak, and the problem is solved.

There's two ways to help the less fortunate. You can give them bread, or you can give them the seed to plant the wheat to make the flour to make the bread. The "War on Poverty" gives us a pretty good example of what happens when you just give them the bread.

[wind_magic]

I'm all for welfare. We absolutely should have a safety net that insures that people don't die just because they are out of a job and flat broke. Where I may differ from some is in what level of living that safety net should afford - I want to make sure people don't starve to death, that they are out of the rain at night, warm in the winter, etc, but what some people consider "subsistence" is a lot more than what I consider subsistence. I do not think it is in the tax payers interest to insure that everybody who is out of work gets to keep their home, for example, or keep their stuff, or even be assured that they won't be bunking up with other people in group shelters - having a place of your own is a luxury that many people don't experience until they've been out of college working for a few years, I don't see it as a tax payer responsibility to insure that everyone has their own home. Social welfare should be the last resort, the safety net that insures your kids don't have to sleep in an alley, that they at least have a mattress under them and that they don't wake up staring eye to eye with a squirrel in the city park. Welfare should be enough to keep people alive and to give them a chance to get back on their feet, but it should NOT be a "living", a living is what jobs afford for those who can work. I don't think we should return to Victorian times and work houses, but I also don't think it's the tax payer's responsibility to pay people's rent when they are walking around jabbering on the latest cell phones and driving their SUV instead of taking the bus to their job interviews. Welfare should be something that keeps you alive, but also something that you are highly motivated to get off of as soon as you can.

All of this is going to become more and more of an issue as the baby boomers retire - at some point we are all going to have to decide exactly what kind of an environment we are going to provide for the masses of people who are going to retire without a dime in their pocket. Obviously we can't afford to pay their mortgages and keep them in bubbly and lobster, yet at the same time we can't very well have them sleeping on cots in gymnasiums (or superdomes) either, there is going to have to be some kind of middle ground. I think that middle ground should be group housing with three squares a day and basic medical care, because there are going to be so many people retiring in this fashion that to provide anything more is going to enslave a whole generation of young people who's entire futures will be mortgaged before they ever get a chance in the world.

[OsmundL]

Originally Posted by cardiacpaul

"I think it can only get better.
Why don’t you?"
I only need to reference one industry to prove that "government intervention" is almost never a good idea.
late '70's early-mid '80's... British Leyland... nuff said.

Can we have a whip-around for more servers at Sailnet? We’re going to need a lot to satisfy your method of debating: listing one example after another to prove a point. “late '70's early-mid '80's... British Leyland... nuff said.”
No, cardiac, it ain’t nuff. There are thousands of government-infected businesses around the world, some successful, some not. And there are millions of private businesses, some… you get the picture. One can learn more from taking a single example and analyzing it properly than by throwing more darts at the board to see if they stick. Leyland proves – exactly nothing. I am not going to bother coming up with a counter example, it wouldn’t help my point anyway.

I’ll give you this: you did at least address my question: "I think it can only get better. Why don’t you?" But like several others, you did it by skipping the past, the cause, the starting point of my question, namely that things were already royally stuffed.

So, I repeat the question in more detail:
The economy crumbled over many years. In the end, it wasn’t a matter of rising unemployment or a few bad quarters for shareholders – we had banks on the rope, GM and Chrysler finally coming home to roost, home values dropping and people losing pensions. In my observation, it could hardly get much worse.

A majority of the population voted for change; things clearly could not continue as they were; some things had to be done very differently.

With me so far?

The new guy is different, he does things, and you cry “government intervention.” Now I am not stupid, despite some of your hints at the opposite, and I can think of a few alternative solutions. All I want to hear now is your solution.

How would you deal with the banks?
With GM and Chrysler?

As I said, I believe it can get better. Do you?