Posted on 10/21/2014 4:28:27 PM PDT by Salvation
I hope that the pope is smart enough to know when he has lost a set. As Archbishop Chaput said in an interview, the Synod produced nothing but confusion. There are enough Benedict bishops to cause him a lot of trouble between now and the regular synod.
It really starts with the Emperor Joseph of Austria in the 1780s. You know, the Enlightened One.
Most of the lefty sisters are past 65 as well.
Patience and prayer. I have had St. Michael working over time.
That could be. I did not say laissez-faire is a bad idea, just that historically it has lead to a shift toward defensive postures of today conservatism, which would be perfectly happy letting the gays, the muslims and the socialists do whatever they want, just not in my town.
+1
Thank you for the ping. Prayers continue.
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." -- Wendell Phillips, (1811-1884)
I'm talking about something much more pro-active than laizzez-faire. Perhaps what we should call it is "constructivism." The left highjacks words all the time. Maybe it's time we did it too.
That presumes the defenders even understand what they are defending. I can make an excellent case that NOBODY understands the Torah as originally given by its pastoralist progenitors, much less knows how to apply those principles to the 21st Century (a book I'm close to finishing btw).
For later viewing. Thanks.
I like that.
Restraining man's authoritarian instincts is an arduous task for a political leader. Socialists gripe about working class authoritarianism, yet they are the control culprits. In economic affairs, the political leader must actively fight mercantilism. Laissez-faire policies that create a productive environment for business expansion are not defensive. Conservative social policy advocates government coercion to enforce a society's moral values, going well beyond 'Lockean liberalism'.
That's very interesting. Can you provide an example or two of the functioning of your constructivist government?
Easy.
Constructivists believe in making the most of every public resource. Needless to say, roads are a tangled mess in most of those Democrat-controlled cities. Googlebus displaces existing public mass transit because they know the riders. They provide information systems so that the riders can work on the bus. Google wins, and so do the riders.
Similarly, these new online ride-sharing and room renting services perform the same constructivist function. The original idea of government regulating cab services was all about risk management. Now, with information services, riders and drivers have an agent to perform that function. If that agent and the drivers are appropriately insured there is no reason for cab licensing or public mass-transit at all.
OK, that's constructivist example number one.
I have a patent on a free-market environmental management business method. I also have a book about our 25-year native plant habitat restoration project that you can read that both qualifies me as an environmental expert and shows why freedom in resource management is an absolute must in promoting a healthy planet. Because it's 80% pictures, it's only 750 pages!
OK, that's two.
Of course, we constructivists also believe in what makes for strong and healthy children for BUILDING the next generation. It is proven that successful families are key to that, but then there is also the question of education. I have proposals for that too.
So, there's three, and I've got more. :-)
The point is that by taking this constructivist stance, we automatically broaden our appeal without needing to suck up to the constituencies for these ideas such that they to try to take over, for example, by making demands on "social issues." Instead of being against, it is a stance of ideas to advocate. They're constructive ideas you know. That's why we're constructivists.
Oh, the left would HATE those constructive ideas? Well, they're merely backward. All they want is to protect big corporations (government employee unions are corporations). What are they but their own kind of conservatives! Reactionaries!! Luddites!!!
It's easy. Just take progressivism and jam it down their throats.
Now, there is a difference between conservatism and constructivism. So before I tell you what it is, see if you can figure it out.
By themselves they are: if a political entity, e.g. the Soviet Union wants to have planned economy and GULAG system inside its perimeter, laissez-faire lets them do that. Luckily, there are other factors, such as strategic planning and Christian ethics, that mitigated the problem during the Cold War.
Your first example, Google, is a model where participation is controlled by a rigorous interview process and at-will employment afterwards, and whose subsystems, such as buses and cafeteria food are subsidized by advertising revenue.
To replace, say, LA transit, with Googlebus will similarly require a phone screen and a five-hour interview just to get the rider badge, and then regular productivity reviews.
Google knows a lot more about you than you think they do. With intelligent agents, and your permission, they could do the equivalent with software. As it is, they soon will anyway, which is the down side.
“In his remarks at the synod’s close, Pope Francis mocked “so-called traditionalists” for their “hostile rigidity.”
And liberals for their progressivness.
And he replaced conservatives with liberals and let liberals control the agenda. What’s the Bible verse “You will know them by their fruits”?
I read a portion of your patent documentation. Given its length, it may be more useful to me and others if you could summarize your ‘proposal’ in a couple of paragraphs, updated for the intervening fifteen years since your filing. It strikes me as much like cap and trade without the bad science surrounding the impact of CO2 emissions, with the proviso that I have only read a portion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.