Posted on 08/26/2004 7:28:04 AM PDT by AdrianSpidle
Putting aside my customary reticence, it has become obvious to me that I am one of the very few people in the blogosphere who can tell the difference between a hamburger and the picture of the hamburger on the menu.
I say this even though I never graduated from college and most of you guys probably have; some from elite universities even. I suggest that you are more indoctrinated than educated, except, perhaps, for those of you trained in real science. The rest of you expensively schooled wonders are almost totally ignorant of the real world. Theories and models are not the real world although they may look like it to a greater or lesser degree (like the picture of the hamburger).
The problem is that you can only see what you’re looking at. That is to say, for example, if you ignore the evils done by Saddam Hussein then, of course, the Iraq War is wrong. To people who do give consideration and moral weight to the actions of Saddam Hussein the war is a moral imperative.
It all comes down to the inherent structures and limitations of human understanding. Besides being unable to include what we don’t know and, what we don’t know we don’t know, in our theories and models; what we do know will look different from different points of view.
This is why my attempt to understand the real world and its’ politics has brought me to establish the Public Enquiry Project to encourage debate and enquiry between the Left and the Right. This is not a neutral site because I know I’m a Righty, but rather my attempt to encourage dialog between Righties like me and Lefties. I must confess, however, that I’m a bit disappointed by the dearth of intelligent enquiry and the plethora of knee jerk insults from both sides.
I invite you guys who consider yourselves to be knowledgeable to try and approach my highly evolved level by engaging in respectful bipartisan enquiry into how to best manage the problems of the day. A good start would be to go to the superb article by Brad Delong promoting Kerry’s health plan and the lucent defense of the same by Marc Brazeau.
http://pep.typepad.com/public_enquiry_project/2004/08/prof_brad_delon.html
As a Righty, I believe that there are elements of this plan that have a lot of value. If George Bush wins as I hope and expect, I’d like to see his administration consider the brilliant GOVERNMENT AS REINSUROR part of Kerry’s plan.
I ask, even plead, to have a knowledgeable Republican respond to the points made by Delong and Brazeau. My Conservative friends please realize that even Lefties sometimes have good ideas.
Adrian Spidle
http://pep.typepad.com/public_enquiry_project/2004/08/here_is_why_all.html
I admittedly did not read your links.
However, I don't have to for a simple reason: ideology.
My politically ideology (and I would call myself objectivist, from which libertarianism was derived. I am not a conservative) identifies the proper role of government in society. That role is to protect the rights of citizens. And rights cannot impose demands on others. Healthcare is not a right...because to make it so is to enslave both taxpayers and the medical profession.
A second arguement is Constitutional. Our founding document clearly lays our the roles and responsibilities of our federal gov't. And limits its roles to those laid out. There is no health care reinsurance clause in the Constitution. If you want to add it, there is a mechanism...the amendment process. Without reading your links, I can say with confidence that is not what is being proposed.
The role of government is not to give people stuff. Not welfare, not housing, not food, not medical care. It is to protect their rights.
Here is a quick quiz for you:
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
Do you think this idea is essentially good or essentially evil?
(Clapping sound here ...)
They may have better parties, but their ideas generally suck.
Essentially Evil, no doubt.
Yet you propose to take from those of ability (productive taxpayers) to meet the so-called 'need' of people for health insurance?
Nonsense
Which of the early libertarians were not either objectivists first, or at least heavily influenced by objectivism?
Classical liberals, who are sometimes tied to the "modern" movement, were mainly people of belief.
But that matters not, trying to tie your religion to the desire for freedom is nonsense.
Essentially good. Call me a leftist. Call me a stupid liberal if you must. But if you're better than that...tell me why its essentially evil without using such wonderful and informative remarks as "they're ideas suck".
Two words: property rights
Desire for freedom is age old. And Libertarianism is not. Even classical liberalism is not. Libertarianism is a very specific intellectual conception, and it has roots. You could make the case that objectivism has its roots in classical liberalism, but that is whole discussion.
Objectivism is not a religion; it is a philosophy. And although those two concepts are far closer than most recognize, there is a difference, and objectivism is most definitely on the philosophy side of the line.
And my philosophy is most definitely tied to my desire for freedom.
There are many reasons why that formulation is essentially evil. Among them:
1.) It asserts a man has no inalienable right to the product of his own labor.
2.) It places the collective above the individual.
3.) It operates a disincentive to industry, innovation, and effort.
4.) It presupposes a powerful coercive force (big, and eventually authoritarian government, the basic enemy of liberty) to enforce its maxim.
Are these sufficient?
"(Clapping sound here ...)
Sound of one hand clapping here...
The definition of your ideology, pointedly excluding conservatism, was so broad as to leave the conservatives, who in the majority people this site, out in the cold. In actuality, we embrace most of the same tenets you mentioned.
Absolutely true. That is why I am here. But having the same position and arriving at it for the same reasons are different.
I will also say that I try to be kind to the conservative nature of this site and generally (admittedly not always) stay away from areas in which we differ.
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.