Posted on 06/28/2002 12:48:37 PM PDT by Admin Moderator
And what do you call, our present public school system if not chaotic.?
I call our present public school system lots of things, actually, but chaotic is not one of them. Assuming we can agree that chaos means basically the absence of order, the public school system is not even random in its output, let alone chaotic. If it were chaotic the kids wouldn't be learning anything at all. As it is they learn a great deal, actually - political correctness; revisionist history; how to feel good about themselves in the absence of real achievement; how to wear condoms and participate in certain "normative life styles as sexual animals". They are learning exactly what their teachers want them to learn. It's wrong, it's immoral, it's irreligious, it's evil, it's pernicious and insidious, but it's not at all chaotic - it's planned.
And what did you call the events of 9-11?
I called, and still call, the events of 9-ll despicable criminal acts and wanton murder by sociopathic agents of a despotic ideology ... but there was nothing chaotic in the acts themselves. They were well and thoroughly planned, carried out with precision and fairly good timing, and the results were even more spectacular than the bastards expected them to be. The results of those acts didn't even result in chaos because our immediate reaction to those events was measured and reasonable (perhaps more reasonable than I would have liked); in fact, we reacted as a civilized society to a barbaric act. Had we not had trained, experienced and dedicated firemen, police and military personnel, chaos might well have reigned - but we do have those "government" forces, and there was no chaos.
Government sure as hell can't teach kids to read or do math.
No argument there, at least to the point that government is NOT teaching kids to read or do math. On the other hand, government or rather the NGO known as the NEA IS teaching kids all that they want them to know. We're not making accidental dummies, Joe; it's all part of the desired outcome. Check out the writings of a guy called Antonio Gramsci, and see if his ideas of socialist infiltration hasn't been successful, and isn't responsible for the usurpation of the society our Founders gave us.
And it did nothing to protect those folks in the World Trade center.
No, it didn't, at least not before the fact. It's a moot point how many more might have died had the police and fire personnel not responded as they did, but those were government forces. However, the fact that our government agencies didn't do more than they did has no bearing on whether an anarchist state would have responded any better. Nor do you have anything more than theory to suggest that anarchic forces would have done any better, not even any anecdotal evidence that I know about, because there's never been an anarchist state to look at for examples.
Of course government did extract some retribution. At monopolistic prices I might add.
As it happens I know quite a little bit about government and military procurement, and to suggest that we would be better off relying a military force provided by the lowest bidder is simply ludicrous. Actually, it's more than ludicrous, it's pie-in-the-sky.
Chaos? We're not there yet; in fact, we're not even close.
Problems with an out-of-control government? Without question, and we need to do quite a lot about that. But going toward anarchy is not the answer.
Our Founders were cognizant of all forms of government when the came together to form that more perfect union, and what they gave us was a democratic republic, not a pure republic, and not a democracy by any definition. As bad as it is, no one has yet offered up anything that works better - not libertarians, not socialists, and not the anarchists. Nor will they ever.
I hate to get all serious on you, but I'm afraid the cost would be far, far more. Money is not the only currency of exchange, you know.
3m
0% government control = anarchy ... agreed.
100% government control = tyranny (maybe communism, but could also be several other forms of government) ... agreed.
Our only disagreement appears to me to be that I have no doubt that anarchy would also equal chaos, and you seem to be saying that anarchy would equal a better society than we now have.
I've made the points for my argument, but I can't answer yours because you haven't really made any. I'm not trying to be harsh, either; I simply don't see where you've made your point that anarchy would be better than the status quo.
LOL!
Well, of course it is! On that we can agree, and even work together to get us moving more quickly toward that end of the spectrum. But that's hardly saying the same thing as anarchy is where we want to end up when we're finished.
Perhaps you were using hyperbole all along, and I just missed it? :)
3m
One could make the same argument about someone who insists on using penis size as some form of intellectual measurement.
You may now understand why I'll take positions way out of the mainstream.
If you think your positions are way out of the mainstream, perhaps you should get out into the mainstream more often.
I must admit that I have been blown away by your statements today Joe. Wow. I had no idea. We're not fighting for the same things at all. In fact, we're in political opposition of each other, not as different types of conservatives, but as a person on the Right opposed to a person on the Left.
You can use any definition of anarchy you choose because none of them are acceptable to me.
Magnum
sorry about the freepmail, I hit the wrong reply button.
Your deft use of a small penis sophomoric taunt demonstrated this very clearly. It also made for compelling debate.
I said it before, this argument jumped the shark long ago. 9
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.