Replies

But do you really think that roads should be left only up to private citizens?

No, I don't. This particular line is all a hypothetical argument.

I am trying to further this debate by pointing out that the only things the government can do in a Republic are those things the citizens themselves have the authority to do, and could do, but are more efficiently done on their behalf by elected representatives. Rogerv seems to believe the idea that the government is somehow inherently wiser and more moral than the people, hence his encouragement for expansion of governmental authority.

The Open Society web pages appear to have been written by Rogerv. That, or perhaps all the members of this organization favor long-winded diatribes that wander aimlessly through gentle, windswept meadows of politically correct fluff while rarely arriving at any distiguishable landmarks of policy recommendation. The only policy recommendation I have been able to discern on their website is that they seem to think criminals shouldn't be punished for their crimes.

The bulk of their site is filled with such meaningful gems as this:

OSI and the network implement a range of initiatives that aim to promote open societies by shaping government policy and supporting education, media, public health, and human and women's rights, as well as social, legal, and economic reform.

When that much BS is stacked in one place, it is wise to don the rubber boots.

I don't know enough about Karl Popper's writings to argue about them. I've never read any of his books. I've only read about him. Some describe him as right wing, someone Republicans and libertarians would find appealing. The Open Society Institute is George Soros' thing. I don't really know much about what they do either or how much they adhere to Karl Popper's philosophies.

You got it. An immense amount of "reasonable" blather, with no specific point, other than "government" should listen to the "people," and the "people" should create a government which will solve all problems. This leads to Bertholdt Brecht's wicked comment on the aftermath of the 17 Jun 53 East Berlin worker's uprising. The Communist Party admonished the workers to redouble efforts to regain the Party's confidence. Brecht suggested that it might be simpler for the Party to abolish the People and elect another.
I studied Political Science in the early 50s when Marxism and Communism were taken seriously. Volumes and volumes on Dialectical Materialism and the rest of the Communist baloney. Popper's and "Rogerv's" stuff is the same. Just mountains of verbiage which can be reduced to: Put us in power and you'll never have to think again.
And I thought that Lysenkoism was long dead, i.e., the creation of the New Soviet Man by osmosis.
By the way, how much has the great philanthropist Soros donated to tsunami relief?

I am not personally associated with the Open Society Institute, although I wouldn't mind working there. I agree with their aims. As for Soros, I know he is disliked for having weighed in with the Democrats this election. He was trying to be a kingmaker. But their are billionaires trying to be kingmakers for the conservatives as well--Scaife, for example. In my opinion, there is far too much of this going on. When money has this much influence in politics, democracy does not fare well. I think McCain and Feingold have the right idea, although I don't think their bill put more than a speed bump in the soft money pouring in to campaigns.

Still, back to Soros. Soros grew up in Hungary and saw both the Nazis and the Soviet Communists. I think his distaste for totalitarianism is sincere and his desire to help societies (like Russia) democratize ought to be taken at face value. He is a flawed individual (as am I) who is trying to do the right thing. The academic impenetrability of the prose at his website notwithstanding, I think he is trying to do some good things.