Replies

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'd be inclined to reverse this: put us in power and you will have to think harder than ever. I'm not just blowing smoke here. This is the way I approach my students. I tell them they should never let anyone (certainly not me!) do their thinking for them, because we all stand to suffer if our beliefs are wrong. We should no more let others do our thinking for us than we should let others chew our food for us. When we discuss things in my class, we all work under the same set of rules. No view is above criticism or beneath contempt. We demand reasons and evidence from everyone, and it is fair game to criticize my views or the views of the textbook. Everyone has to make their case.

I don't think the problem is the people. I think for the most part, we are all doing the best we can. But I think there is room for improvement, and we can help each other do better. Let me be specific. Cass Sunstein has written a book "Why societies need dissent" where he makes the claim that when conservatives or liberals have large enough majorities that they can ignore the opposition, they behave badly. He give evidence! But the point is our critics do us valuable service by forcing us to consider questions and evidence we and our friends may have overlooked. Answer objections forces us to be clearer on our reasons, more objective about the validity of our reasoning--and that makes our deliberations and choices better. I believe that. That's why I am here, to learn from you about my blind sides. I have some challenges from the liberals I engage with at another website. They raise some good questions. But over here, you have a different set of questions for me. And it is good for me to hear those questions and think about those objections.