On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 10:34:14 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
> Hi Craig Weinberg
> Party politics will soon end.
> The two parties of the future (next year if even that)
> will be (a) those who want to cut the debt and
> (b) those who don't.
> That's what's happened to much of europe.
Eh, even that will be a lie. I would assume that party politics will
continue in a less overt way is all. Oligarchy re-branded.
As far as the pipe dream of increasing individual liberty by reducing the
power of government, can't you see that unconstitutional Corporate
Feudalism will fill the vacuum before you can say Habeus Corpus? You think
that Monsanto is going to give you a constitution?
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
> ----- Receiving the following content -----
> From: Craig Weinberg
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2012-12-17, 19:08:17
> Subject: Re: promoting REASON
> On Monday, December 17, 2012 5:57:40 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
> On 12/17/2012 3:05 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> > Now that I know that Conservatism is based on preserving the value of
> > fear, it makes sense that the arguments tend to jump unexplainably
> > from "hey, why is that one guy hogging all of the money?" to "The only
> > alternative is 'everyone will die'. If we weren't afraid of dying in
> > mass graves, what would be a more sensible way of governing a
> > prosperous state?
> Dear Craig,
> At some point I hope that you will understand that I am not
> promoting a brand of politics. I am promoting REASON, that with makes us
> Sapient, not that which makes us D. or R. or L. or G. or whatever other
> brand of politic one might happen to like.
> I don't doubt that, and in theory I welcome Conservative views, except
> that in reality I'm not able to see the reasonable part of them.
> Preserving the value of fear. Well, umm, yes. Being able to track
> what is truly scary (will kill you if given a chance) and being able to
> ignore the not-so-scary (might kill you if you bother it), seems to give
> a evolutionary advantage. Consider an evolutionary toy ecosystem. If we
> introduce a mutation that makes all stimuli "scary" or makes stimuli
> scary by some random amount, what happens to average survival?
> Predictability of actions would be degraded, this implies a detrimental
> effect on survival. How will you find food in a randomly or super scary
> But the position the US is in now, of being the only global superpower
> with a larger military than at least the next ten put together puts fear at
> the bottom of the list of important considerations. We should be looking at
> how making the US quality of life the envy of the world, not making into a
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> To post to this group, send email to
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at