On 01/13/2014 01:33 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote: > It means that the state is trying to raise the bar for everyone, and > that by itself is admirable enough to pay for. Period.
It's an easy argument to make when you approve of the objective. It's more difficult when you disapprove. Of course, part of being a liberal is that you will generally approve of spending-for-change more than you disapprove. So, for me a better example than funding rail would be funding the construction of new and repair of old asphalt roads, especially those without bike lanes. There are sections of Portland with lots of unpaved roads. The people near them tend to do interesting things with them, including the unauthorized planting of gardens and such. We even have a charity devoted to tearing up dilapidated paved areas. http://depave.org/ These unpaved areas encourage everything I like, most importantly slowing drivers down. Similarly, we have some "right wing" county commissioners in my county (doesn't contain Portland) who want to defund rail and pour more money into resurfacing roads. Both the metro and county governments take my tax money and spend it paving roads and parking lots that I think should be depaved entirely. So, even if I were a full-blown tax and spend liberal, I'd disapprove of their use of my money. (Granted, it's partly because I have a 4 wheel drive gas guzzling pick-up truck and an "adventure" style motorcycle ... if all I had were a Smart car or a fat-tired harley, I might approve of more pavement... or at least more grading.) > I don't even > know what it means to do intelligence operations organically? More like > Blackwater? Or just no military and intelligence at all? I'm not suggesting that all nation-scale activities could be organized by the members of your local YMCA. [grin] I'm simply saying that your (and my when I choose to use it) argument against organically grown efforts and/or NGOs is not always reliable. There are near-government intelligence operations that are not as criminal as Xi Services, BTW. As for military, there are those who argue nations should not have standing armies, for whatever those arguments are worth. > If elected officials at any level grossly violate my expectations, I'll > vote against them and encourage others to do the same. This is a frequently cited idealization. In fact, however, it's rarely useful. Polls consistently show that people disapprove of Congress, for example, but approve of their own congress person. Moreover, the necessary continuity of the non-elected members of government (staff, agency employees, military brass, etc.) ensure that very little will change from one elected rep. to another. Not to mention that the only people you can vote for are pre-selected by forces beyond your control. -- ⇒⇐ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
