I read every word.
It's very observable, pragmatically-empirically, that centralized
government is clunky. Observe the slow growth future we have before us
and the gigantic programs sucking away productive energy - Social
Security and Medicare are terribly-designed and were from their start -
as was warned at their inceptions.
Obama's word salad - an astounding display in both debates - is the
opposite of anything pragmatically useful. Romney is somewhat better -
he at least adverts to the productive capacity of the decentralized free
market.
MRB
On 10/17/2012 4:49 PM, david buchanan wrote:
MRB said:
Centralized government systems only work for defense and justice-administration
- at best. This is because government is inertial.
Mark said:
Yes, and the smallest government possible to administer these things. This is
because of the expense of government.
dmb says:
I'll bet a hundred bucks that neither one of you bothered to read the article.
If you had, you'd realize how un-pragmatic you're being.
"Still, while James did want us to believe, he also wanted us to give up
“ideologies.” He called pragmatism “[t]he attitude of looking away from first things,
principles, ‘categories,’ supposed necessities; and of looking towards last things,
fruits, consequences, facts.” Pragmatists can have principles but not self-verifying
ones; they renounce any certainties that are based on claims of universal necessity. In
our world of chance and change, things may not go the way we want either intellectually
or practically, so we have to look to the developing world of actions and results for
support of, and challenges to, our most cherished faiths. The final test of even our
logic is how well it leads us to act and live. Pragmatists therefore think, and act,
provisionally, or subject to later changes in course."
"In 2006, Obama, then the junior senator from Illinois wrote in his memoir “The
Audacity of Hope”, that the Constitution, rather than being a dead document based on
settled principles, is “designed to force us into a conversation” and offers “a way by
which we argue about our future.” And he criticized his own Democratic party for failing
to bring new ideas to this argument, having become “the party of reaction”: “In reaction
to a war that is ill-conceived, we appear suspicious of all military action. In reaction
to those who proclaim the market can cure all ills, we resist efforts to use market
principles to tackle pressing problems. In reaction to religious overreach, we equate
tolerance with secularism and forfeit the moral language that would help infuse our
policies with a larger meaning.” Obama challenged both parties to leave behind their
ideological boilerplate and develop something new, something that all Americans can come
to believe in."
And how do you guys respond? In knee-jerk fashion with the same old ideological
boilerplate we've all heard a thousand times, that's how.
Sigh.
Troll, troll, troll away...
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
