Quoting "Laycock, Jos (OSPT)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Thanks Platt > > Balance, is fair enough, but in this balance can we not show overall > direction as > shaped by the point at which that balance rests. The competing agendas push > the > point of that balance towards or away from either wing and thus steer the > course > of the evolution of that culture. Right?
There needs to be a balance between Dynamic and static with the emphasis on maintaining a fulcrum of opportunity that allows for tipping in the direction of the Dynamic. (Hope the metaphor works.) > So what we have now, is relatively free but also relatively restricted, but in > responding to the comment that society's quality has declined, would you not > agree > that the explosion of a vast indiscriminate and degenerate media is a > function of > the push towards greater personal freedom and not away from it? You can't > honestly think this drift into base doltish-mediafrenzy-cult-of- > celebrity-dross > has stemmed from the push factors of latent embedded Marxism? Can you? Marxism had more to do with economics than free expression although it's tendency towards totalitarianism puts a kibosh on free speech, too. As for celebrity, Pirsig has a lot of interesting things to say about it, especially its role as a force for social cohesion. It may be with America so politically divided that the rise of celebrity worship is a consequence -- a means of fostering unity. Anyway, I'd be interested in your explanation of how the "base doltish-mediafrenzy-cult-of- clebrity dross" arose that we both agree is currently afflicting the country. > Funny how our usage of language has us calling liberalism something that > restricts > and conservatism something that frees? > Surely if you're in favour of personal freedom so that makes you a liberal > right? > Whereas if I'm for greater state regulation and order which makes me a > conservative? In today's lingo, the roles have been reversed. Conservatives strive for greater individual liberty; liberals call on the state to enforce their Utopian schemes. Conservatives want to "conserve" what the Founding Fathers created. Liberals want to "liberate" government from Constitutional restrictions. They, for example, were largely responsible for the amendment allowing the government to tax personal incomes. In their favor, they were instrumental in abolishing race-based laws. Unfortunately, they have seen fit to re-establish such laws with "affirmative action" programs, recently knocked down by the Supreme Court. And today they are making overtures about silencing talk radio, an assault on free speech. Anyway, I look forward to your views on Quality decline. Thanks. Platt ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
