Bob Calco wrote: > Ricardo: > > >> Ok, let's try and have a civil argument Bob. >> > > LOL, despite the subject you chose to sport for our "civil" debate (which > I've taken the liberty to correct for civility), sure, I'll give it a whirl. > It'll be a refreshing departure from the norm. :) > Sorry, old habits die hard.
> >> i - If you reduce or eliminate the state, then you reduce or eliminate >> the military forces and police forces. So where do you stand on this? >> > > Let us formulate the question more precisely: "How much force/state power is > precisely sufficient for a strong national security and internal stability, > that is at the same time NOT inimical to the goals of a free republic?" > > Is that the question on which you'd like me to opine? Or is it something > else? I may be injecting my own assumptions here. > If that were the question then we'd first have to go into defining the "goals" of said free republic. So let's keep it as simple as possible. The question is, do you state that reducing administration, health, and education whilst enlarging military and police is better for a republic than the opposite? Now you are an educated man Bob, so you can keep complicating the issue or give a straight and honest answer. Which will it be? >> ii - You often speak of socialists or 'leftists' as if they where a >> different species from you. >> > > They are. I have the DNA tests to prove it. Technically I'm homo sapiens > sapiens, and they are homo sapiens tyrannicus. ;-) > > >> Are you against the existence of a state? >> > > No, I am not an anarchist, if that's your question. > > >> Would you wish the dissolution of USA? Or else, they are not a >> different >> species and the only difference between a socialist and you is where >> they draw the line of state involvement, only a difference of >> proportion. >> > > The first question has zero connection to the next, except insofar as your > line of reasoning implies about a dozen corollary arguments to arrive at the > conclusion which you ham-fist into the first question. But anyway. > Yes, sorry. It was improper for this thread. > The question is actually this: What is it about "socialist" philosophy that > rubs me so adversely at whatever level my animus is aroused and > why?----right? And aren't socialists just like me, in that we occupy some > perhaps different point on a straight-line continuum from anarchy to > totalitarianism? > > Confirm/clarify the questions, and we shall proceed with our experiment in > elenchus. I am formulating a few of my own to share at the appropriate time. > Let's rephrase. I see the involvement of the state in the welfare of it's citizens in two levels which often get thrown together. How much involvement there should be, and in which areas. Now, to treat socialists as a different species you should answer "there should be NO involvement of the state in the welfare of it's citizens" in which case the question would be "Then what IS the function of the state?". OTOH if you would describe an amount and manner of involvement I would ask "Then why do you consider socialists inherently different from you? You just disagree in the 'amount' of involvement.". I know I'm leaving a lot of gaps, this is not my native language, I'm at the office, and I don't have the time to write a 2000 words essay. Let's see if you can get what I mean and answer straight up. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
