Hi Mike, On Aug 25, 2011, at 11:57 AM, Mike Gonzalez wrote: > Control what would better be controlled to lead to the general > prosperity. Leave alone what would better be left alone that leads to > that same prosperity. It's the administrative state with a smart > touch. The benefit of an empirical "tradition" is that we'd finally > be able to get citizens to agree to the groundrules, so that they > can't just feign some level of ignorance based in some vague "values" > doctrine to avoid a sensible change in society, where beneficial. > It's an unchanging tradition of change when potential prosperity can > be shown. > > If you want a hard center, define general prosperity. If you want a > soft center, leave the definition open.
Very well said. I like the distinction between actions and results (if only theoretically). I do think the present dialectic is between empiricism and dogmatism, and the challenge of the Radical Center is to synthesize a principled pragmatism. In fact, this journey all began for me by defining what I called "Ground Rules for Civil Society". http://radicalcentrism.org/manifesto/ It is a bit terse, but I'd be happy to unpack it for you if you have questions. -- Ernie P. -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
