Kevin :
Government causes "the" malady ?
I don't follow, although I suspect it is because we are thinking about
different classes of things. Otherwise this is a mystery.
Government causes abortions ?
" " homosexuality ?
" " Hollywood movies and the nihilistic values
they promote ?
" " out of wedlock births ?
" " drug abuse ?
Maybe gvt has some role in various such matters, but it seems much more
likely that market forces, so to speak, are the greater culprits.
Anyway, why reflexively hit on government ?
Why reflexively give a free pass to the market ?
We do have a Constitution that many people regard as inspired and a Great
Good.
Why not defend the Constitution and the government it created ?
Government is not the enemy. The idiots who are now IN government,
certainly a lot of them, are the enemy. Personally I'd like to lynch about
half
of everyone now in Washington DC. But this is very different than
blaming government, especially our Constitutional government.
Libertarians cannot have it both ways, pro-Constitution and
anti-government.
The Constitution created our government. It legitimates our government.
The Constitution is meaningless without our government.
We need better government, hence my main reason for
recommending all those new Amendments. But I sure in heck
don't want to see our government gutted.
Which Amendments do you think would not improve government ?
Exactly what is the value in ceaseless attacks on government ?
How does that make good sense ? Why not spend time and energy
trying to improve government ?
And what is the alternative ? No government ? That would be irrational.
And, if successful, it would be suicidal.
Billy
-----------------------------------------------------------
11/11/2011 3:53:36 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
Hello Billy:
I would take it a step further. I believe government intervention causes
the malady. Thus if we want to improve society we should eliminate the
cause.
Kevin
Mike :
You certainly "get" the idea of Radical Centrism. I don't think anyone
here
could have said it better. Not at all clear, however, what the relevance is
to social conservatives and values issues. Kevin also made the point that
these kinds of issues matter to many, many people.
How the government treats the less well off ( or the poor as such ) is
mostly,
at least as I see it, more a question of economics and incentives. Is there
anyone who regards it as moral to injure the well being of Americans
who live at poverty levels ? Seems to me that, about this, there is no
moral issue at all, just a means/ends issue, how to get the best result
in terms of $$ for both gvt and individuals.
Generally, if not overwhelmingly, "values" refers to a very different
set of issues, call them "hot button" if you prefer. They have this
designation
precisely because of emotional responses they arouse.
Billy
-----------------------------------------------------------
11/10/2011 2:10:39 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:
This all goes back to "arete" with me. Whether the government or
private charity goes toward keeping the destitute alive, the homeless
situation leaves the same economic drag either way. The false choice
here is between the liberal idea of keeping a permanent underclass
just barely alive, or the conservative idea of denying the legitimacy
of the problem. Rather, I'd argue for a safety net that brings the
destitute back to the starting line by medicating, providing the bare
minimums, etc., but, in contrast with the current safety net, has an
expectation of performance in return.
--
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
Radical Centrism website and blog: _http://RadicalCentrism.org_
(http://radicalcentrism.org/)
--
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
