tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1377385119326285192.post6213586885228447247..comments2024-02-23T00:27:41.196-08:00Comments on Refugees From the City: Not exactly John's meme: Socialism LiteratureJohn the Scientisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03467337009577733553noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1377385119326285192.post-39684246020515289192009-02-20T07:35:00.000-08:002009-02-20T07:35:00.000-08:00Arguably the peculiar brilliance of our system (at...Arguably the peculiar brilliance of our system (at least on paper) is that stupidity and crookedness are taken into account by the separation of powers and electoral process. Granted, I think it's broken down in practice because of the two-party-monopoly and because of a certain degree of moral cowardice on the part of Congress in recent years; it's still hard to come up with a preferable alternative.<BR/><BR/>It's interesting that you mention NC (I don't think I realized you were around here)--I wouldn't assure you that our state won't go libertarian, I'd express gratitude. That's not meant as a snub to you--it's not going to go Green, either (a party I don't wholly agree with, but probably have more common ground with than the Dems), which I imagine you'd be grateful for. The point, rather, is that for better or worse we do have to have these compromises that allow us to live as neighbors. I'd be lying if I claimed I was always happy with those compromises and moves to the center--there are times when I wish there would be a massive partisan roar from the Left for Truth, Justice and the American Way (as I see it); but then I have to remind myself that a similar partisan roar from the Right (which they must want, sometimes, as much or more as I want <I>my</I> groundswell) would strike me as a triumph of the fatuous at best and fascist tyranny at its worst.<BR/><BR/>I think the idealization of local government is something that's on the losing side of history, to be honest with you. The world began to change in the 19th century--whether to the good or ill doesn't even matter any more--and we're long past the day and age when things were small and remote enough for local governments to really be effective at most things; local governments still have their place, mind you, and I'm not saying otherwise; but (at the risk of sounding cliched) you have global economies and a global environment and global political issues at a level of saturation that was unprecedented in the early 1800s. What happens in Mexico City has an effect on what happens in Gastonia, and sooner rather than later.<BR/><BR/>As for Congressman Frank: CW, your point would have been the same had you simply said he'd taken money, or that he'd had affairs, or that he'd taken money and had affairs. You wouldn't have said "openly conducted heterosexual affairs" if Frank were straight--you threw in the orientation because you somehow thought it was relevant to your argument, and it just isn't. And the only point it could make, of course, would be that some people find homosexuality so repulsive that a homosexual affair--open or not--is somehow worse than a straight affair, and therefore even more of a blemish on Frank's questionable character, ethics or judgement. So I have to stand by what I said to start with: it <I>was</I> queer-baiting, and it <I>wasn't</I> necessary to your point. And I have no idea what Frank being gay has to do with John Maynard Keynes' sexuality at all; it appears Keynes was gay or bisexual--well perhaps so were Abraham Lincoln and King David, so what? The validity or invalidity of Keynes' economic theories doesn't rest with wherever his penis went, and your parenthetical about an "eerie coincidence" (<I>what</I> "eerie coincidence"?) is just an attempt at a cheap sideswipe that isn't worthy of the rest of your post (which I enjoyed, despite obvious disagreements, until it went off the rails with these weird irrelevancies).Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18275812152895151542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1377385119326285192.post-71272592799477506572009-02-19T20:48:00.000-08:002009-02-19T20:48:00.000-08:00Eric:The situation would be the same if Barney Fra...Eric:<BR/><BR/>The situation would be the same if Barney Frank was heterosexual: he both had sex with, and took money from, an executive of the Federal National Mortgage Corporation, the oversight of which, as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, he was responsible. My particular point, upon which I did not elaborate in the original post, is that I suspect he wouldn't have gotten away with it had it been a heterosexual affair. <BR/><BR/>Other than that, I agree with you that organized labor succeeded so well it created its own obsolescence. I certainly believe the unions helped a lot of people in the early years and were generally a Good Thing. But now they are bringing down much of what used to be good about American industry. What they have done to the airline industry is grotesque - and that's nothing compared to the car makers.<BR/><BR/>There's a long complicated argument, more worthy of a lengthy post rather than a comment, about federalism, republicanism, and states' rights. As a libertarian, I think government should be kept as close to home and be as responsive as possible to the local community, because it's never a very good thing. I no longer have that option, however, because over time the Federal government has claimed more and more of the prerogatives of governance to itself. I didn't get to vote for Nancy Pelosi, and had absolutely no say in her ascension to power, but she now has near-totalitarian power over me. My options are to emigrate to another country, and that's about it. Everyone here in North Carolina could vote libertarian (which I guess you can assure me will not happen) and it wouldn't change a thing. The country is so large, and the government is so large, that there's pretty much no longer anything an individual can do to affect their own fate. I can choose not to live in California, but Washington seems determined to bring California to me wherever I go.<BR/><BR/>My main point, however is neither political nor ideological but pragmatic: the people making the decisions that will determine our collective fate are both stupid and crooked, and arrogant beyond comprehension. That's not going to work out well for us.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1377385119326285192.post-40729700583947291872009-02-19T08:32:00.000-08:002009-02-19T08:32:00.000-08:00CW, did you really need to engage in queer-baiting...CW, did you really need to engage in queer-baiting towards the end to make your point?<BR/><BR/>While one might argue that the time of the unions has passed and they no longer serve the legitimate functions they once did, at the bottom of that argument, I think, is the fact that unions may have <I>made themseles unnecessary by being largely successful</I>. That is, when the unions formed they were dealing with specific and grotesque abuses: unsafe working conditions, intolerable working hours, unliveable wages, unconscionable vertical integrations (i.e. the "company stores" and "company towns" that allowed unethical corporations to literally turn their "employees" into indebted serfs by making employment contingent on a living arrangement in which the employer controlled the goods and services made available to workers), etc. Because of the violence of the labor wars of the twenties and thirties, many of the worst private-sector abuses were outlawed--stripping the unions of many of their core issues. Much later (and more recently), employers in right-to-work states (e.g. automakers like Toyota and Honda) have avoided organization by their employees <I>by making "unionesque" benefits a default part of the employment package</I>--it is likely that if there <I>weren't</I> unions, these employers would be much more likely to offer "take it or leave it" employment packages.<BR/><BR/>The argument over whether government or the individual is in a better position to decide how to use their wealth is based on a false premise in a democratic/republican society: <I>in such societies, individuals </I>are<I> the government, directly or through their chosen representatives</I>. If you're unhappy with the economic theories of your elected legislator, you're welcome to vote against him or her (and you need to accept, however grudgingly, that a majority consensus may disagree with you about priorities).<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, some degree of collectivization or pooling of resources is necessary for a society to function: I have yet to meet the fiscal conservative so principled as to refuse the benefits of public streets, firefighters, police officers, or a publicly-financed military to keep foreigners from depriving him of the fruits of his labors. Leaving such things to the individual is dangerous and impractical--many would no doubt leave it to their neighbors to deal with inconveniences like a large fire at home putting many others at risk, and the only way to purchase a fleet of multi-billion-dollar jet fighters is for everyone to pool their money to do so.<BR/><BR/>No sane person believes in complete liberty or complete totalitarianism, and the real debate is over where the lines along the spectrum are drawn and held. To live with other human beings--a necessity, as man has evolved as a <I>social</I> animal and being a part of a group is his nature--certain things <I>must</I> be given up for the group. Too much can be sacrificed--tyranny is an evil thing; but a failure to make <I>some</I> sacrifice for the whole is just as dangerous, equally suicidal. It is indeed the nature of human society, then, to take away some degree of freedom, and it must be so--and you don't think of it as a bad thing when you're watching some idiot get pulled over for running a traffic light.<BR/><BR/>I cannot speak to whether the stimulus bill will work or fail; I suspect it contains much that I would like and a great deal I'd loathe, which is the nature of compromise. I hope it succeeds, and I won't consider myself a serf (or dumb, though regrettably I <I>am</I> fat). And if it fails... hopefully, we'll survive: the alternative is far worse, no?Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18275812152895151542noreply@blogger.com