But Senor Mule, sorry to rain on your patriotic parade, but THAT aint special -- EVERY country's governments do THAT ... unless there's one i can't think of at the moment, always a possibility no matter the subject and no matter the moment :-)Well maybe except for the possibly new France? Wait! What do you say? You won't pay me not to work until i'm 62?? Are you out of your mind? I will break a window! I will -- I will TIP A CAR OVER ONTO ITS SIDE!!
Is England or Sweden actually combating bullying?Studying whether bubblegum should be regulated closely because of its effects on cavities and lost fillings?Maybe you're right, Who -- but I have to think that somewhere there are governments adult enough, evolved enough, to accept that there are some downsides to the human condition.There is an axiom in the law: there are some wrongs for which there is no remedy.Almost nobody in this country will accept that for a second -- sue for every fucking mistake that you made; somebody else is responsible.But more frightful, imhestimation, is the expectation that a government with limited resources and limited missions [enumerated powers] feels unconstrained in addressing any burden put on us by life.My wallet doesn't fit in my pocket right. Fix it.okay, I'm crankypants
I have to think that somewhere there are governments adult enough, evolved enough, to accept that there are some downsides to the human condition.Well, heck yeah, man -- Afghanistan, Sudan, Haiti ... These libertarian paradises are everywhere!I kid the libertarian. We kid because we love.I think he bought that ...
Oh, and let's not forget Somalia. As far as I can tell, it has no government at all. A virtual utopia.
Well, heck yeah, man -- Afghanistan, Sudan, Haiti ... These libertarian paradises are everywhere!I'll actually engage for a second:isn't there a distinction between being unwilling or unable to solve societal ills through appropriate government interventionandpurporting to address and solve every ill, whether soluble or notand obtaining the political benefit of having stood up to the evils of bullying, fat, and death [the lobby for bullying and death being notoriously weak in many, but not all, states]. . . ?
and I'm not sure my objection necessarily requires libertarian views -- even if one thinks that the government has unlimited power, does that lead to approval of the government expending time and resources trying with all its might to ensure that no one is hurt, disadvantaged, or offended -- that all wrongs are righted.And is it possible to be a non-whacky libertarian type and still think that a government with all of that power is an altogether dangerous thing?I couldn't answer the last sentence -- being a whacky libertarian type.to change subjects:hey -- did you know that two statistical assays, following polling of attendees at large "Tea Party"-type events, found that there was an exact 50-50 split between libertarian types and fundamentalist conservative types? By "exact," it was -- on two separate occasions -- precisely the same number [1449 to 1449, or some such, and 4019 to 4019 or some such, to make up numbers].The polling was along the lines of "should the government address moral issues?" and other questions about role of govt.a movement with dissatisfaction, but diametrically-different views on some fundamentals
does that lead to approval of the government expending time and resources trying with all its might to ensure that no one is hurt, disadvantaged, or offendedI was just winding you up while making sure you don't race off some theoretical cliff of logic.I don't have a problem per se with the government trying to right wrongs as long as it recognizes that the size of the pie is limited and that to, say, guarantee that the elderly can buy cheap meds (a wonderful thing, as you and I know) means that my working-poor niece pays her taxes to buy my millionaire mother-in-law subsidized medicine. I don't mind making trade-offs -- I supported health care reform, even while recognizing it was no better than half a loaf and kicked the can of costs down the road -- I would just like someone to recognize that trade-offs are involved.And no matter what the overheated rhetoric tells you, I don't believe any political faction in this country is willing to face that. Not really. The Tory-Liberal Democrats coalition in Britain seems to be wrestling with it. Not us.an exact 50-50 split between libertarian types and fundamentalist conservative typesWhich is why Jim DeMint and his ilk tread on dangerous ground when they insist on "pure" high-octane conservatives. Conservatives don't agree on what a "pure" conservative is and some day down the road, there will be a reckoning as this coalition of mutually-exclusive ideologies fight for their piece of the pie.Mmm, pie ...
Post a Comment