Ed,
I think I've supported my position that liberals (such as Larry Tribe, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry) all support anti-democratic philosophy, in fact it's so clear that it's impossible to argue with it. They all support (and all other liberals I've ever heard of) judicial decisions which go beyond the judiciary power and into the legislative purview. I posted an interview with Larry Tribe about gay marriage where he said as much. Abortion, gay marriage, gun control--these are all issues where liberals do not trust the democratic institutions to get the "right" result and prefer to have non-elected judges achieve the "right" result through fiat. I suspect you support these issues as well, which makes you anti-democratic. This may be a blanket indictment, I dunno. It's not particularly ill-feeling, it seems to me that it's fact. It's just something you have to deal with.
Now, there may be some very good reasons to be anti-democratic, I don't know. I understand that democracy is an imperfect system which can allow the "wrong" result to last for a long time before legislators have enough cojones to right it, but I cast my lot with "demos", the people, rather than Democrats, and will live with the wrong result for decades for the benefit of staying under self rule.
As I have pointed out, many systems in the past have supported non-elected individuals serving up the "right" result for the benefit of the people. They go by the names of fascism, communism, totalitarianism and dictatorship.
Your example of water in the desert is interesting, but inapt. First of all, these "life-saving" drugs (really just life prolonging, although at that moment of "inflection," I suppose there's not much difference) do not exist in nature; they are only the result of capital and risk. The Teddy Kennedy approach to these things is to presume that they exist in nature simply to be harvested. They are only the result of hard work.
And, while there is only one water, there are many drugs. Maybe Vioxx won't work, but Celebrex might, or Chinese herbs, or Navajo soup, or the Atkins Diet or transcendental medita(ca)tion. Whose to say which one is water, and which one isn't?
Your viewpoint accurately reflects the total disrespect that liberals (and trial lawyers) have for capital (except perhaps their own): in your example the water is simply there, and somebody has it. He should share. This is The World As An Elementary School Playground--the overriding philosophy of liberals. Reread any of Bill Clinton's state of the union messages--it's filled with this kind of soft crap. "No child should go to bed hungry in America . . . no woman should ever live in fear . . ."
Oh really? At what cost? What price do we agree to pay so that all the dysfunctional and drug addicted parents in the US (exercising their freedom of choice and free will, of course) will still receive a full set of meals on wheels for them and their kids? How far do we enter into the freedom of choice (of an ill-suited man and woman to enter into matrimony and discover just how much they can hate and hurt each other) and legislate appropriate behavior, and how much do we stand back and let the system work?
You live on acreage, you've just spend $10,000 to drill a new well and now it pumps fine. You are happy that you scraped and saved enough to provide for your family now and in the years ahead. The liberal government comes in, though, and tells you that 2/3 of your water will now be diverted to your neighbors who, through bad luck or sloth or poor planning, just don't have enough money to drill their own well. Yes, it is true that 3 years ago they took a vacation to Cancun, and last year to Lake Louise, but this is now. They're thirsty.
Kb |
