To: tejek who wrote (403778 ) 8/3/2008 11:37:57 AM From: Brumar89 Respond to "The contemporary annointed and those who follow them make much of their "compassion" for the less fortunate, their "concern" for the environment, and their being "anti-war" - as if those were characteristics which distinguish them from people with opposite views on public policy. The very idea that such an opponent of the prevailing vision as Milton Friedman, for example, has just as much compassion for the poor and disadvantaged, that he is just as much appalled by pollution, or as horrified by the sufferings and slaughter imposed by war on millions of innocent men, women and children - such an idea would be a very discordant note in the vision of the annointed. If such an idea were fully accepted, this would mean that opposing arguments on social policy were arguments about methods, probabilities, and empirical evidence - with compassion, caring, and the like being common features on both sides, thus cancelling out and disappearing from the debate. That clearly is not the vision of the annointed. One reason for the preservation and insulation of a vision is that it has become inextricably intertwined with the egos of those who believe it. Despite Hamlet's warning against self-flattery, the vision of the annointed is not simply a vision of the world and its functioning in a causal sense, but is also a vision of themselves and of their moral code in that world. It is a vision of differential rectitude. It is not a vision of the tragedy of the human condition. Problems exist because others are not as wise or as virtuous as the annointed."
