Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dave Reed who wrote (2761)	5/11/1999 2:26:00 PM
From: Richard Babusek	Respond to of 13056

Dave, I wish to commend you, and some others on this thread as well, in a heartfelt way. The idea that someone could say; < I'm sorry for my comment about God not handing out justice in this world. That was a throw-away remark and I retract it. > is not a common attitude. Thank you, and all those with the courage to say “I'm wrong”, it brings the rest of us strength to do the same. My diatribe was not directed at you, and these interpretations are not my own, but held by scholars that I respect. When I was struggling to decide if I could join the church, I discovered that much popular cultural interpretation was erroneous. I thought that I would need to suppress reason and logic in favor of superstition. When I discovered there was an adult version of the faith that considers faith and reason the wings that elevate us, I was pleasantly surprised. Enough already!! Society at the margins is where all the action is. I hear many good points from either side of the abyss, but common ground seems rare. There are some bizarre occurrences however that bewilder me. One example is the idea that coeducation is universally superior. How to begin with the capacity for educational facilities for boys, or girls, or both with freedom to choose; demolish two choices and declare victory for progress in education? It seems to me that a fundamental belief necessary to champion such a cause is that boys and girls, or men and women have nothing unique in terms of the problems they must overcome, the gifts they have to offer, or the rate at which they develop. I'm sure theories and studies to show the wisdom of this view abound, but what about common sense? The fact that we don't buy into this dribble, but it gets thrust upon us is a big problem. How does it happen? I believe it is partly the incestuous relationship between the subsidizers and the subsidized. How did we get to the place where the enlightened postulate a theory, couched in terms of urgent necessity to rescue perceived victims (or better yet to prevent them), then get paid to study the phenomenon, and direct a solution? Deprecating people rather than ideas seems to me to be a BIG problem, and I wish to reproach those on my side of the argument as a means of purifying the cause of truth (we all think we are on the side of truth). For example, it was disclosed that the vice president declared around $350 in charitable deductions on his 1040. This revelation was used to deprecate him as cheap. We missed an opportunity to make a more important distinction, that he is actually following his convictions, and shouldn't be castigated for doing so. Some believe “real” charity comes from the welfare state, some from voluntary “charity”. So for all those on the margins, we have powerful arguments based on facts. The ad hominem attacks are sour grapes, and so we are easily dismissed. The ones that seem apparent in this case; 1. Official victim entitlement to subsidy promotes a victim mentality. 2. The official status doesn't distinguish between the unfortunate, and the irresponsible. 3. The cost differential between the two methods is astronomical. 4. Accounting (to measure success) is typically opaque. 5. The motivations are counter to solutions. 6. Empirical results is not as important as perceived compassion. 7. Failure for these policies never occur, only inadequate funding. A dispassionate (or passionate) argument on the facts seems far more likely persuade someone on the margins, (who else are we going to convince?). So each time I hear personal attacks I feel it forfeits real opportunities for progress. Ricardo