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: Richard Babusek who wrote (2939)	6/4/1999 12:30:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13056

I thought some of you would find this response to a "cyber- pen- pal" interesting: You have asserted that Reagan's economic growth was predicated on the equivalent of public works, through the defense budget. But it is quite wrong to suppose that immense resources were devoted to the defense build- up. Defense already took up a healthy share of the budget, and yet was far less of the federal budget then entitlements, so an increase was a drop in the bucket, in terms of GDP. Since the tax cuts and deregulation were not especially targeted, it would be truer to say that his Administration unleashed the forces of capitalism. As I have before mentioned, essentially capitalism means a (largely) free market in capital, i.e., stocks, bonds, and lines of credit. Economic efficiency is immensely improved by allowing capital to flow where it produces the greatest return... You have asserted that there wasn't much difference between “Reagonomics” and the policies of those who preceded him. Rather, it was a dramatic change, which is why the Democrats fought so hard against it. The high unemployment to which you refer was a result of flushing inflation out of the economy during the first couple of years of Reagan's first term, before his policies had had a chance to work. After that two year recession, the economy hummed along very nicely, with low inflation and low unemployment, which are hallmarks of economic efficiency. And it is not true that his policies merely aided the wealthy. In fact, trickle down worked pretty well, and many people went up a notch in socio- economic class because of increasing prosperity... You have tried to tie Reagan's foreign policy to the desire to distract from the domestic front. Not only was there nothing especially to distract from, but the foreign policy imperatives were driven by a desire to counter Soviet adventurism. Reagan created the conditions that lead to the Soviet "peace offensive", and hence to Gorbachev. The desire to lull the United States back into strategic complacency kept Gorby in power, after it was seen that Reagan and Thatcher could work with him. And it was the policies of glasnost and perestroika, which were sold to the Politiburo as a way of reviving Soviet industry, and thus saving them from technological defeat in the Cold War (especially through the Strategic Defense Initiative), that lead to the downfall of the Soviet Union. All Reagan's doing, and all intentional...

To: Richard Babusek who wrote (2939)	6/5/1999 4:05:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13056

Let us take up philosophy. Let me start with Kierkegaard: one cannot philosophize from the absolute point of view, because one cannot be indifferent to the impact of one's speculations on one's own fate. There is a fundamental bad faith to a comprehensive philosophy that does not recognize the true situation of the philosopher... Second, let us bring in Nietzsche: the connection of truth, beauty, and the good is an assumption that regulates most philosophy. As such, it limits what can be contemplated, and therefore calls into question the trajectory of any philosophy which takes it as a starting point. What if truth is ugly? What if it is inimical to human values? What if life thrives on illusion? Since the stakes involved in speculating on the meaning of everything are so high, how could we possibly guarantee objectivity?... Third, let us bring in the irreducible problem of post- Cartesian philosophy: granted that we encounter objects in consciousness, and that consciousness itself has its own forms that determine how objects are presented to us, how can we be confident that our intuitions and inferences adequately reflect the reality independent of consciousness? Kant tried to make a virtue out of agnosticism about the Thing- in- Itself, but Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel were dissatisfied, and Hegel developed an elaborate theory that made history the development of the Absolute, through human consciousness, and thus enabled the philosopher to take the Absolute viewpoint at the end of history, which he construed to have essentially fulfilled itself in the concept of ordered liberty present in constitutional monarchy. Of course, the simplest objection to Hegel is to say that there was plenty of ideologically driven strife to go, and therefore it does not look as if he had attained the absolute standpoint. But in addition, the question is merely begged by the development of several more or less likely narratives and thematic elaborations, as in "The Phenomenology of Spirit", "The Philosophy of History", and "The History of Philosophy". In other words, in the final analysis he assumes the principle, and than organizes the facts to make his case... On the other hand, Kant is unsatisfactory, and it is clear that some reality about the Thing- in- Itself must be reflected in consciousness, since even in Kant the object supplies the "matter" and the consciousness supplies the "form" of phenomena. Therefore, we are somewhere between pure agnosticism (or skepticism) and the possibility of an absolute standpoint. But before we go on, we must decide if we think the universe is ultimately hospitable to human concerns, or indifferent and/or hostile to them. This is such a fundamental choice, because it has to be made before we can claim anything like knowledge of the matter, and we can never be sure of the extent to which it biases our subsequent speculation, that on the most important matters, philosophy is more like a way of clarifying our options then of answering our questions, and choice is finally unavoidable...