one problem with this theorycrsNovember 25 2003, 00:13:08 UTC
The problem with your theory is this: you assume that the arm of the pendulum is indestructible. Civil liberties and free press (or at least press free of significant financial incentive to keep the government in place) are taking a beating under this administration, as is the mainstream attitude towards dissent.
I don't know how robust this democracy of ours really is, but if we break it, we've ruined what I think is the one good chance we'll ever have had, short of massive depopulation of the globe, for a truly fair, representative, and prosperous economy.
The U.S. has been able to bring forth this fair, civilized society because of the prosperity of untapped resources it's had for most of its life. If we break the society right now, we'll never have the resources to build another. And that frightens me.
You're right. I assume the arm is indestructable. When people suffer enough under a regime that doesn't allow dissent, it will eventually be overthrown by revolution or toppled by its enemies (made easier by the opposition within).
The other effect is the recalibration of "center", which I don't think can really happen in as short a period as 10 years. You need generational change (or massive and selective slaughter) to have the public's view of "acceptable" change much.
Sorry. I reject the use of the labels "liberal" and "conservative", so I reject your metaphor. Mind you, I've always felt the left/right categorization was overused (sure, sometimes the terms apply, but just as often other dichotomies, such as libertarian vs. authoritarian, would be much more functionally descriptive). But after the past two years, the labels barely mean anything principled any more. It's just "our side" and "their side" (neither of which remotely resembles "my side
( ... )
OK. Below is a quick version of my ideal principles and policy positions, and how Dean and Bush measure up. (Note that I'm merely summarizing what I believe and how I organize those beliefs; I'm not actually expecting to *convince* anyone. To even *attempt* to so that, I'd probably have to write a *book* on each category... and I'd still fail-- I'm not very good at persuasive writing. :-)
On civil liberties:
(1) Deep suspicion that "sacrificing individual freedom for (some greater good)" is a bad deal. Nearly every time individual liberties are sacrificed for the sake of greater "security" or "law enforcement", there isn't much gain to security or law, but the liberties lost are not easily regained. Recent examples (all of which I oppose): The so-called USA-PATRIOT Act, much of the "War on Drugs", most attacks on privacy, and most gun control legislation
( ... )
(1) Respect for the power of the free market, and deep suspicion of monopolies and oligopolies (whether governmental or corporate or mixed) and centralized command. When a current economic-related problem seems to be occurring, the first question should be "what are ways in which the free market-- providers of good/services openly providing a selection of options to consumers/payers-- *not* currently occurring?" Examples
( ... )
Comments 5
I don't know how robust this democracy of ours really is, but if we break it, we've ruined what I think is the one good chance we'll ever have had, short of massive depopulation of the globe, for a truly fair, representative, and prosperous economy.
The U.S. has been able to bring forth this fair, civilized society because of the prosperity of untapped resources it's had for most of its life. If we break the society right now, we'll never have the resources to build another. And that frightens me.
Reply
The other effect is the recalibration of "center", which I don't think can really happen in as short a period as 10 years. You need generational change (or massive and selective slaughter) to have the public's view of "acceptable" change much.
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
On civil liberties:
(1) Deep suspicion that "sacrificing individual freedom for (some greater good)" is a bad deal. Nearly every time individual liberties are sacrificed for the sake of greater "security" or "law enforcement", there isn't much gain to security or law, but the liberties lost are not easily regained. Recent examples (all of which I oppose): The so-called USA-PATRIOT Act, much of the "War on Drugs", most attacks on privacy, and most gun control legislation ( ... )
Reply
On economic liberties:
(1) Respect for the power of the free market, and deep suspicion of monopolies and oligopolies (whether governmental or corporate or mixed) and centralized command. When a current economic-related problem seems to be occurring, the first question should be "what are ways in which the free market-- providers of good/services openly providing a selection of options to consumers/payers-- *not* currently occurring?" Examples ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment