fagin@ucbvax.ARPA (Barry Steven Fagin) (08/26/85)
(Insert (:-) wherever necessary) Okay, Mr. Torek: enough's enough. I've been watching you post your centrist drivel for the past few months, and I've had it. As a self-proclaimed iconoclast, you have taken pleasure in punching holes in libertarian arguments wherever you can find them (although to your credit you admit it when you cannot). Well I've got news for you: there is *no* philosophical doctrine that is without flaw. If there were, life wouldn't be interesting and philosophical inquiry would be pointless. Believe it or not, even a committed libertarian like myself can have reservations about the philosophy. However, I choose to live in the real world with all its flaws, and I recognize the terms "better" and "worse". Libertarianism seems to me infinitely better than any of the alternatives, so I support it. However, as a committed wimp, (excuse me, centrist), you get to survey the intellectual frontier, picking and choosing the ideas you like. So let me put this to you: which of the following doctrines, in your opinion, should we draw the most of our ideas from if we're going to solve as many problems of the world as possible? 1) conservativism 2) liberalism 3) libertarianism 4) populism 5) other (*NOT* centrism, please. Centrism has no ideas of its own) I'm looking for a real opinion here: no wimping out by saying that they all contribute equally. --Barry If you straddle the fence all your life, certain parts of your anatomy may cease to function. -- Barry Fagin @ University of California, Berkeley
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (08/27/85)
In article <10204@ucbvax.ARPA> fagin@ucbvax.UUCP (Barry Steven Fagin) writes: >(Insert (:-) wherever necessary) > >However, as a committed wimp, (excuse me, centrist), you get to >survey the intellectual frontier, picking and choosing the ideas you >like. So let me put this to you: which of the following doctrines, >in your opinion, should we draw the most of our ideas from if we're >going to solve as many problems of the world as possible? > > 1) conservativism > 2) liberalism > 3) libertarianism > 4) populism > 5) other (*NOT* centrism, please. Centrism has no ideas of > its own) > > I'm looking for a real opinion here: no wimping out by saying >that they all contribute equally. > And why not say they should all contribute? The only extreme opinion I hold is my extreme suspicion of all extreme positions:-) My impression is that extremists tend to be unable to see the forest for the trees, they are often only able to see their side of things. So I go for a moderate position of trying to take the best from everyone. In fact I am closer to being a Libetarian than you might think. But I feel that human cussedness, irrationality, and short-sightedness make it an impractical basis for a complete social order. Thus I see coercion as being right and proper in certain situations. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (08/27/85)
In article <10204@ucbvax.ARPA> fagin@ucbvax.UUCP (Barry Steven Fagin) writes: > (Insert (:-) wherever necessary) (Missed that the first time thru. Makes a big difference.) > Okay, Mr. Torek... as a committed wimp, (excuse me, centrist), you get to > survey the intellectual frontier, picking and choosing the ideas you > like. So let me put this to you: which of the following doctrines, > in your opinion, should we draw the most of our ideas from if we're > going to solve as many problems of the world as possible? > > 1) conservativism > 2) liberalism > 3) libertarianism > 4) populism > 5) other (*NOT* centrism, please. Centrism has no ideas of > its own) > > I'm looking for a real opinion here: no wimping out by saying > that they all contribute equally. Of course they all don't contribute equally. But why shouldn't they all contribute? Eclecticism (like reassortment of genes) is essential to social evolution. > If you straddle the fence all your life, certain parts of your anatomy > may cease to function. However if you stand on the fence, you'll be head and shoulders above the others. :-) -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (08/28/85)
>However, as a committed wimp, (excuse me, centrist), you get to >survey the intellectual frontier, picking and choosing the ideas you >like. So let me put this to you: which of the following doctrines, >in your opinion, should we draw the most of our ideas from if we're >going to solve as many problems of the world as possible? > > 1) conservativism > 2) liberalism > 3) libertarianism > 4) populism > 5) other (*NOT* centrism, please. Centrism has no ideas of > its own) > > I'm looking for a real opinion here: no wimping out by saying >that they all contribute equally. > >--Barry It is impossible to answer a quantitative question like that in a meaningful way, but it IS possible to extract a consistent set of basic ideas from these "isms", while avoiding the unfortunate "isms" of (unwimpy) extremism and dogmatism that seem so popular on this net. Conservatism: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. (Let sleeping dogs lie). Liberalism: Tolerance for, and encouragement of, reasoned disagreement. Libertarianism: Appreciation for freedom of the individual who does not encroach on the freedom of others. Populism: ?? (If I understand it right, it means "Let the mass decide". It is what most of our politicians do most of the time.) Socialism: Appreciation of the inherent problems of the disadvantaged, and a desire to help them overcome those natural disadvantages. Recognition of the fact that any social entity IS more than just the sum of the individuals in it. A good approach to political questions can be based on these fundamental notions. Trouble happens when one of them is taken as supreme in all cases. I have argued frequently that libertarian notions are basically word-magic, but that doesn't mean that the ideals are wrong. Similarly, I have argued in favour of Socialist ideas on several occasions, mainly because the net seems to be so overbalanced in the other direction. It seems to me that the (wimpy) Tony Wuersch has a good appreciation for the balance, and that it in fact takes a good deal more strength to keep one's balance "on the fence" than to lean on the fence from either side. I'd rather be seen as a wimp than as a bully, any day. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (08/28/85)
> (Insert (:-) wherever necessary) > > Okay, Mr. Torek: enough's enough. I've been watching you post your > centrist drivel for the past few months, and I've had it. As a > self-proclaimed iconoclast, you have taken pleasure in punching > holes in libertarian arguments wherever you can find them (although > to your credit you admit it when you cannot). Well I've > got news for you: there is *no* philosophical doctrine that is > without flaw. If there were, life wouldn't be interesting and > philosophical inquiry would be pointless. Believe it or not, > even a committed libertarian like myself can have reservations about > the philosophy. However, I choose to live in the real world with > all its flaws, and I recognize the terms "better" and "worse". > Libertarianism seems to me infinitely better than any of the > alternatives, so I support it. > > However, as a committed wimp, (excuse me, centrist), you get to > survey the intellectual frontier, picking and choosing the ideas you > like. So let me put this to you: which of the following doctrines, > in your opinion, should we draw the most of our ideas from if we're > going to solve as many problems of the world as possible? > > 1) conservativism > 2) liberalism > 3) libertarianism > 4) populism > 5) other (*NOT* centrism, please. Centrism has no ideas of > its own) > > I'm looking for a real opinion here: no wimping out by saying > that they all contribute equally. > > If you straddle the fence all your life, certain parts of your anatomy > may cease to function. > -- > Barry Fagin @ University of California, Berkeley I do not venture to predict who may solve what problems. In general, we do not solve problems, we cope with them. I propose better way of comparing the ideologies. Let us see how they solve a well known and relatively widespread problem. 1) How a conservative would skrew in a light bulb? First he reminds us, that if the bulb would pray in school like our fathers, it would be in its place, shining when needed. Then he inform us that we do need a light bulb. Instead of reading, we can listen to Bible on tapes. If you want to have intimate moment with your wife, you should turn the light off anyway. And if you are afraid in the dark, you should remember that the only solution to this problem is to lock all the felons where they belong. 2) How a liberal would skrew in a light bulb? First he creates a committee of experts to study a problem. Once the scope of the problem is clear, he appropriates grants for the bulb research. Simultaneously, he annouces the problem a national disgrace and declares a war with the problem. Other liberals file a suit, since the civil rights of the bulb were violeted. 3) How a libertarian would skrew in a light bulb? First, he sets the rate of money supply properly. Market forces will do the rest. 4) How a populist would skrew in a light bulb? He soaks the rich by introducing a sales tax paid by the poor. Pays $10000 to a contractor, who gives $1000 kicback. Contractor employes 50 union employees. They threaten to strike, but they do not. Union receives $1000 in wage increases instead of demanded $3000. Union boss receives $500 kickback. Skrewing the light bulb is delayed, since everybody is subpoened (becauce of a different, unrelated case). 5) How a centrist would skrew in a light bulb? He would find 300 co-sponsors for his bulb-skrewing legislation. As I said, everybody is not solving a problem, but coping with the problem. Piotr Berman