MOQers all: Greetings!
Civility and humor. I promise.
David Buchanan wrote:
>
> drose Bob Mary and everyone:
>
> I'll try to disagree without hostility or malice. Honest. And in a
> cyber-place like this disagreement is more fun and more productive. So
> please take no offense.
I didn't realize I had been malicious or hostile. If some have taken it
so, I apologize. Now, on with the hurly-burly.
> Mary, maybe we could agree that education should be the central
> organizing principle in our society. I'd be happy to see the same amount
> of energy and resources go to education as now goes to the defense
> budget. But I wouldn't want education to be based on anything like a
> military model. As it should be, the military is extremely
> authoritarian. Such a model is not fit to educate the citizens of a
> democracy.
>
As I've argued before, schools are by necessity authoritarian. Even
Struan, I think, would agree with that statement. If the school has any
direction to it at all it will be by definition "authoritarian."
I don't think what Mary was driving at was "authoritarian" so much as
"totalitarian." I believe she was advocating giving over children to the
state.
> Education should be our central focus for reasons that are more
> important than, but it would also save lots of money in the long run.
> And I don't think home schooling or private schools are the answer
> either, although there is nothing wrong with such approches. But such
> piecemeal solutions only contribute to stratification in the larger
> society, they can be downright isolating for the students.
Here we agree - and that is why the voucher system should be adopted
nationwide so economically disadvantaged students can gain access to a
quality education.
> Private schooling too often leads to sectarian indoctrination rather
> than real education.
Agreed again - but it within the rights of parents to inculcate their
values in their children . This is an even bigger problem with home
schooling. The state's role is to set requirements high enough that the
child is educated enough to think for himself.
That is why we have establihed an age of majority. Some experience and
education is necessary before you can be turned loose on society lest
you destroy it in your ignorance.
> I think that is what Gibran's "On Children" is getting at. I
> think he is saying we ought to teach our children HOW to think, not WHAT
> to think.
I don't think that is precisely what Gibran had in mind. It does little
good to teach a child HOW to think if you don't give him the TOOLS to
with which to think. The primary grades are not the place to let the
little inmate run riot.
> drose, I really don't know what you're silently giggling about. A post
> is a terrible thing to waste.
TELL me about it.
> I'd love to talk politics with you, but
> have no idea what you're getting at.
Obviously.
> Your thoughts culled randomly were
> nothing more than tired old platitudes we've all heard many times
> before.
Platitudes may not convey truth?
> How about some original thoughts, or at least some meaningful
> commentary on the quotes ? The title of your biography ought to be "The
> lazy Philosopher".
Oh, gawd. Now I can't cite the work of others. I've stated my thoughts
on this forum many times, I thought some leavening might be appropriate.
> As to the Heinlein quote, don't you think that "loyalty" and "duty" are
> social level values and not really ideas per se? Heinlein says they are
> concepts and the highest achievements of the human mind. I'd agree that
> society suffers for the lack of loyalty and duty, but the mind's
> greatest concept? I think many conservatives confuse social values with
> ideas. I mean folks like Bill Bennnet, Bill Buckly and Pat Robertson. If
> Pirsig is correct, confusion of the two levels is bound to be a
> disaster.
I did not choose the Heinlein quote, Doggett did. I chose Doggett to
give Carmen something to chew on besides me.
> (Heinlein was a NAZI sympathizer, and wrote some real ugly stuff. Did
> you ever see the movie based on his book "Starship Troopers"? The main
> message there is that violence in the supreme authority, that might is
> right. It was even filmed in the style of NAZI propaganda films. Its
> still the only R rated movie with a toy tie in for kids. Creepy, huh?)
Ever read the book? Heinlein, particularly in his later writing,
developed some fascinating ideas. There were a good many socialists at
the time who backed fascism or the Soviet regime. Good statists, all.
> I'm tempted to rebut your P.J. O'Rourke quote with some sassy Erma
> Bombeck zingers. They're about the same caliber as political thinkers.
Have you read "Parliament of Whores?" There is wisdom in that book. Some
balderdash too. All in all, a reflection of life. A couple of zingers
from Erma might be worth a smile. I do have a sense of humor. Sometimes
caustic, I'll admit.
> And a Texas business man? Dude, your sources are weak and your opponents
> are straw men, fictions created by conservatives. No liberal I've ever
> met or heard of is in favor of banning all guns or wants the government
> to have more power over you and I. Drose, don't be fooled. To be
> anti-government in a democracy is to be anti-democratic.
That was the website bio, not mine.
We don't live in a democracy, thank you. I desire not to live in one.
I am not fooled. To be anti-government in a representative republic is
to be anti-democratic. If you will recall, democracy - rule by the
majority - is no more workable, more repressive and ultimately just as
tyrannical as anything socialism has produced.
Just ask Socrates.
I stated that I didn't agree with everything Doggett wrote. I'm not a
"conservative" politically anyway. I just pulled up the article for
discussion purposes.
> The one thing Nazis and Commies had in common is a hatered for
> liberalism and democracy. Hitler's and Stalin's thugs often joined
> forces to bash in the heads of democratic socialists. Hitler liked to
> say, "The only good socialist is a National Socialist", only he said it
> in german with murder in his eyes. Everyone likes to forget that
> Germany's democratic socialist were the first victims to be herded off
> into concentration camps.
Another thing they had in common was they were radical socialists. They
believed in the power of the state. Period. Socialists believe in
empowering the state. Still a dangerous practice for true liberals.
Socialist - a theory of social organization that based on government
ownership, management, and control of the means of production and the
distribution and the exchange of goods and services. - Merriam-Webster
(also sold in Canada)
Nazism and Communism = socialism realized.
"Liberals" and, to a lesser extent "conservatives" have so butchered the
English language that it is impossible to even discuss anything
regarding politics rationally.
That is why I refer to an "individualist/statist" split. I hold that the
individual is primary and the State is antithetical to liberty.
> Bob. Oh my god. Your posts are not only anti-democratic they are also
> anti-intellectual. Very dangerous combination. Intellectuals were not
> far behind the democratic forces in their march into Hilter's death
> factories. Sowell's "annointed" ones and Hayek's "fatal conceit" are
> both just fancy ways of saying they don't like the way intelligent
> people make them feel. Its anti-intellectualism in the most carefully
> couched terms, but it still smacks of the envy and resentment you assign
> to liberals.
>
> Intellectuals don't run society all by themselves. They couldn't even if
> they tried and that's not the way things have been arranged. Our
> representative democracy honors the social level values through the
> voting booth and countless groups and associations. The people decide
> what will be done and our elected officials are charged with the task of
> getting it done in an intelligent way. Voting and lobbying and
> protesting and all that kind of activity is supposed to reflect the
> social values that will inform our choices and choose directions, but
> then the intellectual level takes over to formulate specific laws and
> policies, which are at the intellectual level. Its not perfect, but it
> works.
>
> Liberals are self deceptive? That's a generalization so broad as to be
> meaningless. You can understand why an intellectual liberal might be
> offended at your hostility toward intellectuals and liberals. But I'm
> not too hurt because the demons you paint to hate do not really exist.
> Self deception is sheer human folly and knows no ideological bounds.
> Anyone is capable of self deception, regardless of the content of that
> deception. To assign that, or any human flaw, to one group and not the
> other is just plain dumb.
>
> How about projection? That's probably one of the most common forms of
> self
> deception. You seem to assign bad qualities and motives to those who
> disagree with your politics and then hate them for the assigned qualites
> and not the disagreements. But if one has a coherent argument there is
> no need to turn the opponent into a monster. It's a tactic of dismissal
> too, as in "you're just saying that because your tired or crabby". Its a
> way of discounting an argument without really adressing it. It's
> dishonest and extremely unhelpful.
>
> Am I demonizing you or conservatism? No, but I am objecting to the
> irrational demonization of liberalism. "Oh, what horrors have been
> wrought by American liberals! Oh, I'm so opressed by the lowest tax rate
> in the industial world! Oh, Bill Clinton has ruined the economy and our
> military is a laughing stock!"
>
> Peace and prosperity, baby! That's all we ever want from the government
> and we have it. So what's to complain about? You want a revolution for
> what? You don't want gubmit to be in charge of our morality do you? Do
> you want to talk about Pirsig or just repeat a bunch of things Rush
> Limbaugh says? It's not just that I disagree with your politics, its the
> attempt to squeeze your partisan views into the MOQ, which is a case of
> square pegs in round holes.
>
> I don't relly expect to change your mind abut anything, I'm just begging
> for some clarity, originality and intellectual honesty.
>
> Hope that was civil enough. I tried.
I'll leave Bob to answer for Bob, but I never want to hear you complain
about platitudes again. I don't think I've ever seen so many in one
paragraph before this morning.
I will close with this: "Peace and prosperity, baby! That's all we ever
want from the government and we have it."
What about freedom? What about Arete? What about Quality? Had Hitler
given his people (the Aryans) peace and prosperity, even at the expense
of the minority Jews, would that have been good government?
MOQers: I realize it seems as though we are no longer discussing
Pirsig's MOQ I suppose that technically we are in violation of the
charter. IMHO, this is where the rubber (MOQ) meets the road (reality).
The MOQ works here or it is applicable nowhere.
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:04 BST