12.30.2002
New years is upcoming and it looks like it will be a peaceful time for me. Nothing much happenning here in Southern California other than the normal stuff. What are you doing (or did you do) that is exciting for the new year?
For my friends in Oregon, here is a good story.
Comments?
posted by Randall 11:11 PM
12.25.2002
Yea! Another Christmas is gone. I have never been the one to celebrate. Seems like if one is to be a good guy (or bad guy) they should be one all the time, not just on specific days. With that, I leave you with the gift that I should have purchased for my liberal friends. Enjoy.
posted by Randall 10:35 PM
12.24.2002
Here is an interesting internet survey if you are interested. Complete it and enjoy.
posted by Randall 1:23 PM
For those of you who have been here before, you will see that I have changed the layout. I think this page looks better and provides a cleaner organization. Tis my Christmas gift to myself.
Now for some good and juicy stuff... Follow this link and try not to laugh too hard.
I wish all my readers a great Christmas and keep the comments coming if you are so inclinded.
posted by Randall 12:58 PM
12.21.2002
This team blog has reverted to an individual blog due to the lack of interest of my team members: Joy, Kevin, Alan and Junior. Log on, read my thoughts, comment, sign my guest book (at the bottom of the page) or stay away. Whatever floats you boat.
posted by Randall 11:29 PM
12.15.2002
A simply great link that all good Americans should love. The link is here. Surely someone will comment about this.
posted by Randall 11:12 AM
12.14.2002
The value of a thing in the market is based on its scarcity in relation to demand. And capitalism itself is based on the competition to acquire the scarce resource of money. The great utility of this system is that an organized market supremely serves individual desire. A simple act of purchase allows me to command the resources of the world. With a single expenditure, the magnesium of South Africa, the oil of Arabia and the labor of China can be fetched from around the globe, used to assemble any product that I might personally choose and delivered into my hands as if by magic carpet. All that’s required of me is a sum of money that contributes to this process. There has never been a better method for the productive allocation of wealth and the distribution of goods and services. As a result, we live today in a large-scale global economy that continues to expand into every area of human activity. Adam Smith, many years ago, rightly regarded this as a kind of miracle. The market, mated today to our modern system of mass production and mass distribution, has produced more wealth and distributed it more widely than in all other epochs of human history. This has liberated us from toil, but more importantly, it has freed us to independently pursue uniquely personal visions of happiness. From a speech delivered by Larry Harvey on April 25, 2002, at Cooper Union in New York City. I guess this goes to show that I am not the only person who knows of this old dead whiteboy named Adam Smith.
posted by Randall 9:22 AM
12.10.2002
And the train keeps on rollin. There's a great article by Jacob Sullmun at Reason.com that points out how our fine taxdollars are being spent. Any comments?
posted by Randall 9:21 PM
12.08.2002
I made it to see the movie, Bowling for Columbine, on Friday evening. As a documentary, the film isn't bad. Michael Moore does a pretty good job developing the concept that problems exist in the US of A. Unfortunately, he doesn’t provide any solutions. It is a good film that should encourage honest and open debate for the minds capable of
exercising such activity.
From the michael moore webpage:
"Bowling for Columbine" is an alternately humourous and horrifying film about the United States. It is a film about the state of the Union, about the violent soul of America. Why do 11,000 people die in America each year at the hands of gun violence? The talking heads yelling from every TV camera blame everything from Satan to video games. But are we that much different from many other countries? What sets us apart? How have we become both the master and victim of such enormous amounts of violence? This is not a film about gun control. It is a film about the fearful heart and soul of the United States, and the 280 million Americans lucky enough to have the right to a constitutionally protected Uzi.
"Bowling for Columbine" was the first documentary film accepted into competition at the Cannes Film Festival in 46 years. The Cannes jury unanimously awarded it the 55th Anniversary Prize. From a look at the Columbine High School security camera tapes to the home of Oscar-winning NRA President Charlton Heston, from a young man who makes homemade napalm with The Anarchist's Cookbook to the murder of a six-year-old girl by another six-year-old, "Bowling for Columbine" is a journey through America, and through our past, hoping to discover why our pursuit of happiness is so riddled with violence.
posted by Randall 12:06 AM
12.06.2002
What about a quiz? Take my quiz if you want.
posted by Randall 11:22 AM
12.03.2002
Another day gone. Has my blogging team has lost interest?
posted by Randall 11:14 PM
Paul Marks posted another great post at the Samizdata.net blog. The article is copied below for your reading pleasure:
The Fight Starts
Paul Marks poses a question about a a hypothetical character who seems strangely... familiar
What does one do about the growth of government leading to the collapse of society?
In the United States if one is a Democrat there is no problem - such a person does not tend to believe that the growth of government causes any damage so one can tax and spend with a happy heart (until the cannibals tear out that heart).
But what if one is a Republican? Not a Democrat by another name (like the absurd Major Bloomberg of New York City), but the sort of Republican who (whilst he may have no libertarian principles) dimly knows that an ever expanding government will cause harm to society (i.e. the web of social interactions between human beings).
Let us say that one is the sort of Republican who spent his years at Yale getting drunk (rather than being teacher's pet like his father), because he had enough sense to understand that what he was being taught was nonsense.
Well (if one is not a man of fanatical principle) one spouts off enough of the nonsense to get a "C average" (the lowest respectable grade), makes some networking contacts (that will prove of use later in life) and then goes off into the world.
Then say one becomes President of the United States (so one can not say "someone else will keep things going"), and faces a situation where defence spending (the only form of government spending that history shows is easy to cut) is going to go UP rather than down.
The "entitlement programs" (the Welfare State) continues to expand and society is under threat - so what do you do?
Perhaps you start by trying to find ways to "contract out" government activities, but (perhaps because you suspect there are no magic solutions to fiscal problems) you also announce that civilian government employees are going to get a 3.1 (rather than 4.1) percent pay increase this year - and justify it on "national security" grounds.
There will have to be many such moves if the United States is to be saved - but it is good to know that the President has some understanding (dim or not so dim) of the problem.
Paul Marks
posted by Randall 10:47 AM
12.02.2002
A couple of quotes by Randy's president.-
Republicans understand the importance of bondage between mother and child." - Gov GWB
"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure." ...George W. Bush, Jr.
All I can say is hmmmmmmmm
posted by Anonymous 8:35 PM
I copied the following post from the Samizdata.net blog.
Paul Marks points out that it is the spending rather than the taxing which is the root of governments woe.
People (not just us evil libertarians) often complain about taxation and there have been many attempts to reduce or at least limit it - these attempts have mostly been unsuccessful.
Few governments tax in order to create piles of money in their store houses - governments normally tax to spend. If we are to limit (let alone reduce) taxation it is government spending that we must fight. Limit one tax and the government will increase another - limit them all and government will borrow, ban borrowing and the fight come back to spending - i.e. (in the end) the fight is about government spending.
As far as I know there is only one State in the U.S. which shows (in its' laws) a clear understanding of this and that State is Colorado. Colorado has many problems and I would not claim it is the most free market State (although it is one of the smaller government States), but I think that its spending based version of a "Taxpayers Bill of Rights" has, over the few years of its' history, proved to be useful thing.
In Colorado government spending can only be increased in line with an increase in population or an increase in prices (yes I know there are all sorts of problems with the idea of a price index - but I will not go into that here). This would seem to a be a very moderate limitation - but (as far as I know) there is not another State in the Union that has such a limitations. Over the last few years Colorado has reduced the burden of taxation (i.e total taxes as a percentage of income - not reduced one tax and increased another) and balanced the budget.
The key really is government spending. To convince people that if they want some special benefit from government another benefit will have to be abolished (not just the total spending of the government increased).
In the end the fight has to be about spending. Whatever waffle either side comes out with about the "institutions of a just society" what matters is where the money goes. If we allow people to convince others that government spending is a "good thing" then all the anti tax and anti borrowing campaigns in the world will not save us.
Paul Marks
posted by Randall 8:23 PM
Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.
- Frédéric Bastiat
posted by Randall 10:25 AM
12.01.2002
Kevin I am still working on a response to your post. You response to the question I asked has inspired me to do some biblical research (which is a good thing).
Randy I have spoken to a couple of more people about the movie Bowling for Columbine that we were talking about last night. Lets try to see it this week, Jeannie says its one of the best movies she has ever seen.
posted by Anonymous 9:11 PM
11.30.2002
David Carr of the infamous samizdata blog always has a great post. Today he blogged about a bunch of left wing nuts in Britan demonstrating that gun control laws aren't ending gun violence. Duh. Wouldn't life be so simple if all we had to do to solve a problem was to write a law? The reality that has been proven time and time again is that laws that attempt to control the behavior of others rarely serve the purpose. Go figure. The link to David's post is here. It is funny if you look at it from the correct perspective.
Another great blogger from the samizdata is Antoine Clarke. And he has a great post today. He, like me, agrees that the state is more of the problem than the solution and this is why the conservative movement is doomed to failure. "If the cream of the Conservative movement believe that regulation of human behaviour is only possible by State intervention, then it is no wonder the Conservative Parliamentary Party is an unelectable shambles comprised largely of cretins, petty crooks, pompous buffoons and in-bred yahoos. I will take no lessons in morality or "coherent political philosophy" from a Tory." A link to Clarke's post is here.
Great stuff!
posted by Randall 11:05 AM
11.28.2002
Since I asked for comments I thought I would add a "comment" capability.
posted by Randall 12:26 PM
It is Thanksgiving, again. Another holiday where few people are thankful for anything. I hope you had a great day! Enough already. On with the blogging!
There is a great blog here that points out just how stupid the socialist state can be. Enjoy. And what do you think? Comments are appreciated.
posted by Randall 11:43 AM
11.26.2002
It is good to see that Kevin, at last, has shared his ideas. Now I get the fun of responding.
Let’s agree, at least for the purpose of this blog, to define “religion” as any specific system of belief about a deity.
A little background on blogging and debate and reasoning. Most blogs exist for the purpose of the free exchange of reasoned thought. I have been taught not to mix religion with logic. The is because religion, by definition, is based on "faith" and not on “reason.” “God” can tell a religious person to go forth and kill the world and all the logic on the planet may not be able to stop him if he honestly believes “God” told him. This also certainly would make for a dull blog.
Given the fact that the U.S. Constitution was adopted and amended (note amendment 1), there appears to be evidence sufficient that our "founding fathers" understood the concept that there must always be a separation of reason and religion in government if a democratic republic is to survive. Accordingly, I refuse to enter into a debate that focuses on religion. This is not meant in any way to diminish the convictions of my many good friends that hold religious views. I know people who practice most of the major religions of the world. Great link on religious tolerance here.
Now to Kevin's post ... Kevin’s “big picture” is that our country is headed for downfall because we rebel against the Christian god. Kevin indicates: 1) we take the teaching of the Bible out of the schools in 1963, 2) we kill millions of the unborn out of convenience, 3) we teach and accept evolution as fact, 4) our history textbooks withhold the facts of our Christian roots, and, 5) the list goes on.
My comments.
1) My personal view is that I am glad we don’t mandate teaching of the Bible or the Koran in schools. When we do, our democratic republic will likely be doomed. After all, the principle purpose of the Constitution is to protect the minority from the majority. We are a pluralistic society.
2) As to our abortion practices, abortion has been available for more years than most fundamentalist care to admit. I know. My mother was an RN in rural Appalachia. Is the solution to write a law? If it were, the problems of drug addiction would certainly be solved long ago because we have plenty of laws, e.g., the “War on Drugs.”
3) With respect to evolution, I always thought the theory of evolution was taught along side the many other theories, including the theory of creationism. Isn’t it better to touch on these different theories in the classrooms (K – 12) and allow the family to declare the Law of Creationism in the home if they see fit? Or to declare each of these theories simply that - theories?
4) Our textbooks withhold our Christian roots? I have not notices this. I have yet to see a history text that didn’t teach about the Salem Witch Trials and the other effects (not all negative) of religion throughout our history.
5) The list could go on. The common thread is “the role of government.” I see government as the problem. Joy may see government as the solution? Kevin may see government as the solution if government were to teach his religious views?
Joy asked the question, "How can one define themselves as both a Christian and a Conservative?" The answer to this question is simple. One is a faith-based decision while the other is a political decision. Since these decisions are not mutually exclusive, it is as easy to be a conservative Christian as it is to be a Liberal Christian or an atheist conservative. It is a simple matter of choice.
I definitely agree with Kevin that most of the Liberal-Conservative debate is masked in ignorance. It is my view that most liberals are liberal because they think being liberal is more compassionate than being conservative. It is also my view that most conservatives are conservative because of a perception that the conservative party is more "red-white-and-blue" than the liberal party. This is a shame because many southern democrats are much more conservative than many republicans.
I think many Christians are angry because, as our population becomes more diverse, they lose more and more votes that support their social agenda. Kevin sees it as a privilege to live in a country where freedom of speech is exercised. I see it as a fundamental human right worthy of fighting to the death to protect.
A couple of my forecaset ... The Democrat Party of today will continue to move to the center in order to survive. The "religious-right" will ultimately destroy the Republican Party. The Libertarian Party (or another third party) will consolidate and unify. The GOP will be but a footnote in our history.
posted by Randall 11:37 AM
11.25.2002
Hello all! What a privilege to be a part of a country that allows such freedom of speech. This freedom is, I fear, in jeopardy as we stray further and further away from our constitution, what ever the political party may be at the helm. On the surface, the Liberal-Conservative debate rages on, much masked in ignorance. I do not pretend to understand all the arguments of both sides or all that is in the hearts and minds of the people who hold these views. I only will state what I perceive to be the big picture.
In regards to Joy's question, "How can one define themselves as both a Christian and a Conservative?" Jesus said,
Luke 10:25-37
25 And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" 26 He said to him, "What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?" 27 So he answered and said, " 'You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,' and 'your neighbor as yourself.' " 28 And He said to him, "You have answered rightly; do this and you will live." 29 But he, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?" 30 Then Jesus answered and said: "A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, who stripped him of his clothing, wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a certain priest came down that road. And when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 Likewise a Levite, when he arrived at the place, came and looked, and passed by on the other side. 33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was. And when he saw him, he had compassion. 34 So he went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and he set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said to him, 'Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I come again, I will repay you.' 36 So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?" 37 And he said, "He who showed mercy on him." Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."
NKJV
Clearly, loving your neighbor as yourself is a key aspect of Christianity and Jesus gave us a fairly clear definition of this love. So, lets look at this act of love in regards to our political debate. Should the government have the power to play Robin Hood by taking from the rich and giving to the poor in order to fulfill Jesus’ mandate as demonstrated by the current Democrat platform?
The first details that I notice from Jesus’ parable are that the Samaritan is an individual and he acts out of his own compassion and conviction, he also uses his own money freely to help the needy man. He does not hold-up passers by and use their money against their will in his quest. This is a key point; Jesus is concerned about the heart and action of the individual.
In what way does he help the needy man? He takes care of his immediate need, the need for shelter and care until he is well again and able to care for himself. The Samaritan does not continue to give him money after this point.
I believe many Democrat’s have good intentions and believe they are fulfilling the act of loving your neighbor by having the government care for the needy through it’s many programs. They believe its part of the governments purpose to distribute wealth throughout the state.
But this misguided good intention has created millions of dependent enabled people (as evidenced by Linden Johnson’s entitlements) and have led to our founding fathers most feared reality, even above foreign invasion, the growth in scope and power of the government and the removal of the individual from it’s responsibility.
The reality of this Robin Hood effect does more than create dependent people. It results in the opposite effect the good hearted Democrat had in mind. It creates more poverty and suffering. This is basically what takes place:
Small Constitutional Government
The wealthy person invests his money and know-how into businesses and creates jobs resulting in revenue for the government through taxes. Efficient invention and discovery takes place resulting in national economic security and a better way of life for the world. The individual has money to give to the needy, through churches or charity organizations or individually. The key is allowing capitalism to work. It will create jobs and keep the wealthy in check. This is the founding fathers design.
Big Unconstitutional Government
It is the same scenario as above but take much of the investment money away and the incentive to invest by increasing taxes and regulations. The government takes the tax money and absorbs a large percentage into itself through government inefficiency as it creates programs to distribute the money. The efficient invention and discovery is held in check as businesses and workers are punished if they try to work harder and longer. The incentive to get ahead is diminished.
Being a Conservative used to mean resistant to change, I took that to mean not to change from the constitution and traditional values. Conservatism also used to be a Republican trait, this continues to be challenged. I believe this is why the Libertarian party is on the rise.
All these political workings and debate I believe are on the surface. They magnify our inability to see the big picture. Like ants trying to understand why the wind blows and the rain falls or the sun comes up, we in our pride try to contrive reasons for the occurrences that affect our lives.
If you take a Christian perspective, the Old Testament in the Bible shows a cycle many times over. Israel, God’s chosen people, is blessed immensely by God economically, individually and by the protection of their borders, until they decide to follow their own desires and wants instead of God’s. This rebellion eventually leads to God removing his blessings and the downfall of the nation. I believe this is what is happening today with our country. As a nation we have told God we do not want him in our lives, we would rather to do as we please. So we take the teaching of the Bible out of the schools in 1963, we kill millions of the unborn out of convenience, we teach and accept evolution as fact, our history textbooks withhold the facts of our Christian roots, and the list goes on, demonstrating our resolve to rid ourselves from Christianity.
The Bible says that God is long suffering but He will not strive with man forever when we rebel against him and blatantly reject him. It also says in the end times men will be lovers of themselves rather than lovers of God, this seems much like our current times.
But God in his mercy has also said:
2 Chron 7:14-15
14 if My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.
NKJV
This I believe is the big picture.
posted by Anonymous 12:05 PM
11.21.2002
Our good friend William F. Buckley, Jr., has an excellent editorial here that should keep the liberal democrats squirming for a few. Enjoy!
posted by Randall 1:25 PM
11.18.2002
I thought it appropriate to post a little more on Adam Smith since his views on political economics have so influenced my thinking. The following article is from MSN Encarta Online. [Cite: "Smith, Adam (economist)," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2002, http://encarta.msn.com © 1997-2002 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.]
This article provides a pretty good introduction on Adam Smith and his work.
Smith, Adam (economist) (1723-1790), British philosopher and economist, whose celebrated treatise An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations was the first serious attempt to study the nature of capital and the historical development of industry and commerce among European nations.
Smith was born in Kirkcaldy, Scotland, and educated at the universities of Glasgow and Oxford . From 1748 to 1751, he gave lectures on rhetoric and belles-lettres in Edinburgh. During this period, a close association developed between Smith and the Scottish philosopher David Hume that lasted until the latter's death in 1776 and contributed much to the development of Smith's ethical and economic theories.
Smith was appointed professor of logic in 1751 and then professor of moral philosophy in 1752 at the University of Glasgow. He later systematized the ethical teachings he had propounded in his lectures and published them in his first major work, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759). In 1763 he resigned from the university to accept the position of tutor to Henry Scott, 3rd duke of Buccleuch, whom he accompanied on an 18-month tour of France and Switzerland. Smith met and associated with many of the leading Continental philosophers of the physiocratic school, which based its political and economic doctrines on the supremacy of natural law, wealth, and order. He was particularly influenced by the French philosophers François Quesnay and Anne Robert Jacques Turgot, whose theories Smith later adapted in part to form a basis for his own. From 1766 to 1776, he lived in Kirkcaldy preparing The Wealth of Nations (1776). Smith was appointed commissioner of customs in Edinburgh in 1778, serving in this capacity until his death. In 1787 he was also named lord rector of the University of Glasgow.
Smith's Wealth of Nations represents the first serious attempt in the history of economic thought to divorce the study of political economy from the related fields of political science, ethics, and jurisprudence. It embodies a penetrating analysis of the processes whereby economic wealth is produced and distributed and demonstrates that the fundamental sources of all income, that is, the basic forms in which wealth is distributed, are rent, wages, and profits.
The central thesis of The Wealth of Nations is that capital is best employed for the production and distribution of wealth under conditions of governmental noninterference, or laissez-faire, and free trade. In Smith's view, the production and exchange of goods can be stimulated, and a consequent rise in the general standard of living attained, only through the efficient operations of private industrial and commercial entrepreneurs acting with a minimum of regulation and control by governments. To explain this concept of government maintaining a laissez-faire attitude toward commercial endeavors, Smith proclaimed the principle of the “invisible hand”: Every individual in pursuing his or her own good is led, as if by an invisible hand, to achieve the best good for all. Therefore any interference with free competition by government is almost certain to be injurious.
Although this view has undergone considerable modification by economists in the light of historical developments since Smith's time, many sections of The Wealth of Nations, notably those relating to the sources of income and the nature of capital, have continued to form the basis for theoretical study in the field of political economy. The Wealth of Nations has also served, perhaps more than any other single work in its field, as a guide to the formulation of governmental economic policies.
posted by Randall 9:43 AM
I will start with the classic definition of libertarian: 1). in philosophy - advocate of individual responsibility: somebody who believes in the doctrine of free will; 2). in politics - advocate of individual freedom: somebody who believes that people should have complete freedom of thought and action and should not be subject to the authority of the state. [Late 18th century. Formed from liberty, modeled on words such as unitarian.]
I am a libertarian. I am not a conservative. I am not a liberal as liberal is used in current politics.
I am always more than willing to help those who are less fortunate due to no fault of their own. I am not very willing to help those who are less fortunate because they chose to be.
Current thinking in the United States between the Democratic (demo) and Republican (GOP) Parties is that one party is the party of the "tax and spend" while the other party is the party of the "borrow and spend." The reality is that both of these parties are merging closer to the same concepts with few exceptions. Abortion is an example of one of the exceptions.
Life involves consequences. The idea that taking from the successful to reward failure, e.g., the tax and spend demos, hasn’t motivated change. If it had, President Johnson’s war on poverty would have been a success. The reality is that the war on poverty has not been anywhere near a success. Bill Clinton and the GOP Senate enacted legislation that virtually eliminated Johnson’s war on poverty by establishing a lifetime limit on funds that able-bodied people can sap from the public trough.
The idea that borrowing money, e.g., the GOP's desire to increase the federal debt to reward the largest of American business, doesn't seem to forces change either.
The libertarian view holds that success is rarely achieved without first tasting of failure. From my perspective, corporate welfare is equally as counterproductive as paying mothers to give birth. Individual responsibility is the key. Adam Smith, in his famous treatise, The Wealth of Nations, argued that private competition free from regulation produces and distributes wealth better than government-regulated markets. Since 1776, when Smith produced his work, his argument has been used to justify capitalism and discourage government intervention in trade and exchange. Smith believed that private businesses seeking their own interests organize the economy most efficiently, “as if by an invisible hand.”
posted by Randall 9:28 AM
11.17.2002
I did err in not including the definition for conservatalism....so here it is: a): a disposition in politics to preserve what is established, b): a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change, and , c): the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change.
And yes basically it is my feeling that convservatives are caring only if it is convenient and not too finacially challenging. It would be they (the conservatives) who labeled us (the liberals) as being in favor of a tax and spend phylosphy when referring to the numerous social programs we advocate.
Actually if you think about Randy its kind of funny that you are the one who usually is saying to me that "change is a good thing" and me who has "issues" with change and usually would rather let things remain status quo. Maybe your the liberal and I am the conservative.....lol.
posted by Anonymous 7:22 PM
Why don't I see a definition for "conservative?" Are conservatives not caring? As I posted on 10/27, good people everywhere, for the most part, have the objective of doing well. If the objective is to help those who are less fortunate than others, then the question becomes, “Which is the better path?”
posted by Randall 6:43 PM
The Meriiam-Webster dictionary descibes socialism as: a): a system of society or group living in which there is no private property, b): a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state. This is not what I as a "classical liberal" believe.
What I do advocate is the need for government to facilitate social programs which aid those in need and those less fortuante than ourselves. Again referring to the Merriam-Webster dictionmary whose defintion of liberalism is as folloiws: a): a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity. b): a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard, c): a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.
Basically my "liberal" beliefs are the product of my beliefs as a Christian....We are our brothers keepers.
I can not understand how one can seperate ones spiritual beliefs from ones policital beleifs whitout being being hypocritical. My question would be "How can one define themselves as both a Christian and a Conservative?"
Perhaps this will inspire the so far absent Kevin to coment.
posted by Anonymous 6:10 PM
Samizdata slogan of the day
When words lose their meaning, people will lose their liberty
- Confucius
For example the term 'liberal'... once meant (& to some, prefaced by 'classical', it still does) a supporter of individual liberties against both force backed custom (paleo-conservativism) and force backed allegedly rational planning (socialism). It is now generally used as a euphemism for 'democratic socialism'.
posted by Randall 11:20 AM
11.14.2002
Here's a good topic that might stimulate interest. What is the Source of Intelligence: Nature or Nuture? A transcript of a conference given at a seminar organized by the Libertarian Alliance and Libertarian International held at the National-Liberal Club recently in London presents a view. Any comments?
posted by Randall 11:00 PM
11.12.2002
The creek, filled with cool water, is a wonderful place. As we traveled past Cooks Corner on the asphalt-covered road toward Joy's opportunity to burn some calories, she was seeking to avoid her healthy adventure. Then we got to the turnoff on the dirt road and she was ecstatic: the road was closed. We proceeded down the dirt road into the Cleveland National Forest and Joy was complaining each nanometer of the journey. We parked. Joy charged up the first little incline, crossed Holy Jim Creek at the first crossing, and proceeded up a small second bank. She stopped, sit on a rock, and was done. She didn't want to go further. She knew that I wanted her to achieve the objective of traveling to the waterfalls so she again proceeded like a bull in a china shop. When we got to the second crossing, I suggested that she might want to wait to cross until I plotted a path for her to cross. No. She would not listen. She charged ahead. Splash. Profanity. Tears. Uncontrollable laughing on my part. It was funny. You are right Alan; I will make a record on the next trip. We will likely go again this upcoming weekend. Great humor. On another note, here is a link to a post on the Samizdata Blog that I read regularly. Pretty good stuff.
posted by Randall 9:40 AM
11.11.2002
Well I hate to say it but I agree. We are now at war. As for the creek, Randy, next time you need to take a camera.
posted by Anonymous 10:57 PM
I am never in favour of war... but the fact is we are now in a war, so the question is, do we win it?
- David Carr
posted by Randall 8:51 PM
Yes, Jim would have been proud. I think I probably said more four letter words when I fell in the creek than Randy has ever heard me say since the day we met. What he left out was the part about the road into the hiking area being closed. I thought we should probably not venture back there since the police obviously thought it wasn't a good idea. But no, we went anyway.
He also left out the part where moments before I took my ice cold, freezing bath, I sat down on a rock and said "Its really muddy and I'm going to fall in the creek, maybe we should turn back". But no, I didn't listen to my own intuition, we foreged ahead and in less than five minutes I was sitting in 45 degree water with a big bruise on my butt, and another big bruise on my shin, while Randy stood at the top of the hill cracking up.
In retrospect it was pretty funny.
posted by Anonymous 8:27 PM
11.10.2002
Not counting this post, this blog has seen a total of 19 posts. Junior posted once. Junior's brother posted once. Is there no interest?
posted by Randall 9:33 PM
There are few things funnier than listening to the socialist-tax-and-spend-democrats bellyaching about the recent GOP thrashing. Great link here. Joy and I had a somewhat humorous day today. We went to hike the Holy Jim Historic Trail in the Cleveland National Forest. She fell in Holy Jim Creek! This trail was named for James T. Smith who was known as "old cussin Jim" because of his colorful language. "Jim Smith was a talker -no ordinary talker ... a man given to blasphemous eloquence. When he started cussing ... he could peel paint off a stove pipe." When Joy fell in the creek, Holy Jim would have been proud.
posted by Randall 9:13 PM
11.07.2002
Its a frightening thing that happened on Tuesday. I, as a loyal democrat, could not be more disappointed or fearful for the future of my country. There is not anybody who hopes that I am wrong more than I do. I predict that we will be involved in a war before January.
posted by Anonymous 7:47 PM
11.06.2002
Wow. The Grand ole Party thrashed. I am at awe. I would have never thought that George W could have led such a charge. Now that the repubs control the house, senate and the white house - there should be no excuse why we don't get this enonomy thing improved. Time will tell. If the economic condition isn't improved, I bet George W doesn't see a 2nd term. Unless the dems nominate Al Gore again!!
posted by Randall 2:09 AM
11.05.2002
YEA!! I am happy to hear we are going to Vegas.
I will check back later today to see what Kevin has to say.
posted by Anonymous 7:53 PM
Blog on. In order to stimulate debate, I have asked my most loyal friend and trusted advisor to post to this site. His name is Kevin. Blog on!
posted by Randall 12:13 AM
I created this blog because I thought the free exchange of ideas was good. I thought that someone could post an idea and others would anxiously respond. I seriously thought this process would be healthy and fun. I had no idea it would lead to a discussion as to whether the female sex wants a penis. But it has. So be it. If I had only listened to Junior's brother (see previous posting by Alan), I guess I should have expected this reality.
Never fear. I don't quit so easy. I remain certain that a pig cannot be taught to sing. And I am damn certain that the attempt is a total waste of time.
On an unreleated note …
Joy is happy that she will be spending the weekend of 11/22 - 11/24 in a Casino Suite at the Stratosphere in Las Vegas. Joy likes the Casino Suite. [There is plenty of room if others want to join in the fun. Junior may want to come along and bring Bret? Perhaps Junior's brother may want to come? The rooms are pretty nice.]
I will be checking in on 11/22 at about 3pm and checking out at 11am on 11/24. If I drive I will depart Orange County by 11am on Friday.
posted by Randall 12:07 AM
11.03.2002
I am happy and pleased that Jeannie Junior found her way to the place where the logical minds meet. Perhaps this page has life? Time will tell. Welcome Jeannie Junior.
posted by Randall 11:56 PM
11.02.2002
I would like to have a penis.....though I would like to keep it in a test tube (yes a very small test tube) for it may for once be valuable in the year 2050 when men are finally erradicated. Hmmm Mom do you think Randy really believes in the stuff he preaches? I bet if he came back down to minion earth he could be saved :) Ok ok ok I came and checked it out.....Happy?
posted by Anonymous 9:44 PM
11.01.2002
It appears as if the singing pigs web page will be dying. It may be dying because of lack of interest or perhaps it is dying because of fundamental fact of life: "You can't teach a pig to sing and if you try you not only waste your time but you annoy the pig."
Is there an interest in maintaining this site? I doubt it.
posted by Randall 10:02 PM
10.30.2002
I thank Joy for articulating the “penis envy” concept and I am also thankful that I now know Joy’s view regarding her lack of desire to have a penis. I am now one step closer to having lived a fulfilled life.
My views are not sexist. The reader that scrolls this blog will certainly find no evidence that I have sexist, racist, liberal or conservative views. I try to think rationally. I try to articulate my views with a little ingenious humor.
The facts, as I see them, is that Joy directed argumentum ad hominem at W.F. Buckley, Jr. Alan and myself addressed the futility of this attempt on two subsequent posts.
Now the ad hominem attack is directed at me. Here we go again. Am I seeing a pattern?
Is it that when all else fails and Joy is unable to continue the debate, she invoked logical fallacy number 1 (see below.) This not only is pollution the rational world with irrational thoughts but is an attempt to redirect the debate from the topic to the person (ad hominem).
I thought my afternoon post of 10/28 would have stimulated thought and perhaps a response?
Let's get back to the reasoning.
posted by Randall 12:24 AM
10.28.2002
The myth that is known as penis envy is a lie perpetuated by men. I have not ever, during any point of my life, wanted a penis. In fact there are many times I have been gratefull not to have one. I firmly believe that the "hand that rocks the cradle rules the world".
When all else fails and Randy is unable to convince me that he is right and I am wrong his rational for being right is "because I have a penis".. Of Course Randy's response to this post will be that I once again am "polluting the world with my irrational thoughts". What Crap!!!!!
What coulld make a man as intelligent as Randy have such sexist views?
posted by Anonymous 9:25 PM
"What pennance must I pay for the crimes against humanity I have commited? Being vocal? Is it because I say what I want to say when I want to? You should really try it sometime, takes a load off body and mind, nothing is pent up. Sure, sometimes it comes off as being a pretentious little ass, but don't we all at one time or another? The world is full of have's and have not's, but most people don't realize that it is all subjective and relative, some people view an income of $200K to be very much a have, while some can view $3 mil. as still not enough. This is what drives most of mankind, the desire to "have", if not we'd be communist and would all be told that what we have is what we need, no more, no less. Only a have not can turn himself into a have, when they can come to terms with what they do have is what satiates them."..... from "Jerry McGuire's" mission statement.
"Some people are white and some are black, some people are happy and some are sad, some people shop at JC Penny's and some at Fred Segal, some people are smart and some are stupid. We are each cast lots in life and its our job to either roll with the punches and deal with it or take charge and try to change it, sitting around crying, bitching, and blubbering will accomplish nothing, the only course of action is exactly that, action. If you don't run your life, someone else will, and it doesn't have to be by a direct means, seeing what they do, have, and say can influence you and cause you much grief, whose fault is that but your own?" from a Business/Economics major at the University of California at Santa Barbara.
posted by Randall 12:45 PM
Thanks, Alan. An analysis of the essay and your mother’s response makes it clear your mother is polluting the logical world. At first I thought her reading skills were impaired until I read your post.
Let's look at the essay.
Has there been “A Shift in Abortion Sentiment?”
Buckley starts by discussing Gerald Ford’s interview and an opinion poll conducted by The New York Times. Ford is encouraging the GOP to stay away from the abortion debate. The poll indicates the American people are roughly split with half of the people believing that abortion is murder.
He talks about paradoxes and points out that the poll results are a paradox. “…Americans who believe that abortion is murder but who nevertheless (one-third of them) don't believe laws against abortion should be binding.”
Buckley proceeds to develop two points to answer the question.
The first point developed is that the GOP is changing.
The second point that Buckley provides in support of the proposition that there may be a shift in abortion sentiment has to do with race but certainly a reasonable person could not possibly conclude that Buckley is either a racist or, for that matter, against abortion.
Buckley develops this relationship by pointing out Roger Rosenblatt’s view that “… American people are moving against abortion but on the moral, not political, plane.” Buckley then talks about this moral plane “notwithstanding its ugliness”. He is simply providing data.
Buckley started the essay with a question in the title. He ends the essay with a question: “Is this cultural polarization what the polls are now telling us about?”
I don’t think a rational person could read this essay and infer Buckley is a racists or a proponent of abortion.
Joy - anything else you don't like about W. F. Buckley, Jr.?
posted by Randall 12:46 AM
10.27.2002
As an outsider to this argument I would like to throw my 2 cents in. I dont believe that my mother is arguing with logic. It is a flaw that she has carried and will continue to carry the rest of her life. For her an argument isn't about what is statistically correct or not but more about what her personal morals and feelings are towards the subject. While I dont agree with all of Buckley's arguments or reasoning I do believe that his arguments carry some validity particularly in reguards to abortion. If you look at the root of abortion I do think that you will find that it was a racially motivated practice of preventing the blending of blood between whites and all other races. This practice dates back to the early 1800's and further. We do not and should not be a society derived around the ideas of a melting pot society. This is what I think Buckley is argument is about.
posted by Anonymous 10:21 PM
OK LETS TALK ABOUT A SPECIFIC POINT OF VIEW THAT WILLIAM BUCKLEY JR HAS EXPRESSED THAT I FIND PARTICULALY OFFENSIVE, ABORTION. .
YOU MAY WANT TO READ THE ARTICLE HE AUTHORED ON THE SUBJECT, YOU CAN FIND IT AT THE LINK LISTED BELOW.
http://www.townhall.com/thcc/content/buckley/buck012198.html
TO SUGGEST FOR ONE MOMENT THAT ABORTION HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH RACISM IS RIDICULOUS AND INSULTING TO THOSE OF US WHO FIRMLY BELIEVE IN ONES RIGHT TO CHOICE WHERE THE ABORTION ISSUE IS CONCERNED.
posted by Anonymous 10:09 PM
It isn’t enough to simply express disagreement without specifics. What policy or position is in debate? Is it rent control, minimum wage, capitalism or the after-shave that Buckley uses? Could it be that Joy doesn’t know her reasoning for the disagreement?
Good people everywhere, for the most part, have the objective of doing well. If the objective is to help those who are less fortunate than others, then the question becomes, “Which is the better path?”
Thomas MaCurdy, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and Professor at the Department of Economics, Stanford University, points this out during a discussion on the minumum wage link here. “… See one thing that is very important to understand on the debates over the minimum wage. This is not a debate of whether we should help low-income families or the level of which we should help low income families. This is a debate over how we can best help low income families.”
On with the debate. Where is Buckley’s reasoning flawed? Or could it be that it isn’t Buckley’s reasoning that is flawed?
posted by Randall 6:52 PM
This is her.
I think I expalined to during dinner last night which of Buckleys ideas I find flawed, and explained to why they re flawed.
We are obligated as humans to help those less fotunant than ourselves. There are more important things in life than the dollar in our pockets, that is of course unless the dollar we are talking about is the one you wanted me to leave as a tip last night.....lol..
posted by Randall 10:49 AM
10.26.2002
This is him.
Which of Buckley's ideas does her find flawed? Attack the idea not the man. Logical fallacy number 1: argumentum ad hominem.
The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favorable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps. There are three major forms of Attacking the Person: (1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion. (2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person's circumstances. (3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practice what he preaches.
I find Buckley's reasoning to be based on logic. Where has he failed?
posted by Randall 5:51 PM
This is her.
Let me start by saying that the premise is a good one....I like anything that encourages the free exchange of thoughts and ideas.
Let me also set the record straight....I did not say I didn't like Buckley’s voice, I said I found his accent annoying, and I father said that besides not liking his voice, I liked even less what he had to say...which is always somewhere right of right. while my point of view is generally somewhere left of middle.
Yes both of my kids are winners, they are just taking different paths to get to where they are going. Juniors brother knows where he wants to go in life, Junior on the other hand is not quite sure, but I am convinced that she will find her way.....just like everything else in her life this far has been, she will find it in her own time and in her own way, She is her own greatest asset and her own greatest enemy. She is often so much life myself that I worry for her.
posted by Randall 3:44 PM
this blog is a shared effort between a guy (thats me) and a girl (thats her.) we don't live together. i work professionally. her works. her has two kids, junior and junior's brother. both kids can be winners. one has a head start. the other has minimal academic goals. they are both great kids. her has potential if her would listen and follow direction.
i am motivated to create this blog so that i can document some of the totally hilarious happennings in my life. a great example was today. i attempted to explain to her the fact that william f. buckley, jr., is a pretty sharp ole fella whose logic is better that good. her response: i don't like him because his voice is different. go figure.
i also hope to use this as a tool to encourage conversation between all four of us. her and i don't talk as much as we should mostly because i work too much and play too hard. i spend less than 1 hour each month with junior and junrior's brother. I also work out at la fitness about 10 hours per week.
my sincere hope is that her and i can come closer together, or at a minimum, her doest get hurt when the declaration is made. this effort is also attempted so that we can have some fun and maybe, or maybe not, give other people a laugh at us.
The rules: comments encouraged. Bloggers: keep it short, to the point, and "blog" at least 1 day in 5, for 15 minutes. blogging for 15 minutes implies ~12 minutes thought followed by ~3 minutes typing. never commit one of the five logical fallicies [i will leave it to you to discover these fallacies.] test next dinner meeting.
remember there are four bloggers. a vote of 3 to 1 has value.
lets have fun. let's grow.
posted by Randall 12:12 AM
|
To teach a pig to sing is futile; it wastes the time of the teacher and annoys the pig!
Past
current
|