Proposition A: Force should be used as sparingly as possible.
Proposition B: Governments must ultimately use force to ensure compliance with laws.
Proposition C: If you agree with Propositions A and B, it follows that you would want a smaller government, creating fewer rules and using less force against the citizenry.
Unless you are a "progressive." "Progressives" will tend to agree with Proposition A but work to enlarge the scope and power of government.
Thus "progressives" are either confused, illogical, or insincere about their support of Proposition A.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
It isn't either/or. They ARE confused, illogical AND insincere. Welcome to the addled mind of a progressive!
They'd just rather not to use the word "force" because it sounds icky. Force is what conservatives do when we demand we live within our means and not raise taxes. Compassion, fairness and green sound much nicer when you are forcing liberal policy while picking our pockets with aggression.
Don't forget social justice GH.
What a ludicrous argument.
A) Force should be applied as appropriate.
B) Government's use the THREAT of force to ensure compliance, but it's generally not necessary to apply force for most citizens, most of the time. Especially when there are good laws for good reasons that promote the common good and citizens percieve themselves to be part of society and therefore they benefit from the social contract.
C) Consequently, Denis' "C" does not follow, because his underlying premise flawed and therefore the logic that flows from that premise is crap.
Smaller? Smaller than what? How's that Cult of Con deregulation working out for the financial sector? Can you say S&L Crisis? how about Great GOPcession of 2008? What could be more big gubmint intrusive than the USA PATRIOT ACT or big military-industrial complex invasions of our counrties based on lies for fun and profit at our expense?
Smaller Gubmint, you guys kill me! Talk about confused, illogical and insincere! Whadda buncha GOPocrites!
Our government should be the right size to do what we collectively as citizens decide we want it to do in a representative democracy. And that means it should be bigger for some tasks and smaller for others and that should change over time with changing circumstances.
I know that doesn't fit neatly into a little Rovian Gandabyte suitable for the small and simplistic modern "conservative" mind. Sorry, reality is complicated, it's just that simple.
Reality isn't complicated. Freedom, self-relience and the right to keep the fruits of your own labor are so simple a five year old gets it. Which explains why you don't, Sean.
"And that means it should be bigger for some tasks and smaller for others and that should change over time with changing circumstances." Ugh, where does that happen? Not in modern history does government ever get smaller with changing circumstances. You are deluding yourself, and in fact personify Denis' proposition.
Every government imposed good idea started out small, and grows as grotestly large as it can. Ditto for bad gov. ideas. The only thing that is "complicated" is government, Sean. That's the simple reality.
Sean, regarding B, the only reason threats of force are usually sufficient is because governments have demonstrated to use actual force when necessary. As such, it makes no sense to draw a distinction between the two and declare victory. Most sane people will hand over their wallet when faced by a gun wielding robber who will have only employed a threat of force to meet his objectives. Therefore, my logic is still intact and C still applies.
Why doesn't the government just issue suggestions since most of what they want is for the common good blah blah blah? The reason to have laws backed by threats of and actual force is to get compliance from those who otherwise would not comply. And again, we should use force as infrequently as possible. Hence, smaller, less intrusive government with limited objectives NOT including wealth redistribution.
But we already have wealth redistribution, facilitated by government kowtowing to those with the means to exert their influence and have had for 30 years. The notion that the wealth gap that we've instituted in this country was done without government is the fodder of fools like you and gearheads.
Sean, I am no fan of crony capitalism if that is what you are suggesting. That is among the big government problems that I wish to be solved.
The Party you support is all about crony capitalism. This whole free market, competition yammering is nothing but a huge Republicon smoke screen.
Furthermore, as I pointed out before and you conveniently ignored, everytime your GOPsters make geovernment "smaller" by deregulating portions of the financial sector, we have a major GOPster greed scam/scandal and the citizens get stuck with bailout bill. Savings & Loan crisis, junk bonds, Credit default swaps, mortgage brokers, you name it.
Smaller government, what a pathetic joke they're playing on you! Smaller than what, Gearheads brain? Nemo's integrity?
I guess if I have to pick, make mine a size 2. Can't get much smaller than that!
A leftist economic alchemist trying to turn the regulatory lead weighting down the economy into the wealth producing gold that is the free market? Hilarious! What's next sean, telling us again how sheep’s bladders can be used to predict AGW? (This new science fascinates me, Heh.)
GearHead, I've enjoyed your well reasoned blows to our favorite pejorative filled pinata. Thanks!
Thanks, Nemo. Our wingnut friend Fiddy never gets around to 'splaining his idea of what defines a good job that grows the economy. No doubt because he has no idea how a "job" is created in the first place. (Hint Sean: somebody looking for a return on investment knowing he can make money through the incremental productivity of another warm body.)
Since there isn't much market demand for cowbell clanging community organizers, maybe that explains why his ilk is always so nasty, cynical, and predisposed to writing manifestos to the JT editor.
Nemo: Thank you for saying nothing as is typical (as in nothing, funny meaningful or intelligent).
Gear Headed: Almost! A job is created when somebody looking for a return on investment is correct in his/her belief money can be made by satifying DEMAND for a goodor service through the incremental productivity of another human being.
See GHed? You can make slow progress even though your way of putting it was both lacking, and a rather disgusting value statement about the worth human beings and the dignity of work.
But what else would you expect from a brain imprisoned in the Cult of Con? Thank you all for another day's entertainment!
sean, "...through the incremental productivity of another human being."
Really sean?. Anyone who is self-employed does not have a job under your definition of job in that they are not "another human being". Should these employed, non-job having people rush out for unemployment bennies or is your definition lacking? Reminds me of your definition of a human life. Remember that one? The one that did not include sleeping people as living humans? Heh.
Well Nemo, it's more than a little amusing that you attack the definition of job creation provided by Gearheaded and believe you're assaulting my argument.
That being said, there's nothing revealing or controversial about your critique. Clearly people who are self employed have a job.
I think we can give Gearheaded some credit here and safely assume that he/she thought that point to be so completely obvious as to not require being pointed out explicitly. You Nemo on the other hand . . . well let's just say thank you for this morning's entertainment.
sean, glad I could help you smile. The left has been far too hateful and grumpy for about a year now. Despite the flicker of joy you have claimed, I'll still be sleeping with one eye open if I know you're near. Heh.
Excellent Nemo! Now you're making progress by openly expressing and confronting your fearful delusion rather than engaging in the subterfuge of denial and supression. HEAL!
Post a Comment