Comments
At least we now know you have no litterary or pretentions. You probably don’t have much background in philosophy either.

You should at least update your reading list to adventure fiction written in the last quarter century I’d recommend Old Man’s War by John Scalzi. If you like Heinlein, you’ll love it. You won’t learn much but its a great read.


Written By: cindyb
URL: http://
Just make a reasonable comment and back it up with facts and logic and then watch the attacks begin, if you don’t believe those who want to control will try to hurt you.

Written By: Rick
URL: http://
At least we now know you have no litterary or pretentions.
Wha???
You probably don’t have much background in philosophy either.
Huh???
You won’t learn much but its a great read.
Eh???

Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
cindyb, thanks so much for your concern about my reading habits.

FYI, I’ve read everything Scalzi has written, except that Android’s Dream is still sitting in my to-be-read stack since it’s only a few weeks old. I’ve even recommended him to others. I’ve got signed limited editions of two of his books. You might check the listing in the Sagan Diaries of the members of the "lost Company D". They took the names from those who pre-ordered the special edition, and my name is in there.

I also read Scalzi’s blog, despite the fact that his opinions of Bush and the Iraq conflict are not that close to mine. He’s a smart guy who expresses his opinions very well, and probably closer to you politically than to me.

I’ve read plenty of other recent speculative fiction, with Orson Scott Card and Vernor Vinge being among those I consider high quality. I’ve read more books on philsophy than I can remember, too. Plus history, economics, etc. So if you’re inclined to worry about others’ reading habits, you can direct your attention to someone else.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your comments were well intentioned instead of being motivated by smug superiority and the desire to make yourself look better than someone else. Others might not be so kind.


Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
A few weeks ago while reviewing some of the founding fathers’ speeches (and where the hell are the people in modern politics who can turn a phrase and deliver it the way Patrick Henry or Sam Adams did, dammit?) I came across a much older quote that seems to be increasingly true, as much as I’d love to hotly deny it:

"Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master."

The funny thing is just how old the quote is. It’s from Sallust, a Roman bureaucrat and historian. Plus ca change...



Written By: Lysenko
URL: http://
Ah, the wit and wisdom of Robert Heinlein never fails to hit the nail on it’s head. Liberals believe their Social Sciences have all the answers, so they should run your life. The Religious right believe God has given them devine wisdom and they have right to control everything. As the old TV commercial says, “Please Mom. Let me do it myself”

Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://
If I was being obtuse, George Bushes favorite book is the bible.

Written By: cindyb
URL: http://
If I was being obtuse, George Bushes favorite book is the bible.
cindy, you’ve been misusing the Anti-Bush Random Sentence Generator (TM) again. Give it some better input, and for goodness sake screen the random output for some semblance of meaning.

Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
At least we now know you have no litterary or pretentions.


Priceless.

Written By: Don
URL: http://
George Bushes favorite book is the bible
Would you prefer Art of War maybe?

Mein Kampf perhaps?

The Prince perchance?

So little imagination employed in finding potentially worse alternatives.

(sic)litterary or pretentions
Spell check, grammar check, speaking of literary pretensions.....
but you are entertaining.



Written By: looker
URL: http://
Lysenko,

Good quote. Most people do not have the time to take liberty in all things. It seems a lot of work following your own direction in every aspect. Most of us find it satisfactory take liberty in the things that are important to us and let the rest (the trivial stuff) pass by.


Billy,

Suggest Ian (M.) Banks, especially Consider Phlebas - great characters. ;-)

Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
Whenever a country aspires to a foreign policy that is activist and interventionist, it will have a powerful strong central government, with people driven to it who want to control your lives. The growth in the power of America’s federal government corresponds with the post-war expansion of American foreign policy. Support an interventionist foreign policy, especially one that tries big social engineering experiments like spreading democracy to other cultures, and you are supporting a big government "nanny state." The two go hand in hand.

Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
So you’re saying (Scott) that our federal government has been activist and interventionist in foreign policy for at least 75 years?

Written By: Grandersnack
URL: http://
Scott, you have a point. However, it’s incomplete.

First, note that national defense is one of the few responsibilities of government that libertarians grant as completely legitimate. And that responsibility requires judgment as to how to carry it out.

If an external threat develops, there are two possible avenues to deal with it. One is fight it when it directly impacts the US, on our own territory. The other is to engage the threat at a distance.

Engaging a threat at a distance would clearly have the advantage of better protecting Americans. I think we can all get behind the idea that the bloodiest parts of WWII were fought on various Pacific islands instead of in California.

Now consider the specific threat of terrorism, and consider the side effects of engaging that threat at home instead of abroad. That is, assume that we have adopted a firm policy of not fighting that threat anywhere except inside America.

The result would, I believe, rapidly become indistinguishable from a police state. I already cringe when I see what Americans put up with in airports. Imagine that kind of government monitoring and exercise of power in just about any activity outside the house. Every attack would result in calls for more government power to deal with it. We would, on a daily basis, be subject to far more people in our lives that possessed power over us, with the attendent possibility for abuse.

Therefore I consider an interventionist foreign policy as the lesser of two evils in dealing with an external terrorist threat. Especially if that intervention is not in perpetuity, and Americans are suspicious enough of imperial impulses to include that.

A terrorist-related clamp down at home would be open-ended - given power, government bureaucrats do not like to give it up. But soldiers don’t want to stay in foreign countries and wield power indefinitely.

So your contention only holds if the choice is between intervention and non-intervention. You may believe that is indeed the choice, and that non-intervention would lead to less terrorist threat at home. That’s where you and I part ways. I believe that non-intervention, after a long string of terrorist incidents culminating in 9/11, would clearly lead to more terrorism.

So I believe the choice is not best stated as between intervention and non-intervention. It is between fighting the threat at its source and fighting it in our own cities. Both facilitate government power, but I know which one I prefer.

Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Suggest Ian (M.) Banks...
Thanks, I’ll take a look at one of his books. I did a quick look over at amazon, and it appears he might have what I think of Greg-Bear-syndrome - interesting concepts but needs tighter writing. But I’ll try just about any SF author I’m recommended once.

I’m fussy, though, on who I’ll come back to. Dan Simmons, for example, is a Hugo award winning author, but I thought Hyperion was kind of pointless, especially the ending. So I don’t expect to try him again.

Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Erb:
Whenever a country aspires to a foreign policy that is activist and interventionist, it will have a powerful strong central government, with people driven to it who want to control your lives.
But are you suggesting that if the US were not so interventionist, those who busy themselves with our governance would be less like a legion of Nurse Ratchets? If that’s what you mean to imply, how do you account for the onerous laws and healthcare regulations and what-have-you that Canadians have to endure? Or, I don’t know, the near total domination to which Venezuelans are presently subjected by the guy who constitutes their government? Or the people of any number of countries that don’t go out of their way to dislodge dictators here and about in the way that Americans sometimes do? They have to put up with as much and very oftentimes more governmental claptrap than we do. How come?

Written By: Linda Morgan
URL: http://
Linda,

Excellent counter-examples on Erb’s position. Is he really a poli-sci PhD?

Re: Scalzi

I liked his book, though in his forward he thanks Ted Rall...I did a double take.

Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Scott, you have a point. However, it’s incomplete.

First, note that national defense is one of the few responsibilities of government that libertarians grant as completely legitimate. And that responsibility requires judgment as to how to carry it out.
Agreed.
If an external threat develops, there are two possible avenues to deal with it. One is fight it when it directly impacts the US, on our own territory. The other is to engage the threat at a distance.
But it’s a slippery slope is seeing ’external threats.’ If you believe their own words, the Romans never fought an offensive war, they were always dealing with external threats. What constitutes a threat?
Engaging a threat at a distance would clearly have the advantage of better protecting Americans. I think we can all get behind the idea that the bloodiest parts of WWII were fought on various Pacific islands instead of in California.
And, of course, the US didn’t enter that war until attacked.
Now consider the specific threat of terrorism, and consider the side effects of engaging that threat at home instead of abroad. That is, assume that we have adopted a firm policy of not fighting that threat anywhere except inside America.
Terrorism requires an active counter-terrorism strategy that is effective, requiring cooperation across borders. That takes place in a global framework, so I’ve nothing against counter-terrorism abroad, especially in partnership with other governments.

The result would, I believe, rapidly become indistinguishable from a police state. I already cringe when I see what Americans put up with in airports. Imagine that kind of government monitoring and exercise of power in just about any activity outside the house. Every attack would result in calls for more government power to deal with it. We would, on a daily basis, be subject to far more people in our lives that possessed power over us, with the attendent possibility for abuse.
I think one also needs to avoid the cognitive error of conflating possibilities with probabilities. There has been spectacular terrorist strike against the US this decade. It killed 3000 people. The visuals were stunning; the real damage to the US minimal. The emotion effect was tremendous, the actual impact on American strength was slight.

But what did it lead us to do? First, buoyed with global support, we went after the Taliban, a regime nobody liked, since they did not give up Bin Laden and other al qaeda operatives. OK. In that case a counter-terrorist strategy needs to prove it can hit back, and go after state sponsored terror networks with a proven capacity and willingness to act.

Yet what was the result? Al qaeda was wounded, but not taken out. It’s efficacy probably hurt more by our domestic counter-terrorist tactics than military tactics abroad. The US then decides to invade Iraq on flimsy grounds, and suddenly we are spending hundreds of billions, dividing a country very united just six years ago, and involved in sectarian fights with people who otherwise would not be supporters of anti-American terrorism. In other words, the actions that came from over-reacting to 9-11 have weakened us immensely, which is the kind of result terrorists want. Terrorism is a strategy, rationally chosen by weak, non-state actors to try to elicit responses that achieve more than they could with traditional means (leveraging their power by using fear and stoking paranoia). I would not be surprised if, when the history of this era is written, 9-11 is viewed a success for al qaeda because of how it goaded the US into self-defeating and self-weakening actions.
Therefore I consider an interventionist foreign policy as the lesser of two evils in dealing with an external terrorist threat. Especially if that intervention is not in perpetuity, and Americans are suspicious enough of imperial impulses to include that.
If you said "a policy that is willing to use military force when appropriate as part of an effective counter-terrorist campaign" I’d be a lot more comfortable than the phrase "an interventionist foreign policy."
A terrorist-related clamp down at home would be open-ended - given power, government bureaucrats do not like to give it up. But soldiers don’t want to stay in foreign countries and wield power indefinitely.

So your contention only holds if the choice is between intervention and non-intervention. You may believe that is indeed the choice, and that non-intervention would lead to less terrorist threat at home. That’s where you and I part ways. I believe that non-intervention, after a long string of terrorist incidents culminating in 9/11, would clearly lead to more terrorism.
I’m not sure I’d call it a long string, especially since most incidents were in foreign countries with poor security. I think intervention needs to be very smart, and done only when there is a clearly definable goal and cause for action. The social engineering experiment in Iraq has been a fiasco.
So I believe the choice is not best stated as between intervention and non-intervention. It is between fighting the threat at its source and fighting it in our own cities. Both facilitate government power, but I know which one I prefer.
I think that’s too simplistic. I think we need to make sure we don’t magnify the threat into something more than it is, and limit military action to situations where it is effective and achieves strong counter-terrorist goals. Afghanistan could have met those requirements, but we moved to Iraq (which didn’t meet those requirements) too quickly.

Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
But are you suggesting that if the US were not so interventionist, those who busy themselves with our governance would be less like a legion of Nurse Ratchets? If that’s what you mean to imply, how do you account for the onerous laws and healthcare regulations and what-have-you that Canadians have to endure? Or, I don’t know, the near total domination to which Venezuelans are presently subjected by the guy who constitutes their government? Or the people of any number of countries that don’t go out of their way to dislodge dictators here and about in the way that Americans sometimes do? They have to put up with as much and very oftentimes more governmental claptrap than we do. How come?
I’m saying that you are going to have a big powerful government any time you have an interventionist, activist foreign policy.

You may or may not have a "nanny state" without such a policy. But with an activist foreign policy, you will have big government. Guaranteed. (Though frankly, given that Canada is routinely ranked above the US in quality of life indices, I’m not sure they’re having to ’endure’ much!)

Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"Though frankly, given that Canada is routinely ranked above the US in quality of life indices, I’m not sure they’re having to ’endure’ much!"

So you must be a big fan of the US News university rankings too, huh?

Written By: Grandersnack
URL: http://
So you must be a big fan of the US News university rankings too, huh?
It is in my self-interest to be.

Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
The result would, I believe, rapidly become indistinguishable from a police state. I already cringe when I see what Americans put up with in airports. Imagine that kind of government monitoring and exercise of power in just about any activity outside the house. Every attack would result in calls for more government power to deal with it. We would, on a daily basis, be subject to far more people in our lives that possessed power over us, with the attendent possibility for abuse.
Therefore I consider an interventionist foreign policy as the lesser of two evils in dealing with an external terrorist threat. Especially if that intervention is not in perpetuity, and Americans are suspicious enough of imperial impulses to include that.
So, let me get this straight: The blood of thousands of US soldiers needs to be spilled 8 times zones away in countries that could never militarily threaten US soil except by desperate acts of terrorism (the refuge of those without the military power to kill on a large scale), in perpetuity (I’ve not seen anybody advocating the GWOT that has argued for it being a short, bloodless intervention that will end with all American troops coming home after a well-defined goal is achieved) so that you don’t have to spend an extra couple of minutes going through security at the airport?

Congratulations, you have managed to transform professor Erb into the libertarian voice of reason.

Yikes!

Written By: DS
URL: http://
So, let me get this straight: The blood of thousands of US soldiers needs to be spilled 8 times zones away in countries that could never militarily threaten US soil except by desperate acts of terrorism (the refuge of those without the military power to kill on a large scale), in perpetuity (I’ve not seen anybody advocating the GWOT that has argued for it being a short, bloodless intervention that will end with all American troops coming home after a well-defined goal is achieved) so that you don’t have to spend an extra couple of minutes going through security at the airport?
Nope, I’m afraid you’ve left some things out. I want the war against Islamic fundamentalists to take place 8 time zones away so that I don’t wake up one morning and tune in to see a radioactive crater where Washington used to be, and then see degeneration into a police state.

Talking about "desperate acts of terrorism" from countries "without the military power to kill on a large scale" is a non-sequitur. Such desperate acts can in fact kill on a large scale, and folks like you seem willfully blind to the proof. We now have 3000 people in a single day as a minimum. I take it you’re fine to see just how high they can go. I’m not.

Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Erb:
I’m saying that you are going to have a big powerful government any time you have an interventionist, activist foreign policy.

You may or may not have a "nanny state" without such a policy.
But, Scott, you said earlier:
Support an interventionist foreign policy, especially one that tries big social engineering experiments like spreading democracy to other cultures, and you are supporting a big government "nanny state." The two go hand in hand.
"The two go hand in hand." Yet in Venezuela and, say, Zimbabwe, the two don’t go hand in hand. Those governments are not trying to spread democracy or for other purposes intervening militarily in the affairs of other nations, yet they are nanny states (assuming Leatherface and Freddy Krueger as the nannies) rapidly increasing their power over their respective populaces. In fact, they are such egregious - and typical - examples of strong central governments led by people hellbent on controlling others, that your "hand in hand" observation seems not particularly pertinent or predictive, if you’ll pardon my saying so.

Written By: Linda Morgan
URL: http://
Billy Hollis to DS:
Talking about "desperate acts of terrorism" from countries "without the military power to kill on a large scale" is a non-sequitur.
Not only that, but it’s despicable, particularly when DS touts terrorism of the sort that prompted US intervention in Afganistan and Iraq as the "refuge" of such as al Qaeda.

DS, how do you justify the suggestion that Bin Laden and company took refuge in the elaborately planned and brutally choreographed attacks of 9/11 that you are pleased to characterize as desperate? Why such desperation? From what did they take refuge?


Written By: Linda Morgan
URL: http://
Whenever a country aspires to a foreign policy that is activist and interventionist, it will have a powerful strong central government, with people driven to it who want to control your lives. The growth in the power of America’s federal government corresponds with the post-war expansion of American foreign policy. Support an interventionist foreign policy, especially one that tries big social engineering experiments like spreading democracy to other cultures, and you are supporting a big government "nanny state." The two go hand in hand.

Written By: Scott Erb


The "growth in the power of America’s federal government" in fact started in the ’30s with the quasi-fascist New Deal.

America’s post-WW2 forign policy was dominated by the Cold War and our requirement to win the Cold War.

You are probably correct that our foreign policy did in fact increase the power of the federal government, but there are other things at work here.

"Spreading democracy to other cultures" is an optimistic solution to our current problem with radical Islam. Perhaps it isn’t a solution, but it is better than the standard Democrat response of inserting one’s head into the sand, and it is better than the propaganda of the likes of Juan Cole.




Written By: Don
URL: http://
Linda,
Scott was either being deliberately misleading when he said they "go hand in hand" or he didn’t understand the meaning of the term. While he may be understandably reticent to admit which one it was, it would be helpful to know. This is similar to Scott being uncomfortable when Billy used the term ’interventionist foreign policy’ even though Billy made it clear he was just using the term because Scott brought it up.

It’s also interesting that Scott pointed out interventionist foreign policy. The original post made no mention of it, so why not leave it as activist,interventionist policy. Why no mention of domestic or environmental policy?
Although I’m skeptical about the value of the Kyoto protocols, I’d sign on
Apparently, intervention is ok if it might shame China.

Anyway, back to the original point. Which one is it, Professor Erb? Deliberate misuse of terms, or did your grasp on the English laguage slip today?


Written By: Ted
URL: http://
Linda’s logic lesson (say that three times fast)

If X and Y go together (whenever there is X, then there is Y), that is not the same thing as saying that whenever there is Y, there must be X. Whenever there is snow it is cold. But that doesn’t mean whenever it is cold it must snow.

Think about it.

To Billy H.
Nope, I’m afraid you’ve left some things out. I want the war against Islamic fundamentalists to take place 8 time zones away so that I don’t wake up one morning and tune in to see a radioactive crater where Washington used to be, and then see degeneration into a police state.
Do you think that perhaps you are letting fear guide your choice too much? Islamic extremism is a movement that benefits from our "going to war" with it; that creates an impression that we are the evil outsiders trying to destroy Islam and gain oil, pushing youth (and societies in the Mideast have a high youth percentage of their population) to radicalism. Your solution actually makes that which you fear more likely to happen!

Moreover, think of the innocent people being killed because of that fear. Think about how much military intervention can really accomplish against groups that are even opposed by most governments in the region.

No, this isn’t the 1930s. This is a new kind of conflict, and it has to be dealt with in a different way.

Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"Spreading democracy to other cultures" is an optimistic solution to our current problem with radical Islam. Perhaps it isn’t a solution, but it is better than the standard Democrat response of inserting one’s head into the sand, and it is better than the propaganda of the likes of Juan Cole.
Head in the sand? Dr. Cole’s blog gives insights from the press of the region, friends he has in Iraq, and his own background on Shi’a Islam and Mideast history. You may think his opinion is wrong, but he clearly doesn’t have his head in the sand. Few know more about the details of the culture and society of the region than he does, and his blog presents inside information you get nowhere else. I consider him must read.

Scott was either being deliberately misleading when he said they "go hand in hand" or he didn’t understand the meaning of the term.
There was nothing misleading about my very clear claim that if you have an interventionist foreign policy then you are going to have a bigger government, with more centralized power, and ultimately more intrusion into people’s lives. That has not been denied! If Linda is playing dodge and weave, trying to say that ’hand in hand’ means the reverse has to be true, then it seems more like she’s being dishonest and ignoring the clear argument in favor trying to pick phrases and twist meanings to avoid confronting the real issue.

Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Do you think that perhaps you are letting fear guide your choice too much?
I don’t think so, Scott. Just how comfortable are you with the idea of nuclear incineration?
Islamic extremism is a movement that benefits from our "going to war" with it...
This is often asserted by the left, but not only do I consider it unproven, I consider the evidence to weigh in heavily on the other side.

We didn’t "go to war" after the first World Trade Center attack. We didn’t "go to war" after the our embassy was taken over in Teheran. We didn’t "go to war" when our Marines were slaughtered in Beirut. And what we reaped from that was a steadily increasing scale of attack until they finally got our attention by killing 3000 people and causing about a trillion dollars worth of damage. So exactly how is not going to war helping the long term situation?

Islamic extremism may indeed benefit from having a tangible infidel enemy. That is undeniably a great recruiting tool among certain elements of their people. But it’s also the case that Islamic extremism suffers, sometimes greatly, from other aspects of our efforts.

We don’t hear much about Kuwait as a problem, because they know they owe a lot to us. Ergo, Kuwait is not a significant problem from a terrorist perspective.

We are close to the same situation in Afghanistan. There’s further to go in Iraq, but if you read accounts of people who have been there, the direct contact of those people to our soldiers transforms their entire idea of America. What does that do to terrorist recruitment? I’d wager it does it a lot of damage.

So it’s not nearly as simple as saying that fighting the terrorism "benefits from our going to war with it". It benefits in some ways, and suffers in others.

The key idea I’m trying to get across here is that no strategy for dealing with terrorism can be black and white. Instead, one has to judge costs and benefits. I don’t see much of that on the left. They want to acknowledge nothing but benefits for the things they like (ignoring the costs) and nothing but costs for the things they don’t like (ignoring the benefits). In both cases, this leads to analysis that is not very helpful for decision making, and not very helpful for someone trying to debate the real world instead of the idealized picture of it that those leftist debaters would prefer. (I’m not saying everyone on the left or everyone anti-war is like that - I’m just saying that a lot are, and the ones who are prepared to properly acknowledge costs and benefits are rare.)
Moreover, think of the innocent people being killed because of that fear.
Think of the innocent people who die in terrorist attacks. Think of the innocent people subjected to lives of desperation because their society is dominated by terrorists. That kind of emotional tug is not a basis for rational decision making. Innocent people die in any struggle. I’d rather some additional innocent people die in an effort to solve a long term problem than see a bit fewer innocent people die each year, but the problem go on forever. How about you?
No, this isn’t the 1930s. This is a new kind of conflict, and it has to be dealt with in a different way.
Correct. And I look forward to the day when the left gives any clue about what they consider a realistic alternative to what we’re trying now. Pulling out and hoping for the best is not a strategy.



Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Islamic extremism is a movement that benefits from our "going to war" with it...
It benefits more when we do not oppose it effectually.

5.56mm opposition is effectual, as opposed to, say, the State Department.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp

Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Think of the innocent people subjected to lives of desperation because their society is dominated by terrorists.
Or dominated by tyrants whom we’ve encouraged in the past, because we had no faith we could do better.

In Iraq and Afghanistan we are doing better.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp

Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
So you must be a big fan of the US News university rankings too, huh?

It is in my self-interest to be.
The point is that the university rankings, like the so-called quality of life indices, are subjective. There is no objective measure of quality of life and there is no objective measure of university quality. In fact, there is no objective meaning of the word ’quality’ either.

So to try and use these indices to say one country is better than another is merely citing opinion. To cite these indices as if you were citing a law of physics is not particularly rigorous. But maybe intellectual rigor is out of vogue in the academy these days.





Written By: Grandersnack
URL: http://
Erb:
If X and Y go together (whenever there is X, then there is Y), that is not the same thing as saying that whenever there is Y, there must be X.
Here’s the thing, Scott. You’ve repeatedly asserted but quite stubbornly avoided establishing a creditable link between X and Y - between interventionist foreign policy and a "nanny state" - to begin with. As I’ve indicated, the most egregious examples of bigtime governmental interference in people’s lives appear to occur in states that aren’t intervenionist at all. And no, that doesn’t contradict your assertion, but it doesn’t support it either. And neither do you. You just keep blindly asserting.
If Linda is playing dodge and weave, trying to say that ’hand in hand’ means the reverse has to be true, then it seems more like she’s being dishonest and ignoring the clear argument in favor trying to pick phrases and twist meanings to avoid confronting the real issue.
See if you can tell me what the real issue is. Hint: I’ve stated it in this reply.

Written By: Linda Morgan
URL: http://
Scott:
There was nothing misleading about my very clear claim that if you have an interventionist foreign policy then you are going to have a bigger government, with more centralized power, and ultimately more intrusion into people’s lives ... If Linda is playing dodge and weave, trying to say that ’hand in hand’ means the reverse has to be true, then it seems more like she’s being dishonest and ignoring the clear argument in favor trying to pick phrases and twist meanings to avoid confronting the real issue.
Webster’s Dictionary: Hand in hand, in union; conjointly; unitedly.
This is exactly the definition Linda (and the rest of the planet) has been using. There’s no reason to accuse Linda of twisting the issue when she was assuming you knew what you were saying. Just admit you used the wrong phrase, then respond to her actual point.

Written By: Ted
URL: http://
Love the original post and greatly enjoyed the interplay of comments, especially those between the academic theorists and the pragmatists: all the more because they reflect the true spirit of the original post and the contrasting perspectives of those who wish to impose control (stasists) and those who value individual freedom and responsibility (dynamists).

Elsewhere, Heinlein also wrote a passionate advocacy for rational anarchy, bemoaning the fact that in the name of democracy, way too many desire to enact laws that restrict, control and/or otherwise constrain the activites of others whose behaviour they do not approve. (Never their own activities, just those of others they wish to sanction).

It appears to me the key here is tolerance and that rather than teach, promote and advocate tolerance in society, stasists presume that the individual is not to be trusted and, thus, the state must be given the powers necessary to save people from themselves and enforce the very tolerance they have defined people as unable of achieving independently. The irony of "enforced tolerance" escapes its advocates and this logic (if an oxymoron can be described as logic) is manifest in just about every example of the interventionist state, such as environmental policy, health care and education and not just foriegn policy.

Written By: graham smith
URL: http://http://ecomythsmith.blogspot.com/
Let’s keep in mind that Al Qaeda managed to effectively sink a US Navy ship, the Cole, and blew up two embassies...it’s a bit more than a slower wait at the airport.

Al Qaeda units were cooperating with the Taliban’s regular army, and if they had won in Afghanistan, you can bet they’d be deployed elsewhere.

The problem with AQ is that they sort of seem to be a few crazies running around that couldn’t possibly harm us, and yet they also had the potential to become a serious threat.



Written By: Harun
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools: Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment: