>Now it seems that we may have a few common points here - which will become boring to the general (and admiral) audience here, so we may agree to later dispute the points where we disagree, lest the fellow Foxen who read this be not bored to death.
>
>Or maybe we'll find that we do agree at some points for all the wrong reasons... now there's a chance for a nice thread drift.
>
>>That may be why America is so best governed from the middle. I never get upset about political apathy, because that seems to indicate that for most people life is humming along pretty well and they don't see the government as being too intrusive of or responsible for their lives, one way or another. That may be somewhat incorrect, but it is an illusion only possible when there is domestic peace and is reasonably rare in human history.
>
>Nice analysis - except that my remark about "middle of... the interval between right and very very far right" still stays.


I think one thing that has to be taken into consideration is the implementation of a more socialist or communal model on a society tabla rasa or implementing it in situ

Equitable distribution of wealth from Day of Creation starts everybody even. Then you only have to deal with those who think justice is guarenteeing not just equality of opportunity but equity of outcome. Would create some social tensions but nothing like ...

Redistribution of wealth. Take from those who have and give to those who don't. Assumes moral terpitude on the part of those who have - makes no allowance for those who created wealth for society or earned a larger share based on what others thought of what they did.

And of course it benefits those who have made choices that have reduced their circumstances, as well as those who have less from no fault other than the luck of the draw.

But most important for me is that it implies coercion by The State. Some bureaucrat decides what to do with what you have and what to do with you if you don't agree. That is a far greater evil than the inequity that arises from unequal distribution of luck, ancestors, personal effort, genetics or malfeasance by others.

And then it is the bureaucrats who have the unequal power - and of course this isn't just theory. We've seen it in practice.

>
>>I also think that the only thing worse than an uninformed electorate being apathetic about politics is an uninformed electorate being passionate about politics <g>
>
>So any good politics should try to educate and inform the electorate and thus avoid both evils. I wonder why does that happen so seldom?
>

Because education that is mandatory is indoctrination.

"One should never attempt to teach a pig to sing. It accomplishes nothing, and it annoys the pig."


>>Stalin's 'useful idiots' have become the islamofascists' well meaning 'progressives'
>
>OTOH, they may be quite smart (or don't need to be too smart) to predict the reaction to abuse of liberties. They probably guessed well that the reaction to the abuses will not concentrate on the cases of abuse, but would rather go towards introduction of police state type of measures. The military/security type of paranoid thinking is so easy to push into the only direction it knows.

But enlarging The State and its power over the individual is hardly the path to personal liberty. The one thing both Communism and Sha'ria have in common is the idea that The Group should have final say over every aspect of the individual - not only in deed but in thought. That's a long way from a computer scanning communications passing through the US without going to a warrant. I think our danger here is not the police state but the Nanny State.

>
>> I do not believe violent criminals are likely to be reformed.
>
>But they should be able to pay for they stay.

yes, prison work gangs would keep them busy <g> Not sure TV and weighlifting rehabilitates or deters. Hard work obviously would be a new experience and perhaps instructive.

>Though, in a country where it's hard to find any jobs that still aren't outsourced, it's even more hard to find something for these guys to do and thus relieve the society of the expense. The capital punishment is, they say, even more expensive than the life to two lives, but that's probably because it includes too many expensive lawyers' billable hours.
>

As you say, capital punishment is only expensive because lawyers have made it so. It should never be used when there is any doubt about whether you have the right person, but in those cases where there is no doubt, it shouldn't take more than a month. Put it on cable on pay-per-view.

>>I think the biggest problem with the death penalty is it is used too little too late. ( as to racial disparities, I am really ok with executing more white people until it balances out ) The money that would have been on their care and feeding for 40 years shoul be earmarked to combat child-abuse. Thus two whacks at breaking the cycle.
>
>See above - keeping them alive is cheaper, as it is. Besides, capital punishment isn't a deterrent. Once someone does something that merits one, they feel like they've won a free ride. They can be executed only once, but meanwhile they can line up any number of crimes on the same ticket.

Not interested in a deterent. Interested in reducing recidivism. For that it is 100% effective <s>

>
>I'd rather they get to build bridges in Alaska.

No more bridge in Alaska ! <s>

>
>> Biological fathers
>
>Parents. I assume you mentioned this because they are usually the guys who slip out, and leave the mothers to cope as they can, but as a matter of principle I'd spread this to both parents.
>

Yes.

>> should be held responsible for the care of - and actions of - their children. People should be held responsible for their own actions and the most degrading thing you can do to another human is think of them first as a member of a group and to help them identify themselves as victims.
>
>Agree. One of the lowest types of attack I was exposed to, when I had my own whistleblower episode, was that somebody else put me to it, like I was under someone's influence. Not quite the same as what you say, but quite similar and adrenaline pumping.
>
>>I also believe gay marriage is a civil right, ( and for that matter laws against polygamy are intrusive of individual rights )
>
>But then there should be a right against being forced into a marriage by money, blackmail, family or any other form of intimidation. Polygamy or polyandry would be fine among equals when anyone would be free to leave at any time.

Oh absolutely, but that should be true of all social contracts and interaction.

>
>>evolution may be a theory but creationism is religious myth and only that, and most drug laws are unconstiutional.
>
>And theory is a corpus of knowledge describing and explaining a phenomenon, with all the proof gathered so far. That some pieces of it are not completely proven yet doesn't necessarily mean that "it's only a theory". Gravitation is also "only a theory", but apples still fall.

Exactly.

>
>>I will cheerfully pony up money for anything that protects children, releaves hunger, ensures no one suffers from lack of first rate health care. There are people completely deserving of the rest of society protecting them and giving them a better chance than the cards they were dealt and whether or not they are 'the governments' responsibility they are certainly the community's responsibility.
>
>And government is a tool of the community, right?

Sure, but so is private philanthropy ( much more robust in the US than in cultures with a greater state role ) In some cases, though, I think it is definitely the proper role of government.

I also think it is good capitalism to create a socially just society. Those capitalists who don't understand that it is good to have citizens with good education and health care don't really get how capitalism works.


>
>>And I don't trust evangelists, demagogues, zealots, professional 'activists' or self appointed spokesmen for special interest groups.
>
>Does anyone? Apart from those with an interest.

Oh yes indeed. The True Believer. Every "movement" fills its ranks with them. It doesn't matter if they are Fundamentalists, Communists, Nazis or Scientologists. There's a seeker born every minute.

>
>>... throw a trashcan through a MacDonald's window to bring down the World Bank , but I resent hell out of adults who expect me to take that kid or his 'wisdom' seriously.
>
>OTOH, judging the message by messengers' manners is not wise either.

Good point but wearing pearls doesn't make you an oyster and wearing the costume of a 'revolutionary' or 'artist' doesn't mean you have a vision of truth or beauty.

>
>>I knew the radical left well at a time when 'radical' meant something, and a life-changing revelation was when I realized it wasn't concentration camps and tribunals they would object too - they just had a different idea about who should be on which side of the wire.
>
>See above.
>
>>so who should get my vote ?
>
>Start a party.

I'd rather throw one.

Someone once said of T E Lawrence "He dreams with his eyes open - such men are dangerious"
I've always subscribed to the notion that if you see such a man and he says 'Follow Me!" - shoot him in the back.

"Human happiness will be acheived when the last priest is strangled with the guts of the last king." <s>