An Appeal to the Intelligentsia
Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:50 pm
As most of you know, I’m not too smart. Smart people have lots of answers. Ask a smart person a question, and that person will confidently provide an answer that leaves little doubt about its correctness. The answer will be backed up by logic, facts, figures, and historical data that leave little room for argument (though there seems to plenty of room for it here on this board). Some of these intelligent folks even post here. I envy smart people, and wish I were among them.
But my intelligence is average, at best. This fact manifests itself by virtue of my having far more questions than answers. I sometimes think I don’t have an answer for anything. Just lots of questions. Even when provided with answers to my questions, I’m still confused, because seemingly intelligent folks often have contradictory answers. Who do I believe?
There are a number of reasons why I seldom post here anymore, one of which is my unwillingness to put my ignorance on display. Another is that this has turned primarily into a forum for political discussion, and I’m pretty clueless about such matters. I do read quite a bit of what gets posted here, and occasionally try to read other things so I can get all smart & stuff like most of you. But it just doesn’t seem to take. So I confine my involvement ‘round these parts to playing music for the handful of listeners who, for whatever reason, seem to enjoy it.
I try to keep things simple. No sense in making matters more complicated than they already are. Sometimes issues can’t be simplified to the level I’d desire due to their inherent and intrinsic complexity. Physics is complex. Chemistry can be pretty complex. And apparently, so can politics and economics. But I’d like to see if you smart people can make them simple for me if I ask simple enough questions, although I’ll probably jump all over the place and not maintain a linear train of thought.
I’ll start with basic stuff. At the risk of oversimplification, there seems to be two elementary camps here with respect to political views, and I’ll refer to them as conservative & liberal. Before proceeding further with this discussion, I want to ensure the terms are being used correctly. The junior high school explanations for these two terms were, in essence, that conservative meant “resistant to change,” while liberal meant “progressive,” meaning that change is inevitable so it’s better to harness it and use it to societal advantage rather than resist it and suffer the consequences of not planning for what is sure to come. But these “definitions” are not how the terms are popularly used around here. More often, conservative refers to small central government, low taxes, pro-business, high levels of individual and states’ rights (with notable exceptions), and commensurately high levels of individual responsibility. Liberalism, conversely, is typically associated with larger Federal government, higher taxes to pay for more social services, high levels of different types of individual rights than those espoused by conservatives, corporate unfriendliness, robbing the rich to pay for the poor, relieving individuals of personal responsibility at a certain level by having government be responsible for minimizing the effects of poverty, and an emphasis on social equality. I know I’m guilty of oversimplifying and perhaps of being just flat out wrong (in which case I’m sure to be corrected in no uncertain terms), but I’ll continue based on these assumptions anyway.
Taking oversimplification a step further, common terms associated with those discussed above are capitalism and socialism. This gets a little trickier in my simple mind because capitalism is purely an economic philosophy, whereas socialism is more a hybrid of politics and economics. It’s certainly unfair and inaccurate to make the pure and absolute associations of conservative: capitalist and liberal: socialist, but it seems to be done with some degree of regularity here on the board, so I’ll just play along for simplicity’s sake.
An observation (perhaps incorrect) I’ve made is that those who align themselves squarely with the conservatives loathe, detest, and utterly despise anything having to do with liberalism and socialism. Their distaste for those concepts is palpable and unequivocal. Those who believe in these principles are considered mentally ill, terminally stupid, and downright un-American. While the lefties may have similar ill feelings toward those who lean more to the right, they just don’t express them with the same fervor or passion (except for maybe LTS TRN2 & TVO). It’s almost like they wish they could be conservative, but can’t bring themselves around to it. They neither embrace nor take pride in the “liberal” or “socialist” labels the way "conservatives" and "capitalists" do theirs (Marty & Phibes being the exceptions). Maybe there are good reasons for this. Perhaps Terry, Goober, Diego, Felix, Mikey, TVO, LTS TRN2, and other liberals can help me out here. Do you take pride in being liberal, and do you consider yourselves to be socialists?
On the subject of capitalism vs. socialism, I think we can all agree that the US is not a purely capitalist country. If a central aspect of socialism is redistribution of wealth and resources for functions other than national defense, law enforcement, and certain infrastructure-related expenditures, our country is at least in part socialist. Welfare (individual and corporate), food stamps, farm subsidies, public education, and the numerous other government programs funded through collection of taxes for redistribution to those considered to be in “need” are examples of deviations from a pure free-market capitalist society. This brings up a number of questions that I’m hoping our resident historians can answer. Were we ever a purely capitalist nation, and in theory, can a nation of pure capitalism exist for any length of time? If we were ever such a nation, what was the first act of government that sent us careening down the path of socialism? If it’s accepted (and I’m not saying it is) that pure free-market capitalism is unfeasible, impractical, and/or impossible to attain or sustain in a democratic republic, it seems to me that at least a minimal amount of socialism is not only desirable, but necessary. Is this subject to debate? If not, how much socialism is too much, how much is just right, how can it be accurately measured, and who should make the determination? It seems the answer to the last part of the question is that each individual has to decide what he/she believes is the right level, and that in a democracy the voters collectively have the final say. I know there is disagreement regarding whether everyone who currently has voting rights should have them, which invariably will lead to disagreement as to who should make the determination at the national level.
We hold the Constitution and the Founding Fathers who drafted and ratified it to be sacred. The FFs were considered to be some really smart guys who laid out a charter that, if followed, would result in a near-perfect union. To even question whether the men or the document they drafted could have been wrong is considered treasonous. Is it possible that with the benefit of what is now known after more than two centuries of scientific, political, social, and economic advancement, there might be individuals or groups who are smarter and better informed than the Founding Fathers, and who might disagree with what they wrote and be able to back their opinions with better reasoning and information than was available then? I just wonder sometimes if we hold onto ideals that may be outdated or obsolete for no other reason than the people who wrote them down have been deified, and that questioning them is heretical even though they’ve been dead for centuries. Kinda like Jesus. Or Adam Smith and his “invisible hand” that controls the free market. It all sounds good and looks good in print, but it doesn’t always translate well into reality. I realize the FFs and Jesus and Smith never promised that everything would be perfect (well, maybe Jesus did), but could open minds perhaps lead us closer to Utopia than blind faith in admittedly flawed and long-dead humans? (Of course, open minds could also lead us to certain destruction just as easily, I suppose.)
Economics is the study of choices individuals and groups make in an environment of scarce or limited resources. As Steven Wright says, “You can’t have everything. Where would you put it?” Politics, in large part, flows from economics. It’s kinda the decision-making arm of economics at the macro level. Given that, politics can be considered the art (as opposed to the science) of making tradeoffs. If resources were unlimited, there’d be no need to make tradeoffs. (Sin, MA) It sometimes seems that the choices we make as a nation are between ideals that are largely theoretical, and collective happiness that is based more in day-to-day reality. For instance, is it better to stick to our guns as it relates to abiding by the principles of individualism, freedom, and minimal governmental meddling, or to compromise some of those principles if the end result is that a significantly greater number of people would be “happier,” if this can be quantified? Just pulling arbitrary numbers out of my ass, would it be better for us as a nation if 80% of the population consistently said they were unhappy with the way government was being run, even if that government were strictly abiding by the Constitution, or to deviate from the Constitution if 80% of the population would be happy with the result? Would longer lives, lower infant mortality, free education (through grad school), and miniscule unemployment be worth sacrificing Constitutional principles? If not, why? Simply for the sake of idealism? Is there anything wrong with believing that the primary purpose of government is to foster a society in which the greatest number of people that have to exist within it is “happy” (however that is defined or measured)?
A quote that’s been cited more than once here is Margaret Thatcher’s “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” (The actual quote is, “Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money.”) This has been applied to the current crisis in Greece, and seldom does anyone take exception to it or try to argue against its catholic truthfulness. But is it necessarily and always true? Can truly socialist economies and governments sustain themselves and in fact thrive? Can entrepreneurialism coexist with socialism, or are they diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive? Greece and other socialist countries can certainly be held up as examples of socialism’s failures, but can others be cited as examples of its success?
If you’ve made it this far into my post, you probably don’t mind doing a little reading, so I’d ask that you take a look at this article. It’s not from some left-wing rag like Mother Jones, but rather from Inc. magazine, a decidedly pro-business, right-leaning publication. Granted, there are significant socioeconomic and political differences between the US and Norway, and I’m not suggesting we’d be better off if we adopted their form of government. But it does give simple minds like mine something to think about, especially their general attitude regarding taxes, as does this. (“Inconceivable!”)
You’d think that after 200+ years of practicing our form of democracy, after ascending to, and remaining at, the apex of the planet‘s food chain economically, politically, scientifically, and militarily, and after creating baseball, jazz, and rock & roll, we’d be happier, more prosperous as individuals, and more unified. Instead, we have massive debt, overwhelming dissatisfaction with government (both major parties), high unemployment, a huge chasm of political and economic divisiveness, and a general sense of unhappiness. Our image of rugged individualism is one that’s more often seen as being puerile. (“I earned it so I deserve to keep it all to myself to do with as I see fit” = a toddler screaming “Mine! Mine! Mine!”) Can we expect things to get any better? I know the economy is cyclic and political winds often change direction, but I just get the sense we’re in a spiral from which it’ll be hard to fully escape. Are our days as a country to be more respected than feared and more envied than loathed numbered, or perhaps already behind us? (I know – who gives a fuck?)
Like I said, many questions, and no answers. Maybe you smart folks can educate me.
But my intelligence is average, at best. This fact manifests itself by virtue of my having far more questions than answers. I sometimes think I don’t have an answer for anything. Just lots of questions. Even when provided with answers to my questions, I’m still confused, because seemingly intelligent folks often have contradictory answers. Who do I believe?
There are a number of reasons why I seldom post here anymore, one of which is my unwillingness to put my ignorance on display. Another is that this has turned primarily into a forum for political discussion, and I’m pretty clueless about such matters. I do read quite a bit of what gets posted here, and occasionally try to read other things so I can get all smart & stuff like most of you. But it just doesn’t seem to take. So I confine my involvement ‘round these parts to playing music for the handful of listeners who, for whatever reason, seem to enjoy it.
I try to keep things simple. No sense in making matters more complicated than they already are. Sometimes issues can’t be simplified to the level I’d desire due to their inherent and intrinsic complexity. Physics is complex. Chemistry can be pretty complex. And apparently, so can politics and economics. But I’d like to see if you smart people can make them simple for me if I ask simple enough questions, although I’ll probably jump all over the place and not maintain a linear train of thought.
I’ll start with basic stuff. At the risk of oversimplification, there seems to be two elementary camps here with respect to political views, and I’ll refer to them as conservative & liberal. Before proceeding further with this discussion, I want to ensure the terms are being used correctly. The junior high school explanations for these two terms were, in essence, that conservative meant “resistant to change,” while liberal meant “progressive,” meaning that change is inevitable so it’s better to harness it and use it to societal advantage rather than resist it and suffer the consequences of not planning for what is sure to come. But these “definitions” are not how the terms are popularly used around here. More often, conservative refers to small central government, low taxes, pro-business, high levels of individual and states’ rights (with notable exceptions), and commensurately high levels of individual responsibility. Liberalism, conversely, is typically associated with larger Federal government, higher taxes to pay for more social services, high levels of different types of individual rights than those espoused by conservatives, corporate unfriendliness, robbing the rich to pay for the poor, relieving individuals of personal responsibility at a certain level by having government be responsible for minimizing the effects of poverty, and an emphasis on social equality. I know I’m guilty of oversimplifying and perhaps of being just flat out wrong (in which case I’m sure to be corrected in no uncertain terms), but I’ll continue based on these assumptions anyway.
Taking oversimplification a step further, common terms associated with those discussed above are capitalism and socialism. This gets a little trickier in my simple mind because capitalism is purely an economic philosophy, whereas socialism is more a hybrid of politics and economics. It’s certainly unfair and inaccurate to make the pure and absolute associations of conservative: capitalist and liberal: socialist, but it seems to be done with some degree of regularity here on the board, so I’ll just play along for simplicity’s sake.
An observation (perhaps incorrect) I’ve made is that those who align themselves squarely with the conservatives loathe, detest, and utterly despise anything having to do with liberalism and socialism. Their distaste for those concepts is palpable and unequivocal. Those who believe in these principles are considered mentally ill, terminally stupid, and downright un-American. While the lefties may have similar ill feelings toward those who lean more to the right, they just don’t express them with the same fervor or passion (except for maybe LTS TRN2 & TVO). It’s almost like they wish they could be conservative, but can’t bring themselves around to it. They neither embrace nor take pride in the “liberal” or “socialist” labels the way "conservatives" and "capitalists" do theirs (Marty & Phibes being the exceptions). Maybe there are good reasons for this. Perhaps Terry, Goober, Diego, Felix, Mikey, TVO, LTS TRN2, and other liberals can help me out here. Do you take pride in being liberal, and do you consider yourselves to be socialists?
On the subject of capitalism vs. socialism, I think we can all agree that the US is not a purely capitalist country. If a central aspect of socialism is redistribution of wealth and resources for functions other than national defense, law enforcement, and certain infrastructure-related expenditures, our country is at least in part socialist. Welfare (individual and corporate), food stamps, farm subsidies, public education, and the numerous other government programs funded through collection of taxes for redistribution to those considered to be in “need” are examples of deviations from a pure free-market capitalist society. This brings up a number of questions that I’m hoping our resident historians can answer. Were we ever a purely capitalist nation, and in theory, can a nation of pure capitalism exist for any length of time? If we were ever such a nation, what was the first act of government that sent us careening down the path of socialism? If it’s accepted (and I’m not saying it is) that pure free-market capitalism is unfeasible, impractical, and/or impossible to attain or sustain in a democratic republic, it seems to me that at least a minimal amount of socialism is not only desirable, but necessary. Is this subject to debate? If not, how much socialism is too much, how much is just right, how can it be accurately measured, and who should make the determination? It seems the answer to the last part of the question is that each individual has to decide what he/she believes is the right level, and that in a democracy the voters collectively have the final say. I know there is disagreement regarding whether everyone who currently has voting rights should have them, which invariably will lead to disagreement as to who should make the determination at the national level.
We hold the Constitution and the Founding Fathers who drafted and ratified it to be sacred. The FFs were considered to be some really smart guys who laid out a charter that, if followed, would result in a near-perfect union. To even question whether the men or the document they drafted could have been wrong is considered treasonous. Is it possible that with the benefit of what is now known after more than two centuries of scientific, political, social, and economic advancement, there might be individuals or groups who are smarter and better informed than the Founding Fathers, and who might disagree with what they wrote and be able to back their opinions with better reasoning and information than was available then? I just wonder sometimes if we hold onto ideals that may be outdated or obsolete for no other reason than the people who wrote them down have been deified, and that questioning them is heretical even though they’ve been dead for centuries. Kinda like Jesus. Or Adam Smith and his “invisible hand” that controls the free market. It all sounds good and looks good in print, but it doesn’t always translate well into reality. I realize the FFs and Jesus and Smith never promised that everything would be perfect (well, maybe Jesus did), but could open minds perhaps lead us closer to Utopia than blind faith in admittedly flawed and long-dead humans? (Of course, open minds could also lead us to certain destruction just as easily, I suppose.)
Economics is the study of choices individuals and groups make in an environment of scarce or limited resources. As Steven Wright says, “You can’t have everything. Where would you put it?” Politics, in large part, flows from economics. It’s kinda the decision-making arm of economics at the macro level. Given that, politics can be considered the art (as opposed to the science) of making tradeoffs. If resources were unlimited, there’d be no need to make tradeoffs. (Sin, MA) It sometimes seems that the choices we make as a nation are between ideals that are largely theoretical, and collective happiness that is based more in day-to-day reality. For instance, is it better to stick to our guns as it relates to abiding by the principles of individualism, freedom, and minimal governmental meddling, or to compromise some of those principles if the end result is that a significantly greater number of people would be “happier,” if this can be quantified? Just pulling arbitrary numbers out of my ass, would it be better for us as a nation if 80% of the population consistently said they were unhappy with the way government was being run, even if that government were strictly abiding by the Constitution, or to deviate from the Constitution if 80% of the population would be happy with the result? Would longer lives, lower infant mortality, free education (through grad school), and miniscule unemployment be worth sacrificing Constitutional principles? If not, why? Simply for the sake of idealism? Is there anything wrong with believing that the primary purpose of government is to foster a society in which the greatest number of people that have to exist within it is “happy” (however that is defined or measured)?
A quote that’s been cited more than once here is Margaret Thatcher’s “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” (The actual quote is, “Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money.”) This has been applied to the current crisis in Greece, and seldom does anyone take exception to it or try to argue against its catholic truthfulness. But is it necessarily and always true? Can truly socialist economies and governments sustain themselves and in fact thrive? Can entrepreneurialism coexist with socialism, or are they diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive? Greece and other socialist countries can certainly be held up as examples of socialism’s failures, but can others be cited as examples of its success?
If you’ve made it this far into my post, you probably don’t mind doing a little reading, so I’d ask that you take a look at this article. It’s not from some left-wing rag like Mother Jones, but rather from Inc. magazine, a decidedly pro-business, right-leaning publication. Granted, there are significant socioeconomic and political differences between the US and Norway, and I’m not suggesting we’d be better off if we adopted their form of government. But it does give simple minds like mine something to think about, especially their general attitude regarding taxes, as does this. (“Inconceivable!”)
You’d think that after 200+ years of practicing our form of democracy, after ascending to, and remaining at, the apex of the planet‘s food chain economically, politically, scientifically, and militarily, and after creating baseball, jazz, and rock & roll, we’d be happier, more prosperous as individuals, and more unified. Instead, we have massive debt, overwhelming dissatisfaction with government (both major parties), high unemployment, a huge chasm of political and economic divisiveness, and a general sense of unhappiness. Our image of rugged individualism is one that’s more often seen as being puerile. (“I earned it so I deserve to keep it all to myself to do with as I see fit” = a toddler screaming “Mine! Mine! Mine!”) Can we expect things to get any better? I know the economy is cyclic and political winds often change direction, but I just get the sense we’re in a spiral from which it’ll be hard to fully escape. Are our days as a country to be more respected than feared and more envied than loathed numbered, or perhaps already behind us? (I know – who gives a fuck?)
Like I said, many questions, and no answers. Maybe you smart folks can educate me.
