Friday, April 03, 2009

A Philosophical Divide

A Philosophical Divide
Jim Fedako

A philosophical divide between classic liberalism and the political forms now in vogue is manifest in the phrase, "Let's agree to disagree." To the classical liberal, this means we agree to end our discussion, debate, or argument and go about our separate ways. The phrase is the end as such. Certainly the classical liberal may engage the next person in a similar discourse and attempt to sway a new opinion, whether in person or by letter, handbill, pamphlet, etc., or through the more current versions of email, blog, or website. Additionally, the classical liberal assumes that his verbal opponent will also engage others in the marketplace of ideas. The understanding is that one is attempting to sway an opinion by the use of knowledge and logic.

Contrast that with the current use of "let's agree to disagree."

The statist version indicates that the statist will end the discourse and use whatever power and influence he has in order to have government --
the social apparatus of compulsion and coercion -- codify his views into law. What the statist is saying is, "Since your opinion holds no power, let's agree to end this pointless debate. I am wasting my time trying to convince you when I can use government to force you." You see it all the time as individuals lobby and pressure government to enforce their opinions and beliefs.

CS Lewis wrote that we need to fear those who claim to have our best interests in mind. Unlike the tyrant who will sleep every now and again, the do-gooder will work without rest in order to enslave you while claiming to protect you. I think that if Lewis were alive today he would have to extend that observation to include the do-gooder employed by government, no matter the level. Not only do they not sleep as they invade your rights, your taxes pay them to do it.

You can debate them and agree to disagree, but remember, as you sleep, they are drafting laws, rules, and regulations in order to control your life.


Propagater said...

I really admire this blog entry. Arguing with Statists, of course, can be a vicious discourse. The effects of having an omnipotent power structure has warped many Statists and their actual personality becomes more governmental like. Sure an Anarchist or a Statist can agree to disagree but the Statist still has their glorified power structure still standing. It basically comes down to civility, if Statists and Anarchists have differing opinions, why does the former still have to follow the latter's government?

Anonymous said...

This needs a post of its own. Coulter going after public schools, singling out superintendents. She's commenting on Obama having the leverage to fire Rick Waggoner, CEO of GM, because they accepted government funds.

"When is the government going to get around to firing 99 percent of public school superintendents? They're clearly turning out an inferior product -- i.e., America's public school graduates -- as compared to some of the foreign models now available.

In New York City, spending on public schools increased by more than 300 percent between 1982 and 2001, coming in at $11,474 per pupil annually -- compared to about $5,000 for private schools.

But in 2003, a New York court ruled that graduates of New York City's public schools did not have the skills to be "capable of voting and serving on a jury." (Worse, some kids coming out of New York high schools are so stupid they don't even know how to get out of jury duty.)

If Obama can tell GM and Chrysler that their participation in NASCAR is an 'unnecessary expenditure', isn't having public schools force students to follow Muslim rituals, recite Islamic prayers and plan 'jihads' also an 'unnecessary expenditure'? Are all those school condom purchases considered 'necessary expenditures'?"

Substitute "isn't having public schools force students to...plan 'jihads' also an 'unnecessary expenditure'?" with "isn't having public schools force students to act like illegal immigrants an unnecessary expenditure" and she'd be talking about Olentangy. Lifted off the page and brought into your living rooms, folks. It's not happening "elsewhere"--like in an out-of-control big city school district; it's happening right here.

While her comments about higher education "investments" meeting diminishing (plummeting) returns is on the mark, the best example of the folly of public education can be found in Head Start stats which, since the programs founding (1965) shows a 62% increase in enrollment but a 7,000% increase in funding--with ever worsening graduation rates among the programs alumni as a result.

908,000 enrollees
220,000 paid staff*
$7,326 per child
$6.9B annually

What a waste.

* That's 1 staff per four children!

Scroll to the bottom for funding history:

Anonymous said...

Double-minded people: My sibling used to say that people are useless eaters. My sibling didn't believe in having more than one child, if that. My sibling owned a convenience store and sold cigarettes and booze. This week my sibling told me it is good that Obama has raised taxes so much on cigs. because people should not smoke and this will stop them from smoking and since smoking causes cancer things should be done to discourage smoking.

Anonymous said...

No offense, but your sister is a dummy.