From: jaitken@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jeff Aitken)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Extremism is a healthy thing
Date: 12 Dec 92 16:44:35 GMT
Organization: Virginia Tech Computer Science Dept, Blacksburg, VA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

aaiken@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Andrew C. Aiken) writes:
: In <Bytyxs.1AG@csugrad.cs.vt.edu> jaitken@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jeff Aitken) writes:
: >This whole
: >society is based and was founded on the idea of compromise. 

: 
: 	I find your statement that "our society is based upon compromise,"
: to be not only a pat truism, but a foolish one at that.  Insofar as society
: is the result of people living together in one place, or making common use
: of "public" property, individual desires must be compromised so that order is
: maintained.  But is order so precious that we would sacrifice our individual
: freedoms to conserve it?  

     Yes, we do.  Well, most of us do.  There's a lot of things I'd
like to be able to do which are forbidden by law.  Therefore, I have a
choice: obey they law (i.e, compromise) or do what I want, and suffer
the consequences.

: The society was founded on democratic and republican
: principles, to be sure, but our Founders were so wise as to see great danger
: in the prospect of different parties in the government "getting along" to
: reach "solutions."  They therefore established a system of government in
: which the interests of the different branches of state power were set against
: one another. 

     This is exactly what I meant.  The different parts of government
must compromise with one another to get anything done.  When the
President and Congress _don't_ reach some sort of compromise, we get
what happened under George Bush: NOTHING gets done!

: This system followed from the philosophic systems of Locke,
: Montesquieu, Machiavelli, and others, who understood that if the state is
: bound to practice internecine warfare (by way of "checks and balances"), then
: it will have little time left to oppress its subjects.  The more crippled
: our rulers are, the safer we are.

I beg to differ with this.  Now it may be true that IF government must
fight w/ itself, then it will have less time to bother you and me.
But whatever happened to the idea of a responsible government?  What
happened to honest people who went to Washington to get the job done,
and to hell with all these asinine rivalries?  I somehow don't think
the founders of this country would have approved of your ideas (that
is, they would not have approved of the "internecine warfare" you
mention)  Now you might argue that these things are bound to happen
(you know the old saying "Power corrupts, ...")  But I maintain that
they don't have to.  If you were in Washington and were able to abuse
your power as many of our current leaders are, would you do it?  I
like to think I would remember what I was there to do and try to
remain loyal to the American people, not the Almighty Dollar.

: 	If this idea seems radical, then it only goes to show that the 
: American view of government has been transformed in this century.  Ask people
: twenty, thirty, or forty years your elder if they are as free (here I mean free
: from the intrusions of government) today as they were when they were your age.
: If they are not puzzled by the very question, it seeming odd in an age in which
: men would rather be secure than free, then how could they answer but with a
: wry No?   
: 	The "fact" that Americans want "an end to gridlock" can mean little
: more than that they want a government far different from the one that our
: Founders conceived.  Admittedly, this is just another way of saying that they
: want an arrogant, organized state, which is precisely what we now have. 

     Organized?  We now have an organized state?  I don't think so.
What with the beauracracy in Washington, I hardly think you can call
our government 'organized'.  With all the under-handed deals, with all
the corruption, I don't think it is organized.  When I say I want an
end to gridlock, I mean just that.  No more perks.  No more cocaine.
No more bad checks.  No more bullshit partisan arguing about
unimportant issues.  No more budget spending.  No more deceiving (or
attempting to deceive) the American people.  Yes this what I want, and
yes I understand how difficult it will be, but yes I believe we can do it.

: The
: preservation of this system is the very opposite of change.  I am happier,
: and more free, in this country that I would be in any other country
: on Earth.

     This is true.

: Yet I contemplate the freedoms that have been lost to us, and the worth of
: what we have exchanged for them.  Not to do so would be irresponsible.
: 	In regard to the politics of "liberal" and "conservative," "left"
: and "right," may I suggest that you pay far too much attention to labels, and
: somewhat too little to ideas?  First, the terms are relative.  What was
: "liberal" sixty years ago is "conservative" today.  What is "conservative" in
: Russia is radically "left" in the United States.  Second, to reject an idea
: merely because it is advocated by a "liberal" or "conservative" is to conflate
: a personality with a principle.  Ideas do not choose their advocates; the 
: reverse is true.  Third, and last, ask yourself what you have to gain by 
: being a partisan.  It is unfashionable these days to be cool-headed about
: politics, but a few less sansculottes would be a welcome change, nevertheless.
: What makes you think that "liberals" necessarily represent the ideals in which
: you believe (or for that matter, what makes you think that "conservatives" do
: not?), since ideals are, by definition, abstractions that we imperfect humans
: can only strive toward?  

     Well, I don't remember ever saying I was the model by which all
other conservatives are measured.  In fact, I'm a little more moderate
than most.  But you are right, to use "liberal" and "condervative" as
labels and to judge an issue by it's advocate is wrong.  My apologies.

: 
:  	
: >     Ah yes what we need is more religious zealots and fools like
: >Robertson and Buchanan.  NOT!  Unfortunately it is people like this
: >who have ruined the names of conservatives nationwide.  
: 
: 	I agree with you here.
: 
: Andrew Aiken


-- 
Jeff Aitken                     |     If "Pro" is the opposite of
jaitken@csugrad.cs.vt.edu       |     "Con", then "Congress" must
DEC User's Group Vice President |     be the opposite of "Progress"
Va. Tech Computer Science Dept. |     
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh