"Yes. I trust that person, that career civil servant, more than I trust the equivalent middle management type in the corporate world. Because they are going to make a decision based on rules. A framework. A statute."
Ender, you have said nothing to counter this. Nothing. You have ignored it. That statement is far more contentious than what you chose to argue with. Perhaps you have no counter for it. Hmmmm
Originally Posted by Bartman1963
"Red Herring: a deliberate attempt to divert a process of inquiry by changing the subject"
In post #61 I only confronted it enough to point out that it was an aside because it is nothing more then an attempt to deflect and change the subject. It is a
red herring because it in no way answers the question I asked and in fact serves to change the focus of my original question.
You are saying that a "career civil servant" is more trustworthy then a "middle management type" because the civil servant makes decisions based on rules, etc. However, that is just as true of "middle management types" in the private sector (
contrary to the implications of your original statement).
The only difference between the two is in what
end those institutions are directed towards. The rules, statutes, etc in both areas are built around the mission statements, directives, polices, etc. decided at the top; political appointees, and CEO's respectively. Those running the two have different ends in mind; one is to enact a political end, the other is enact a personal end (maximizing profits).
My original question focused on those ends; the ultimate difference between the two areas. Your "answer" misrepresented the middlemen in the two areas and then focused on that misrepresentation.
In short, you were misleading by setting up a false dichotomy and using that as a red herring to change the focus of the discussion. To directly confront that is to allow you to change the focus of the discussion and to dodge my question.
The reason you chose to argue over my supposedly having something against making a profit, is so you can take the tired path of accusing me of being socialist, or communist or the newest lie taken on by the right, a Nazi. I am not buying into YOUR strawman.
If I was setting up a straw man, you could show it. Instead, all you have are accusations that inherently distort what I am saying.
You are the one setting up straw men here.
In truth, my reason for asking my question was nothing as grand as you claim; it was simply to get you to actually justify
why you view governmental institutions as more trustworthy then private enterprises. The few reasons you gave were superficial and specious at best. They didn't answer my original question and only served to change the focus of the discussion.
As to the "communist/socialist/national socialist (Nazi)" narrative; if it is a "straw man" as you claim, it would be easy to demonstrate. All you have offered are mere
assertions to the contrary.
Do you even
understand the argument as to why modern liberalism/progressivism is socialist in nature? If not, there is no way you can
reasonably reject that claim.
I will help you out though;
these links give a bit of an indication as to why Obama (and by extention, modern liberalism) is viewed as socialist in nature, but they don't really get to the heart of the argument. For that, you need an understanding of what socialism and modern liberalism are (and are not) at the ideological/philosophical level.
Call it a straw man all you like but it is something that has been argued long before Beck, Limbaugh, etc. were even born; by the likes of academics, intellectuals and Nobel Laureates. That doesn't mean that the claim is
right, but it
does show that it is not simply some disingenuous deception meant to smear liberals, as you are intimating.
Norman Thomas, six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America, said the following:
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.
FYI; the "Obama is a Nazi" claim is
not coming from the right but from the fringe
left. Google the term "LaRouche" and "Nazi".
You are only trying to change what I said
No, I am only expecting you to fully understand, explain and defend the way you characterize the issue and the logical implications of that characterization.
In order to make yourself the aggressor and me the defender, you misrepresent and ask a leading question that simply has nothing to do with what I said.
If that was the case you could
honestly show it (instead of misrepresentation and mere assertion).
I did not imply that "profit" was wrong, or that it was not needed. You know that.
What you said only makes
any sense if certain presuppositions are accepted
a priori. The logical conclusion of those presuppositions is consistent with what
I said. It is a logical argument called
reductio ad absurdum.
Just because you are ignorant of the presuppositions that the narrative you subscribe to stems from doesn't mean I am distorting what you said.
What I was implying was that the private sector was more likely to "pick your pocket".
Exactly. As you characterize it, they are "thieves" who are
taking something as opposed
exchanging a product, service, etc. for money.
You are
misrepresenting the private sector and the dynamic between private enterprise and government regulators.
That is what I was challenging.
"You have made a contentious statement, now defend it". Who the hell do you think you are? Pomposity is apparently something you deem civil.
I simply expect you to discuss things honestly and in good faith. It seems you cannot do that with anyone who doesn't accept the way you frame the debate and/or approach things from your point of view.
You have stated above that you agree with Fritz. Good for you, that's a fine ideology you have. Consider yourself lumped in with him.
What ideology is that?
You do realize that your entire little temper tantrum is nothing more then an attempt to rationalize dismissing me and my arguments, right? You have not offered any honest counterarguments or confronted anything I said on it's merits. You are simply proving what I implied in my last post; that
liberals tend to substitute condescension and cheap rationalizations for reasonable discourse.
It is very easy to believe whatever you want to believe if you simply deem any opposing point of view as beyond contempt and not worthy of consideration.
Fritz: To quote someone who used to blog here "BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH".
I think I hear something. Oh yes. It's contentious, pretentious crap. Must be Fritz. Helloooo old boy! Say, write any more reviews lately? Those are quite good. You must write a jolly good letter to Penthouse. Why don't you stick to that instead of boring us all with your sad little views on politics? I mean really old chap, those are quite horrid...
Your remarks sir, continue to require no more than that kind of response.
Both of your arguments bore me.
Thanks for demonstrating my point by providing an example of derision as a substitute for honest, respectful and reasonable discourse/consideration.
