reply to post by votan
Again, I'm grateful for your approach and effort. I think we're very close to agreeing with each other, no matter how strange that may sound.
You're absolutely right that I didn't define a good education. I further believe that many of our young people are not getting a good education,
especially in politics, economics, American history, ethics, and logic. It's a pretty well established position here that too many Americans have
been "brainwashed by the mainstream media." Those media, plus government educators, provide pretty much the sum total of what many, if not most,
While it would be rewarding to devise a "good" education, may we simply agree that the present system is not sufficient to prepare people to be
thoughtful, knowledgable, citizens, and could fairly easily be improved?
But the more important point in the author's mind is that, whatever type of education the individual has, liberals will tend to say, "You have to be
prevented from doing many things because you are not as educated and wise as we in Washington are?"
Certainly it's possible that the wide variety of interests represented by church, family, school, and the community itself can all be wrong at the
same time, but in the end, it's left up to the individual to make the best decision he can.
Isn't it far easier for the politically appointed bureaucrats in the EPA to be wrong? And when they make their
decision, the individual no
longer has any say in the matter.
Extreme right is fascism
Extreme left is socialism/communism
Actually, I disagree. But, whatever unpleasant labels we put on them only clouds the issue for me.
There needs to be balance but your bias is showing
Here, I completely agree with you. There does need to be a balance. Some problems
can only be handled at the national level, most can be handled by the states, either individually or in concert. Many problems can be handled by city
or county governments, and some problems don't need government at all.
My "bias" is to get decisions made as close to the individual or family as possible. A question should only be moved up the scale to higher
1.) It has to be solved at all. Can it be lived with?
2.) The problem affects people at that higher level of government.
3.) The costs in terms of dollars and lost freedom are calculated into the cost benefit analysis.
4.) The people affected by the problem have a powerful say in enacting the cure.
5.) When the problem is solved, the authority granted to the higher level of government is returned to the people.
There may be more considerations, or these may be faulty, but on the internet nearly everything is off the top of my head.
You may be surprised to know that I haven't seen or listened to an entire program of Limbaugh, Hannity, or Beck in at least half a dozen years. I
would guess I hear about an hour a month combined.
I don't buy into either left or right. One is a hammer thinking every problem is a nail... one is a screw driver that thinks everything is a
screw... The reality is that you need all these tools to build your project.
Forgive me for wondering if your analogy is apt. I think,
rather, the question is who should make decisions the majority of the time, people or government officials. Liberals and conservatives, it seems to
me, choose different sides.