On 30-8-2009 4:37, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 17:51:07 -0500, Shay wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> I'm done with this discussion.  You know you're right and my position
>>> is stupid, I know I'm right and your position is stupid.  We're getting
>>> nowhere and not going to get anywhere.
>>>
>>>
>> But we HAVE gotten somewhere. We've gotten to the point that any
>> discussion of a new government expansion eventually reaches: the point
>> where the proponents of that expansion reveal that absolutist majority
>> control is the true and only reason for their support of that expansion.
>>
>> And as this discussion is had over and over in different places,
>> undecided witnesses will realize that, no matter how eloquently the
>> expansion proponent presents his specific case for any single piece of
>> legislation, the true argument is not about the allocation of resources
>> at all, but about their control.
>>
>> We've arrived. You and I both want control of my resources. We've both
>> stated this explicitly. Until next time.
> 
> I guess in a sense, yes, we have come to the crux of what the discussion 
> is about: (To borrow from, of all things, Star Trek) whether the needs of 
> the many outweigh the needs of the few, or whether the needs of the one 
> outweigh the needs of the many.
> 
> What it boils down to is a difference of opinion as to whether society's 
> needs are paramount, or whether the needs of the individual are 
> paramount.  Or put another way, if strong individuals make a strong 
> society, or a strong society makes for strong individuals.  You believe 
> the former, I believe the latter.  Neither is probably 100% correct, and 
> the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.
> 
> Maybe there is something we can agree upon there. :-)
> 
> Jim

For me as an outsider this was also interesting to watch. Mainly because 
both points of view do not correspond to how I think the world (should) 
work. My POV is of course dominated by living in the Netherlands and 
knowing where in this system the weak points are. Here we made a lot of 
different choices in the past and not only do we now have a different 
system, we do have different politicians and even a different ethics 
than in the USA. Discussions like this help me understand both how 
people reason not by fact but mainly by prejudices and at the same time 
that I do too. It also does enhance my feeling that I don't want to live 
in the USA, they are all completely nuts ;)

Post a reply to this message