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

Post a reply to this message