Re: How Views Cause the Situation to Change (was Re: Cheney's...)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sunday May 11, 2003 05:47, Daniel Cassidy wrote:
> On Monday 12 May 2003 1:07 am, Neil Stevens wrote:
> > On Sunday May 11, 2003 05:05, Daniel Cassidy wrote:
> > > On Sunday 11 May 2003 7:27 pm, Timothy R. Butler wrote:
> > > >   With vigilance against liberalization and socialization of the
> > > > government, especially through the constant fight against big
> > > > government, the U.S. will remain the place where those seeking a
> > > > better life will continue to come.
> > >
> > > Umm, did you really mean 'liberalization' here?
> > >
> > > I mean, socialization I can understand and even agree with your
> > > point; Government provides more services, government has more direct
> > > control, government is more powerful.
> > >
> > > Liberalization, however often has the opposite effect because
> > > there's less to police. If you legalize marijuana, for example,
> > > firstly you don't need extra police officers to arrest users and
> > > dealers. Secondly, because it can be produced and sold openly, the
> > > price goes down and it's no longer a viable source of income for
> > > terrorist and criminal organisations and the like, and so you have
> > > less such groups to deal with.
> >
> > So if we legalized murder, there would be no more murder, right? 
> > Because hit-men would no longer be able to charge so much?  And our
> > streets would be safer since we wouldn't spend so many resources
> > tracking down, arresting, and trying murderers?
>
> I think you've taken my post out of context here, which is
> understandable because I quoted a whole sentence without clarifying
> which bit I was talking about.
>
> To do so now, Tim effectively made two statements; the first being that
> a fight against liberalization and socialization is also (or contributed
> to by) a fight against 'big government', and the second being that these
> 'fights' lead to a better quality of life for citizens. I'm concerning
> myself with the former statement, I have no problems with the latter and
> even agree with it to an extent, with the level of agreement depending
> on exactly what Tim said.
>
> In any case, firstly, I was not arguing for or against the legalisation
> of marijuana, and I clearly stated that to avoid this kind of response.
> I'd rather not got into the argument about that right now.
>
> Secondly, I think you might have missed the word 'often', which
> indicates that what I'm saying isn't always the case, but that I believe
> that it is more frequently the case than not.

No, I didn't miss the word often.  I'm trying to challenge you to get to 
the heart of the matter: why drug use is different from murder.

> Thirdly, we're talking not about an increase or reduction in the
> occurrence of whatever is legal or illegal, but about an increase or
> reduction in the size of the government. I've no doubt that, were murder
> legalised, its occurrence would immediately increase dramatically.
> However, the size of government would also be decreased since it would
> no longer have to deal with those murders.
>
> The point being not that any of this is good or bad, but that the
> government would therefore have less influence, not more. In general, it
> seems to me, a smaller government is also a more liberal one, and a
> fight against liberalization is likely to promote a larger government.
> This seems to contradict Tim's phrase 'With vigilance against
> liberalization and socialization of the government, especially through
> the constant fight against big government...'

There's our confusion, see below. :-)

> Now that I come to clarify my own statements, however, I feel I may also
> have clarified Tim's statement to myself. If we take into account the
> ambiguity of the English language he could have meant. to paraphrase:
>
> 'With vigilance against socialization (especially through the constant
> fight against big government) and liberalization of the government...'
>
> In other words, the part about 'big government' was only supposed to
> apply to 'vigilance against socialization' and not 'vigilance against
> liberalization', in which case I have no problem with it (hence my
> statement, 'Umm, did you really mean 'liberalization' here?').
>
> If this is what Tim meant however, then my level of agreement with what
> I described earlier as his second statement is significantly reduced;
> I'm hoping to clarify the intended meaning of the first half of his
> sentence in order to ascertain how much I agree with the overall point,
> and if I can be bothered to argue about it :).

Well, I read Timothy as using "liberal" in the American sense: Increased 
taxation, Increased government size, Increased regulation, Insertion of 
government into every aspect of one's life.

And I see he's since replied saying that *is* waht he meant. :-)

- -- 
Neil Stevens - [email protected]
"The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the
sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him
for the same act as the destroyer of liberty." -- Abraham Lincoln
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+v20vf7mnligQOmERAiQCAJsERMNt9+JCzFSG/35F+4A80g+cjgCZAd2D
PHugPGqfNDA6g6ZLBY6+sDM=
=a4bU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Kde-cafe mailing list - [email protected]
http://ofb.biz/lists/listinfo.cgi/kde-cafe

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this mailinglist are the personal
opinions of the author and do not represent OfB.biz: Open for Business, KDE or the author's employer.