Mesogen
10-30-2007, 07:34 PM
There are two polemic articles I just read, one on each side of the political spectrum and both are dead wrong in my opinion.
They both set up straw men and totally mischaracterize the "other side" and IMO it should be obvious to anyone that this is not the way to make an argument.
The first is from The Project for the Old American Century's blog and it argues against capitalism.
Shouting at the Devil: “F*** You, Capitalism!” (http://poac.wordpress.com/2007/10/30/shouting-at-the-devil-%e2%80%9cfuck-you-capitalism%e2%80%9d/)
One of the idiocies advanced as a logical argument to justify the continued existence of the abomination of capitalism is that while it may be flawed, it is still better than any alternative. If capitalism is the best humanity can do, it’s time to cash in our chips and leave Earth to our non-human animal counter-parts. They may not have opposable thumbs and formidably sized frontal lobes, but at least they don’t engage in the systematic destruction of themselves and the rest of the planet. However, before we act too hastily and engage in mass Seppuku, perhaps it would make more sense to implement a mass reorganization of our socioeconomic structure, basing the new paradigm on far more egalitarian, sustainable, democratic, just, and rational principles. Or we could just keep destroying each other and the fucking planet….
Sure, that makes sense. Animals never destroy each other. They are very egalitarian and democratic. :rolleyes:
The whole article is so over the top that it doesn't merit a fisking.
The other one is from Lew Rockwell.
Land Socialism: Playing With Fire (http://www.populistamerica.com/land_socialism_playing_with_fire)
The problem is in the theory of environmentalism. Under it, ownership is the enemy. Nature is an end in itself. So it must be owned publicly, that is, by the state. The state, in its management of this land, must not do anything to it. There must not be controlled burning, brush clearing, clear cutting, or even tourism. We can admire it from afar, but the work of human hands must never intervene.
Since when is this what mainstream environmentalists advocate? Good land management is what most environmentalists are all about. Look at the Sierra Club for instance.
Ridiculous! Are we under the impression that private markets can't handle risk management? Private markets specialize in protection of property, particularly against natural risks.
What's ridiculous is the unfounded assertion that any private interest would insure, say, homes in New Orleans for flooding. No insurance company would dare cover anyone in that area for flooding. That's why there was a federal flood insurance program. Without it, my relatives would have been SOL when they lost their houses.
I just want to share these two articles as examples of how NOT to make a case for or against private interest and government intervention.
They both set up straw men and totally mischaracterize the "other side" and IMO it should be obvious to anyone that this is not the way to make an argument.
The first is from The Project for the Old American Century's blog and it argues against capitalism.
Shouting at the Devil: “F*** You, Capitalism!” (http://poac.wordpress.com/2007/10/30/shouting-at-the-devil-%e2%80%9cfuck-you-capitalism%e2%80%9d/)
One of the idiocies advanced as a logical argument to justify the continued existence of the abomination of capitalism is that while it may be flawed, it is still better than any alternative. If capitalism is the best humanity can do, it’s time to cash in our chips and leave Earth to our non-human animal counter-parts. They may not have opposable thumbs and formidably sized frontal lobes, but at least they don’t engage in the systematic destruction of themselves and the rest of the planet. However, before we act too hastily and engage in mass Seppuku, perhaps it would make more sense to implement a mass reorganization of our socioeconomic structure, basing the new paradigm on far more egalitarian, sustainable, democratic, just, and rational principles. Or we could just keep destroying each other and the fucking planet….
Sure, that makes sense. Animals never destroy each other. They are very egalitarian and democratic. :rolleyes:
The whole article is so over the top that it doesn't merit a fisking.
The other one is from Lew Rockwell.
Land Socialism: Playing With Fire (http://www.populistamerica.com/land_socialism_playing_with_fire)
The problem is in the theory of environmentalism. Under it, ownership is the enemy. Nature is an end in itself. So it must be owned publicly, that is, by the state. The state, in its management of this land, must not do anything to it. There must not be controlled burning, brush clearing, clear cutting, or even tourism. We can admire it from afar, but the work of human hands must never intervene.
Since when is this what mainstream environmentalists advocate? Good land management is what most environmentalists are all about. Look at the Sierra Club for instance.
Ridiculous! Are we under the impression that private markets can't handle risk management? Private markets specialize in protection of property, particularly against natural risks.
What's ridiculous is the unfounded assertion that any private interest would insure, say, homes in New Orleans for flooding. No insurance company would dare cover anyone in that area for flooding. That's why there was a federal flood insurance program. Without it, my relatives would have been SOL when they lost their houses.
I just want to share these two articles as examples of how NOT to make a case for or against private interest and government intervention.