Last weekend I asked readers to suggest a word to represent the opposite of "Statism". Thanks to all who participated in the ensuing discussion. Among the best suggestions: classical liberalism, small-l libertarianism, objectivism, Americanism, capitalism. My personal favorite, suggested by Eric Earling, "civic entrepreneurialism". That best captures the spirit of what I was looking for -- civic engagement based on private enterprise, as opposed to state coercion. But I'd still prefer a single snazzy word to represent the concept.
Incidentally, the concept of private initiative in lieu of state coercion is, IMHO, the preferred alternative not only where it is traditionally proposed (e.g. education, social services), but also for traditionally social conservative issues. Take, for example, abortion. This merits a longer post, but if the goal is to reduce the number of abortions, wouldn't it be more effective for private organizations to deliver positive messages to change people's minds about the issue, than to expect government intervention to solve the problem?
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 17, 2007 09:12 PM | Email ThisI know you hinted that there should be a longer post on the topic, but I am not sure what you meant by this:
"This merits a longer post, but if the goal is to reduce the number of abortions, wouldn't it be more effective for private organizations to deliver positive messages to change people's minds about the issue, than to expect government intervention to solve the problem?"
Now, I agree that positive messages are better when dealing with an issue like abortion. What is the government intervention you are describing, is it the courts or legislature?
Depending upon one's religious or policy perspective abortion represents either a failure of birth control or in cases not involving rape, failure of an abstinance policy. The question for the individuals involved is what to do about an unwanted pregnancy. There are some policy issues as some individuals may use abortion as a form of birth control. Is that good?
The question is if at a point in time the fetus is viewed as a living human, what can or should be done. If the fetus is a human, then isn't some type of state action part of the picture?
Obviously, it there is an unwanted pregnancy, there should be alternatives to abortion. In the past, the preferred option was adoption. Nowadays, we increasingly hear about dead babies in the garbage, I don't advocate that, but for some, I guess that is an option.
What did you mean by government intervention, though?
Liberals think that by making "getting rich" illegal through confiscatory taxation, they can reduce poverty and the gap between the rich and the poor. But it doesn't work. The rich reduce their entrepreneurial activity, and the poor are hardest hit.
Same with making abortion illegal. It has too many unintended consequences.
Prohibition doesn't work. It didn't work for alcohol and it wouldn't work for abortion and it's not working for marijuana either.
Keep abortion legal, and work to make it rare.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on June 17, 2007 10:31 PMThe former - by necessity - calls for lots of taxation and government programs. The latter calls for limited government setting up a fair and well-defined starting line.
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on June 17, 2007 11:48 PMI think it's entirely reasonable to believe that a fetus is morally equivalent to a fully formed human, and that abortion is murder. I don't share that belief, nor do I condemn it. Nor do I believe that abortion is an attractive form of birth control. But I don't think that the belief that abortion is murder is universally held. I think that experience has shown that the state can only be an effective tool for sanctioning those who deviate from universally-held norms of behavior (e.g. murder, rape, theft are universally condemned, and the state can successfully act against deviants who commit those acts). BUT I think that experience has also shown that the state is not an effective tool for a slim electoral majority to enforce a prohibition against a behavior which a large minority of the population does not believe should be criminalized.
The punchline is that if you want to reduce the number of abortions, you're more likely to achieve results by winning more people over to your point of view that abortion is morally wrong, than you are by attempting to pass legislation to outlaw abortion.
And if you're skeptical of my argument, ask yourself the following questions: (1) Do people who believe that abortion is morally wrong need legislation to prevent themselves from having abortions? (2) It's been 34 years since Roe v. Wade. How much success has been achieved by the movement to end abortion through legislation?
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on June 17, 2007 11:49 PMI too do not condone it as a form of birth control, and don't believe it is a moral positive. But there must be a realization that it is entecnched to the point that it is probably never going to be fully eradicated, and especially not through legislative means.
It's a cultural battlefront. And one that we should emphasize and condemn in the same way that we do other Left leaning, denigrating and destructive cultural behaviors.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 18, 2007 05:17 AMOur Government allows us to get gouged.
Oil prices,Gas prices,medicine prices,paint prices,and many other products are much higher than they would be if Cannabis products were allowed to compete.
I have turned to the States to try and get competition.
The states,Counties and cities all can grow cannabis legally under the immunities provided by 885 d of the federal controlled substances act.
That is the only way to get the 25,000 cannabis products into the free market,to start competing for the market share.
State government Entrepreneurialism .
Under normal circumstances I would not encourage State or government Entrepreneurialism .
Even when I do so,my hope is only to break the dejure monopoly,then get free markets to take over.
Bottom line.
Our government has created a dejure monopoly,where certain products get no competition from any free market sources.
Free market sources could compete,but are not allowed to compete, by our government,whom is supposed to regulate the dejure monopoly to keep the public from being gouged.
Clearly the Republicans are not regulating the dejure monopoly's enough to prevent any price gouging of the public..
That is why I have no choice but to promote State government Entrepreneurialism .
Pretty stupid if you ask me.
Posted by: Amry Medic/Vet on June 18, 2007 07:10 AM1. I actually agree with you that the battle is to
change the direction of how most people in
society view abortion. The example of
Wilberforce and John Newton and how they
affected public opinion in England on the
issue of slavery comes to mind. Even though,
slavery has been outlawed for many years
in this country and in England, from time
to time there are news reports of individuals
who have held, usually young women as slaves,
so you are right that legisaltion will never
be 100% effective even at this late date.
2. Part of the education is that most people
have no idea of what the actual procedure
really entails. Most people have no idea on
a cognitive level of the actual step by
step procedure. The public television series
Frontline has an interesting show on the
subject:
"....In 1993 just about half of women between the ages of 18 and 29 said abortion should be available to anyone who wants it, according to a CBS/ New York Times poll; 10 years later, in 2003, the number of young women who felt that way dropped to 35 percent. The youngest group, it turned out, was more conservative about abortion rights than women in every other age category -- except women old enough to be their grandmothers, 65 and up! This slow but steady seismic shift has gone mostly under the radar, but the reverberations may end up deciding the future of abortion in this country.
"I've seen the numbers and I find them unbelievably shocking," says Alexander Sanger, chairman of the International Planned Parenthood Council (and grandson of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger). "Isn't it obvious that young women have to be at the forefront of fighting for their reproductive rights because they're the ones who need them?" On his tours of college campuses, he has noticed that numerous campuses no longer have a pro-choice group. But he has yet to visit one that doesn't have a strong, vocal faction of pro-life women turning out to hear him speak. "It's not just the numbers that are down among pro-choice women," he says. "It's the enthusiasm." Conservative commentator and public opinion expert Kellyanne Conway has seen the same kind of drop in her own polling. "The intensity with which young women once marched and protested and gave money and time and engaged in spirited cocktail party debate-it's just not there anymore," she says. Democratic pollster Anna Greenberg agrees...."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/clinic/shifting/disappear.html
I do agree, however, that much of the battle involves education and then there is the technological tool of the sonogram which clearly
can show the human form.
Actually, I'd say the Federal Government should get completely out of the abortion issue; how they can tie that to the Interstate clause is beyond me. It's a State's rights issue...
Some states will want to ban it; fine. Some won't; fine. Let each State decide on its own.
Federal defunding should be immediate - that would force each State that wanted to provide such governmental "benefits" to do so on their own.
And if it's made legal, but poorly funded by the State, you'll see private industry pick it up.
Note this solution doesn't even touch on the morality aspect of abortion, and is neutral to ALL parties moral beliefs. If the Feds don't fund it, and it's not controlled at the Federal level, how the heck can either side be upset at the Feds?
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on June 18, 2007 10:52 AMI wouldn't.
Posted by: pudge on June 18, 2007 11:11 AMI don't like pudge's analogy because slavery is not something that one can hide. Abortion in the early term might be an ugly secret, but it can be kept a secret, and many will choose this option regardless of what the government does. All are agreed here about the ugly moral implications of ending life, but there is not going to be a neat and tidy legal solution. It is just not possible. And that's where the analogy breaks down. Slavery is a palpable fully human injustice. Abortion is simple less palpable, and especially in the early term where there is little evidence of a growing life.
A far better use of energies and capital is to encourage better behaviors to begin with, and the US has proven time and again that we are capable of creating a better moral climate over time. That's one of the great beauties of a system based on freedom and rational persuasion and not on force. Force does not work, and that's why the Left will ultimately never win. No sense in adopting a leftist tactic to accomplish a rightist objective.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 18, 2007 11:50 AMThe thirteenth amendment of the US Constitution gives the Federal government a right to eliminate slavery.
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on June 18, 2007 12:03 PMOf course, I don't dispute that. However, I don't think there's been an actual law or court decision determining when the unborn become people.
My PERSONAL belief is at conception; however, I also recognize that we live in a society of more than just me (boy you guys are lucky...:) and as such that really should be decided. If it's defined as viability outside the womb, conception, or the moment of birth it should be set.
So I guess we're in agreement about the Congress and the Courts needing to determine just what is the legal status of the unborn...
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on June 18, 2007 12:50 PMNot a big deal, I guess. I just get a little annoyed when people say this should be a state issue. I understand why: the federal government is most well-known on this issue for taking it away from the states in order to legalize it. But it still should be a federal issue, first and foremost.
Posted by: pudge on June 18, 2007 01:07 PMMostly I agree with you on an intellectual and philosophical level on this one. Let me propose something for you to consider. Politics is the art of the possible. Just as gay rights activists see domestic partnership as an intermediate step on the way to gay marriage, is turning this issue over to the states the most feasible way to really deal with the political realities? I am a member of neither party and my issue really is pushing competition in education. I really agree with you, but is there a political reality we need to recognize. Not disagreeing, just asking.
Posted by: WVH on June 18, 2007 01:46 PMFuther offenses to reason: it is, of course, a logical fallacy to look at whether or not JDH complained. Despite the common view, silence is not indicative of assent, and cannot rationally be used as evidence.
You have nothing. You just decided to viciously slander someone because you were losing the argument.
Posted by: pudge on June 19, 2007 07:56 AMI would really like to get JDH's take.
1. I said that he wanted everyone not like
him to be eliminated.
" That he linked to a web site whose name referred to the apparent fact that the proprietor was a woman of color? How is that remotely racist of JDH, let alone indicative that he wants everyone not like him to be killed? "
So, how do you get killed from eliminated? Been
watching too much Sopranos? David Duke wants us
eliminated, not killed, like moved to another
country.
I will be honest and admit the Hillside area of Tacoma has some issues, but I remember disaraging
comments by JDH regarding the Hillside area, often based upon the ethnic composition of those
residing there. Further, I remember disaraging
comments about high schools in Tacoma.
I supose on this one, we disagree. You are loyal to a friend. He won't speak for himself. I still
think he is a bigot.
So, I guess you can shrug and yawn, shuck and jive and there still won't be a resolution as long as you interject yourself into what really
doesn't involve you. If you never address me
directly again, well you are just some one I cannot work with at this time, maybe ever.
And don't spout nonsense about it not involving me. It is on a discussion I was involved in. Your putrid, disgusting words were presented for me to see, along with everyone else. If you didn't want anyone else commenting on it, then you shouldn't have posted it. Who do you think you're fooling with that rubbish argument?
Grow up and learn that just because someone sees things differently from you doesn't make them a bigot. Until then, why the hell would I *want* to work with you? I'll probably say something, at some point, that you don't like, and the next thing I know, you're slandering me.
Posted by: pudge on June 19, 2007 07:45 PM1. Vile slander, well that is a bit excessive.
Since you don't know JDH and he was the subject of the comments, how do you know that I am slandering him, since you don't know him of course?
2."Your putrid, disgusting words were presented for me to see, along with everyone else. If you didn't want anyone else commenting on it, then you shouldn't have posted it. Who do you think you're fooling with that rubbish argument?"
I guess you wouldn't consider some of JDH's and others comments equally disgusting? Have you ever been this incensed by any other postings at this site?
3. "Grow up and learn that just because someone sees things differently from you doesn't make them a bigot."
I suppose the same comments could be made about your viewpoint that since I see things differently than you that makes me wrong or a slanderer. Again since truth is a defense against slander and you don't know JDH, how do you know that I am slandering him. He certainly hasn't spoken.
4. "I'll probably say something, at some point, that you don't like, and the next thing I know, you're slandering me."
Actually, you have said plenty I didn't like, but I didn't call you a bigot. I did call you a jerk, so I suppose that is slandering you.
So, when someone posts something offensive, I expect you to be equally outraged and equally demand an apology and equally call them a slanderer. Oh, but wait, I guess your outrage, like your viewpoint is highly selective.
Posted by: WVH on June 19, 2007 09:51 PMI don't think it's excessive. Indeed, I don't know if it was strong enough.
how do you know that I am slandering him
Since you refused to back up your extraordinary claim when challenged, I reasonably assumed you could not.
I guess you wouldn't consider some of JDH's and others comments equally disgusting?
You continue to fail to provide a single example of any disgusting claims by JDH, and even your unsubstantiated characterizations did not justify your statement about JDH.
Have you ever been this incensed by any other postings at this site?
I am not incensed.
I suppose the same comments could be made about your viewpoint that since I see things differently than you that makes me wrong or a slanderer.
The problem is you did not provide any serious evidence whatsoever that he is a bigot, and even less that he wants most people different from him "eliminated."
Again since truth is a defense against slander
Yes, it is. And yet you refuse to provide any evidence that could possibly make anyone think you've said anything remotely true. You had plenty of opportunity to do so when I first challenged you on the point, and yet you've continued to refuse, which makes me think you are incapable.
So, when someone posts something offensive, I expect you to be equally outraged and equally demand an apology and equally call them a slanderer.
I am not outraged.
But yes, I do, often, confront people who slander others, regardless of who is doing the slandering. And if they are unrepentant, then I can get rude about it.
Oh, but wait, I guess your outrage, like your viewpoint is highly selective.
Nice little logical fallacy there.
Posted by: pudge on June 19, 2007 10:08 PMThis particular thread was:
January 03, 2007
School shooting
A male student was shot to death at Foss High School in Tacoma this morning.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 03, 2007 09:48 AM |
Don't know all the specific topics where JDH and I have engaged in "conversation", but here is one exmaple:
. I have one simple question to ask - Why should we allow anyone with any "Gang Association"
what so ever anywhere neer school property? Wouldn't a
"gang member" or "know associate of gang members" free
zone make more sense than a "fire-arm free zone" as we
currently have.
From the News Buffoon article - Valerie Marshall,
whose son attends Foss, said the violence wasn't a
surprise. Gang activity has been on the upswing at the
school, Marshall said.
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/breaking/story/6307750p-5500140c.html
Posted by: JDH on January 3, 2007 10:11 AM
4. JDH:
You and I have tangled before on the issue of race.
1. True gang members should be excluded.
2. The problem is a lot of good kids wear "gansta" clothing because of the predominance of hip hop culture. Many of the kids that one observes in downtown Seattle may look like cretins, but they are good kids with MIA families and few social supports. The current school institutional structure is not going to "mainstream" these kids into society. They need mentors and they may need more discipline than the current secular progressive school agenda will currently allow.
3. The school institutional structure has to change. Just as many of those who post here have the mantra charter schools have failed three times. My mantra will continue to be there needs to be strong neighborhood schools with the flexibility to serve their population of kids.
This thread has been hijacked long enough by this discussion. My dealings with JDH are in the archives. Now, I have to disagree with you about the outrage. I have been reading this blog for quite some time and I don't recall you calling others vile, slanderous, and immature? So, if you can provide examples where you felt that you have been "concerned" about another's treamtent by a vile, immature, slanderers then I would appreciate the fact that you are out there preserving truth and justice. Oh, I guess it is just one case of outrage, oophs, "concern" during the entire history of the site that you personally needed to address, so that makes your "concern" selective.
"But yes, I do, often, confront people who slander others, regardless of who is doing the slandering. And if they are unrepentant, then I can get rude about it."
Not only are you a jerk, but I am glad you admit to being rude as well. There are a lot of comments on blogs of all types. At times, it is like the wild west. This was never a matter which concerned you unless you want to play the role of the sheriff in town which means you will be awfully busy policing all the comments.
Posted by: WVH on June 19, 2007 11:31 PMAnd you're also dead wrong about me; just because you've not noticed it doesn't mean it's not there. I've slammed Doug Parris many times recently, as well as The Geezer, for their unsubstantiated personal attacks on others. But I wonder, what do you pretend is the reason why I am "selecting" you? Am I a bigot too? Is that what you are driving at by continuing to use the word "selective"? Be honest, now.
Posted by: pudge on June 20, 2007 07:34 AMNo, I don't consider you a bigot, believe it or not most people of color have quite a bit of discernment in these matters, it is called life experience. That is why I called you a jerk which
means a dull stupid fatuous person. In my opinion, JDH is a bigot because he operates out of hatred of the unknown, while in my opinion, you operate out of ignorance. My theory is that many pubbies have very little contact with a wide range of ethnic people because your backgrounds and current work/living situations do not provide those opportunties. So, no Pudge, I do not call you a bigot. I call you a jerk.
It would, in fact, be ignorant for me (or anyone else) to merely take your word that he is a bigot. It is the responsible thing to challenge you on the claim, and to believe you are full of it when you refuse to provide evidence backing it up. Which is what's happened.
I'd rather be a rude jerk than a slanderer, any day of the week.
Posted by: pudge on June 20, 2007 11:38 AMWell to, in my estimation the rude jerk and from your estimation, the slanderer. Best Wishes. Minds are never going to change on this one. If JDH, who is really the only conclusive evidence wants to dispute my characterization of him as a bigot, well I am willing to listen. Right now, this is my opinion, which can be refuted. He has lived in Tacoma for many years and areas of the Hilltop and other areas of Pierce County have developed the problems of many urban areas. Many urban areas are inhabited by low-income people of color.
My best guess is there is a lot of anger which is directed toward a population which he probably feels is a major part in the decline of his city. The other part is the endemic corruption in city and county politics. Well and good, if you are going to be the taste sheriff on slander, Pudge, are you going to also be the taste police on, at the minimum, insensitive racial remarks? Frankly, don't mind be accused of slander in this instance.
You want more proof, you scroll through the archives, I've got other things to do.
That is, of course, because you gave two examples supposedly of him being a bigot, and both of those examples were not, in fact, any evidence at all of bigotry.
are you going to also be the taste police on, at the minimum, insensitive racial remarks?
You provided no evidence of any.
You want more proof, you scroll through the archives, I've got other things to do.
Riiiiiight. Pull the other one. You've had many opportunities to provide proof, and you've provided not a single shred of it. When you actually took the time to try to provide evidence of it, you in fact did not: you provided something that showed nothing about race or bigotry of any kind, again, except against actual criminals and their associates (completely irrespective of any other trait).
This discussion is a little like trying to convince Chris Hitchens that God exists or to try and convince an atheist that God exists. You are never going to have evidence which would convince you that JDH is a bigot. Sorry, I don't have a snap of him in a robe or hood. I suppose bigotry is in this instance not readily apparent to you.
You are entitled to your opinion. I stand by my opinion. Meanwhile, the object of the discussion remains silent and shrouded in secrecy. So, let's put this thread to rest. In your onpinion, JDH is a great guy who has been slandered by little old me.
And yet, you've not shown it.
You falsely imply here that you have shown evidence of bigotry, but that it is simply not readily apparent to me. In fact, you have shown no evidence of bigotry. You've shown only two things: one, that he linked to a web site that is self-titled "angry black woman." He made no comment or implication that had anything to do with race, so clearly and factually, that was not evidence of bigotry against anyone except for his claim about "liberals," which is irrespective of any traits other than liberalism.
The other one was that he said something negative about criminals and their associates. He neither said nor implied anything about any other trait of these people other than their criminal habits, so clearly and factually, that was not evidence of bigotry against anyone except for gang members.
You are entitled to your opinion, and my opinion, backed up by the facts (and lack thereof), is that you have no basis for your opinion and are, indeed, a vicious slanderer.
Also, you are lying about me, again, too. I never said or implied JDH is a great guy, and I've never thought he was.
Posted by: pudge on June 21, 2007 09:20 AMGuess if I keep posting long enough you could add mass murder, car thief, negligent driver and other insults to vile slanderer, cretin, liar. I am beginning to think you are just plan an idiot.
"I never said or implied JDH is a great guy, and I've never thought he was."
Well, I have to give you points for perception.
I leave you with this final thought:
S: (n) sarcasm, irony, satire, caustic remark (witty language used to convey insults or scorn) "he used sarcasm to upset his opponent"; "irony is wasted on the stupid"; "Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own"--Jonathan Swift
Cheers.
Then you attack me for something I never said.
Shrug.
Draw your own conclusions ... you will anyway, and those conclusions probably won't be based on fact, if history is a guide.
Posted by: pudge on June 22, 2007 07:29 AMThis is what I said:
"This discussion is a little like trying to convince Chris Hitchens that God exists or to try and convince an atheist that God exists."
The activity of this discussion is like the activity of attempting to use argument to convince Hitchens. Get it?
Just so you fully understand, I am about to insult you. See the Swift quote at #35 and the comment about irony. To be perfectly clear, this is in fact an instance of me insulting you.
Posted by: WVH on June 22, 2007 08:34 AMIf you are unable to find this evidence, what makes you think I could find it, when I don't even know what I am supposedly looking for?
You have, without any provocation of any kind whatsoever, decided to slander someone for something they never did. And when someone called you on it, finding yourself incapable of providing evidence that doesn't exist, you attack your attacker, in a textbook diversion fallacy.
Are you always this dishonest?
Posted by: pudge on June 22, 2007 11:03 PM