Interesting Read

5 Responses to Interesting Read

1. Robb Allen says:

   March 2, 2010 at 2:32 pm

   Meh. It’s still a “There are people better suited to running your lives, so shut up” type article.

   Some interesting points, and yes, I agree that democracy is not what we want. But the “elites” simply aren’t. Period. They are just as dumb as all of us.

   The concentration of power is a definite problem. My financial adviser managed to keep my IRA’s from losing any money over the last few years because she manages a select few. Had she been in charge of a million accounts, her record would probably not be as stellar.

   The same with governing and why state level is much more desirable than federal. Anyone who can say with a straight face that they know what’s better for 310,000,000 people better than each of those 310,000,000 isn’t elite – they’re deluded and have no place near the levers of power.
2. Rivrdog says:

   March 2, 2010 at 3:33 pm

   Second the meh, add a pblttt!

   This is nothing but a bash on the right side of the political spectrum. Heavy bash. So he disses the Left for a few things, the reader is meant to sum it up and decide that of the two wings, the Left is the better choice.

   I don’t see it that way. The basic conflict, and what the author seems to mostly ignore, is that the struggle is between those who would rely on the talents of many individuals to make up the greater Nation, and those who would rely on the State deciding what the citizens’ roles are to be.

   There is simply no other way of framing this debate. There is absolutely ZERO point in arguing what flavor of ice cream to put into your cone if the physics of freezing the cream into ice cream are unknown. What flavor of Democracy do we want is a red-herring argument.

   The argument NOW is do we want primacy of the Individual or the State?
3. MadRocketScientist says:

   March 2, 2010 at 7:00 pm

   After letting it percolate for a few hours, it seems that he is offering the false choice, one of tight federal control through the elite, or mob rule through elected stooges.

   The third option, which I never see mentioned anymore, is that the middleman option. He glosses right past that talking about how we need thousands of federal legislators to adequately represent the population, when he completely misses that we already have those legislators, they just all work in the state houses.

   Tell me if I’m full of it, but the states are supposed to govern the people, and the fed is supposed to govern the states (and provide some support to states that are in trouble). Maybe if our state governments were impotent in the face of the fed when it comes to governing affairs in house, things would run better (with the exception of states stomping on rights).
4. Petey says:

   March 3, 2010 at 6:59 am

   This reads like an NPR commentator. A lot of “clever” college-prof style narrative, a little fun statistics and just enough of a tempo to make it readable.

   I’ve only been through the 1st 2 pages and already the author is descrbing the Tea Party as though it were a centralized political force that can be compared to organized popular movements of the last century.
5. MadRocketScientist says:

   March 3, 2010 at 11:10 am

   It does kind of boil down to, “Populism for stuff I like is good, populism for stuff I don’t like is bad”.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.