I think we're finally getting to the meat of this issue.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net
> [mailto:owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net] On Behalf Of
> jon@dakota-truck.net
> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 3:18 PM
> To: dakota-truck-moderator@bent.twistedbits.net
> Subject: Re: DML: Made in China
>
>
> "Pindell, Tim P" <TPindell@otterbein.edu> wrote:
> >"Jon Steiger" <jon@dakota-truck.net> wrote:
> >> "We" shouldn't do anything about them. It is not the
> government's
> >> role to create jobs, its only roles are to provide
> national defense,
> >> mete out justice according to proscribed law, and enforce the
> >> contractual obligations of its citizens. Anything not
> covered by the
> >> previous sentence is an item that government should not be
> involved
> >> with in any way. Government's "role", (if you want to
> call it that),
> >> in regards to finding new jobs for displaced workers is merely to
> >> stay out of the way and let the market work.
>
> > Someone is in for a big disappointment. Keep tilting at those
> > windmills, Jon. You still might be able to vote "Ron Paul".
>
>
> I'm already dissapointed. The system is *already* broken.
> The principles I referenced are how the government was
> originally designed to work and how it *should* be working.
> I am under no illusion that these fundamental principles are
> given even the slightest thought by most in government today.
> I am optimistic that there are opportunities to turn back
> the clock on many of the abuses of the past
> 230+ years and move closer to those ideals, but we are so far gone
> that I fear a complete return would probably require another
> massive catalyst such as a catastrophe and/or another War for
> Independence.
You wish for the impossible, and I sincerely feel badly about that. I
can't help you. We can't go back. We've evolved and learned new things
since then. I have no easy, comforting answer for you. We didn't stop
learning or thinking when those original experimental principles were
drawn up. It must be a horrible existence, every day, to see your world
irrevocably, inevitably torn apart around you and you can do nothing to
stop it.
>
> Its no surprise to me that your response was more of the
> same - sarcasm and attemtped denigration rather than real
> content or ideas.
How do you expect me to react!? You're a political anachronism! You ask
for the same thing *every single time* and you *know* that its not
possible. I simply can't take it any longer. Somebody had to call
shenanigans. You seem to desire a return to some innocent time with a
pure and idealistic revolution in easy black and white. You're an
intelligent *grown man* yet you continue to believe in this romantic
notion of a centuries-old ideological purity that likely never existed.
That saddens me because you're smart enough to know that the world is
probably much more complicated than an 18th century political
philosopher ever thought it could be. We can do things he couldn't
possibly have imagined! But that doesn't mean that some of the things
we've learned from him aren't worth keeping or that we can't learn and
add to our understanding as time moves on. It was not my original intent
to get your thong in a bunch. (Later it was, and I'm sorry about that.)
Up until this post, I actually didn't believe that you were this
extreme. Nor was I fully aware of the sincerity with which you held
these extreme ideas. I really should have left you alone.
> The fact that you would think I will someday be dissapointed
> to discover that our government doesn't proscribe to its
> founding ideals is illustrative of the regard you hold for my
> grasp of any of these issues and confirms that I have been
> wasting my time with you.
I respect you as an individual human being, but you're right. My regard
for your brand of olde-tyme rigid political views has been in decline
for a few years now. The willing denial of the present for an impossible
return to the past, the bleak denial of...humanity, the cold, easy,
life-isn't-fair disregard of the other... It appears that your own
humanity isn't worthy of respect to you either.
> I suppose I knew it all along, but
> my optimism for a person's desire to search for the truth, or
> at the very least to remain open to the possibility of other
> ideas tends to cloud my judgement sometimes.
This is part of the problem, Jon. It's not always about *you* or your
perception of your own intellectual and moral superiority. That's what
clouds judgment; hubris. There are several topics about which I am
old-school conservative/libertarian, however, all we seem to discuss
here is economics and labour, and about that, I am unabashedly left of
center. Remember, your truth isn't the only truth. Not all truths are
"conservative", Jon, but many are. Sometimes there is no truth or good
answer, and sometimes truths change with new understanding. Some things
are unknowable or don't fit into the neat little ideological boxes we
crave. The more I learn about a subject, the more I realize there is to
learn. That leads to humility in the face of understanding. Other than
my respect for humanity, I generally don't hold extreme ideological
views since I often find that, with learning and experience, things are
somewhat more complicated, not less. That's unsettling to many people
who find comfort in easy answers. To claim that your truth is the only
truth isn't a search but a dismissive sermon. That rarely begets
respect, usually resentment and sardonic comments. Anyone who claims to
know "the" immutable truth is not to be trusted. You, of all people,
should know better. This, Jon, is the *core* of my pushback, not some
crazy-ass Marxist fairy tale to which you may believe I hold dear.
> There is a difference between ignorance and stubbornness; the
> former can be corrected, but some people just refuse to be
> helped, and I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. A life
> ruled by emotion rather than logic and accompanied by denial,
> helplessness, depression and simple festering hatred is your
> self imposed prison. I wouldn't wish the world you live in
> upon anyone.
Where do you get this stuff? Again, it's all about you isn't it? I do
not require your "correction", nor will I deny my humanity as you have
yours. I temper my logic with it. Logic without humanity is merely
calculation. Perhaps you've denied so much of your own humanity in your
search for logical purity that it appears strange and alien. I don't
claim to know; perhaps you don't know either. We are not machines. Meat
isn't always prone to simple, comfortable black/white answers. As
evidenced by the current trend of political events over the past
centuries, I'm not the one in a self-built ideological prison. The most
you can hope to do is slow the rest of us down a bit. I've no desire to
"go back" and neither do the hundreds of millions of voters who have
gone before me. Most of us, including the Republican front-runner, are
moving on towards the political center with the great things we've
learned from those who've gone before us, and we'll continue to learn
new things while our understanding evolves. Our Great Experiment is
still the least worst system of government available despite your doom
and gloom about its immanent demise.
>
>Sometimes, just one question or a seed of doubt is all it takes to open
>the floodgates of discovery.
Indeed. I doubt lots of things, especially those who claim singular
enlightenment.
> --
> -Jon-
>
Now I'm off to finish my hemp-based Che Guevara throw rug. Good day,
sirs.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 02 2008 - 02:10:10 EST