All you guys were doing so well I was going to stay out — but this example of Mark T.’s stereotyped thinking was just too precious:

Fact: I flipped burgers in McDonald’s over a very hot summer in Denver (the big one at Pennsylvania & Colfax). Also have had jobs that involved changing toilet paper, swabbing floors, carrying golf-clubs (didn’t play any), lifting crates, cleaning out refrigerators, and pulling drowners out of the water. (My wife, by the way, who shares most of my political views, got through college on a combination of a National Merit Scholarship and dish washing.)

You are right (if this is what you meant to say) that I didn’t “look at my shoes” in anxiety when someone mentioned joining a union. I joined (International Building Service Employees, AFL-CIO.) In fact, I became an organizer. In fact, I not only organized, but helped lead a job action — and was elected to and served on the negotiation team that got us all raises. (And I was a conservative then, too.)

Mark T.: You do best, as you generally have here in this series of comments, when you meet opposing arguments head on. When you try to classify other people, though, you just look really silly.

You are saying taht anything government-funded will not produce genius.

Umm, no I’m not. Word stuffing.

But I am reminded a bit of A Russian General who watched us attack Iraq in 1996, and said “This is the nature of democracy: You send in the planes and drop the bombs. Then you gather in the journalists and tell them to applaud. We need to study that. Similarly, and I’m too lazy (or ADD) to look this up, anotehr Russian commented that the genius of Americans was taht we allow the protests to go on, but just ignore them. In Russia, they arrested protesters.

It all serves to remind us that we are not a functioning democracy.

And I agree that genius is genius only if it produces something. You are saying taht anything government-funded will not produce genius. Several hundred college campuses and the NIH and the Pentagon (not for good) beg to differ. Most advances in pharmaceuticals, for example, are government-funded. The private sector is busy inventing new diseases that need daily doses of expensive and ineffective medicines.

So much for private sector genius.

… as people who spoke out against Bush were ostracized and in many cases arrested.

Names?

And genius is only genius when it produces something (does a falling tree make noise in woods if there is no one to listen?) Or as Einstein said “An ambitious idiot is smarter than a lazy genius.”

There are frontal assaults on speech, and backal ones. Yes, governments don’t like to be criticized, and these last few years in the U.S. it has gotten out of hand, as people who spoke out against Bush were ostracized and in many cases arrested. And yes, those governments, any governments that cannot tolerate severe criticism on public forums deserve your criticism.

Now, take a look around you at all the pseudonyms, save you and me and Craig and a few others. Why? Why does blog traffic on weekends slow to a trickle? People are speaking up, but feel the need to do so anonymously. Why?

The answer is the oppression of the workplace. There is no more effective damper on free speech as the economic relationship.

I’ll take responsibility for mine, you do the same?

Your lumping of genius and free speech together is odd. Genius is genius. Government employs it as well as the private sector. It’s not that that I fear, but the rise of mediocrity to power due to undue influence on money that causes more problems.

Ref: Geroge W. Bush.

Mark, my opinions about term limits are not “circular”. A circular argument is when two premises are supported only by each other such as “the bible is true because it is the word of God. The proof of that God exists in the fact that we have a bible.

Thanks, Wulfgar. I meant that you’re solving a problem by transferring it to a new party. Perhaps I should have said “circusular”.

My argument is that by making elected official moving targets special interests cannot become entrenched in a candidates motivations over the long term. And it’s over the long term where the real damage is done.

I know exactly what you meant – that money has no influence if a candidate does not have to stand for reelection. It has some merit. But tell me, if you know, what Tom Daschle has been doing since he was voted out of office. What is Conrad Burns doing now? I can see your idea working if 1) We limit them to one term only; and 2) prohibit them from accepting employment from contributors after leaving office. Or gifts.

It’s so much easier just to eliminate the inherent corruption and publicly finance campaign. And I must say that it’s odd that you want to solve a problem of undue influence not by removing the influence, but rather telling people who they are not allowed to vote for. Interesting that you place the rights of money over those of voters.

Also, do you ever question your own view about concentration of wealth and other ways to sever the relationship between government and wealth?

What an odd question. Do i walk around in certitude? No, of course not. It’s a complciated world. People vary widley, but do tend to behave predictably as groups – that’s as close as we can come to order in this world. They mostly don’t conspire – tehy don’t need to, but in the same circumstances, do tend to think alike.

One last thing about government’s pernicious threat to liberty as you laud the Canadian and EU “representative republics.” Have you been paying any attention to the vile attacks on free speech in those countries? Your view of liberty seems to be highly selective.

Unless you’re saying that the problem is caused by their health care systems, that’s not much of a point. People are the same wherever you go. Prejudice runs deep in the lower classes.

Steve:

This is the same argument as “We had to destroy the village to save it.” This is neither logic nor argument, but dogma.

That is not the same argument as “We had to destroy the village …”. That argument was put forth by a U.S. commander who was trying against logic to justify a massacre. Dogma indeed, like you are some high perch operating on pure logic? Please.

This is the same argument as “We had to destroy the village to save it.” This is neither logic nor argument, but dogma.

My argument is that by making elected official moving targets special interests cannot become entrenched in a candidates motivations over the long term. And it’s over the long term where the real damage is done.

Also, do you ever question your own view about concentration of wealth and other ways to sever the relationship between government and wealth?

One last thing about government’s pernicious threat to liberty as you laud the Canadian and EU “representative republics.” Have you been paying any attention to the vile attacks on free speech in those countries? Your view of liberty seems to be highly selective.

Representative democracy does not conflict with protecting minorities. Does the bill of rights not comport with representative democracy? Did you ever bother to study constitutional debate?

Your point, exactly? I also agree that the sun rises in the east.

I can’t speak for Rob but I’ve never said that economic freedom is at the base of all other freedoms. Find it anywhere. I wouldn’t have said it because it has nothing to do with many other liberties.

Then you and Natelson differ. Deal with him, and excuse me for conflating you two.

Tell me why I’m wrong as opposed to making some dictate the begs the question. As to rule by wealth – you’re just wrong as to what I think. Again, the burden of proof is on you to show I think that way.

But you don’t think that way! You’re being obtuse. If you really thought that way, you’d by a psychotic. I’m saying that you are blind to the fallout of your philosophy.

For years and years American liberal intelligentsia supported Joe Stalin. He had a rosy glow about him because he embraced a philosophy that made sense to them. If they could see everything that was going on, and still supported him, they too would be psychotic.

So either prove your assertions about me or knock it off.

You’re not a bad guy. You’re very intelligent. You’ve run headsquare into a contradiction – economic freedom leads to huge disparities of wealth which defeat representative democracy. The way to preserve representative democracy is to curtail economic freedom. That confounds you. But there are no contradictions, only faulty premises.

I bet if a Canadian or European decided not to pay their taxes they would be arrested at gun point – or threat thereof. It certainly is true here and is done on a regular basis. The state enforces its rules by threat of force. That’s the tool the state has that the population doesn’t.

Reasonable people have come to terms with this apparent contradiction by realizing that they have ultimate control of government in a representative democracy. It’s very difficult to have a free society without government, which is legalized force. It’s tough, but it’s the only way it works. “A republic, if you can keep it.”

HMO’s – your the one who added the emphasis to the point about the tyranny of corporatism which, BTW, I reject and so does Rob as far as I can tell.

Well, well, well – I disagree, and so does my wife.

One more thing. Campaign finance reform will not solve the problem of appeasement of special interests. A corporation can promise to bring jobs or spending to a representative’s district – or do other favors – that have as much value if not more – to a re-election campaign. Just look at Chris Dodd’s sweetheart deal with his Irish cottage. The only real answer is term limits. You’re deluding yourself if you think this is about campaign finance.

That’s circular. You’re saying we can defeat the problem of wealthy people buying politicians by continually supplying them with new politicians.