Thanks for a stimulating post. The low level of public rhetoric is regrettable. I've noticed that the problem is not limited to the political realm.
It may be a part of the great postmodern revolution against white male oppression in language.
Anton Writes:
Thanks for a stimulating post. The low level of public rhetoric is regrettable. I've noticed that the problem is not limited to the political realm.Glad you enjoyed the article. And I definitely agree; the lack of rhetorical skill is ubiquitous. I could have turned this 1,200-word post into a 12,000-word post and still not had room enough for the impacts. It is my opinion that the most powerfully dangerous arena for this lack of said skill to play in, though, is in our political leaders; that is, not "just" government & politicians, but also media figures & educators. (He who controls the spice... err, information...)
Anton Also Writes:
It may be a part of the great postmodern revolution against white male oppression in language.I don't know so much about that one. I more strongly suspect it has more to do with the drive towards egalitarianism over elitism in culture -- which might just be a fancy way of rewording what you meant.
The trick is, though, that as "we-the-people" have intentionally toned down that sort of thing, we've also made the mistake of discounting the knowledge of linguistic techniques. It's part of the whole "dumbing down" of America "thing." As such this puts me in the happy medium of blaming both Democrats //and// Republicans for contributing to this. lol!Here's a parlor trick for you -- What is the difference between "verbal" and "written" communication?
I've long seen the pejorative "rhetoric" used and realized that those doing so had very little understanding of logic or practice in critical thinking. It has become all to frequent with the use of soundbites by newsreaders on TV and radio.
As for "hold[ing] our political leaders ...up to a vastly higher standard", anyone wanting government position is seeking power of enforcement, not the power that comes from productivity and creation the results of which are freely sought by others who want to trade.
And "free lunches" are just what far too many people don't understand do not in reality exist. There is always a payment, even if it is obscured with fancy worded descriptions, by the politicians/government agents urging another or continued government program.
Kitty Antonik Wakfer Wrote:
As for "hold[ing] our political leaders ...up to a vastly higher standard", anyone wanting government position is seeking power of enforcement, not the power that comes from productivity and creation the results of which are freely sought by others who want to trade.Politics is not limited to government. Political leaders are, generally speaking, not in government offices.
Kitty Also Wrote:
And "free lunches" are just what far too many people don't understand do not in reality exist.Robert Ansun Heinlein said it better.
Politics in its meaning as a branch of ethics concerned with the social whole rather than the individual does not specifically require that a person so engaged be an elected official of a government. However, that is how the word has come to be commonly used and understood by most people. Unless it is specifically defined in its broader meaning, the words "politicians" and "political leaders" are those who seek to become or stay in a government position. Those who seek to or actually do organize, direct and/or administer a group can only do so with the agreement of those in that group. Those who don't want any part of the group don't join and those "political leaders" are ignored. Such a group and its leaders cannot affect others who are not persuaded, unless they use physical force. And government has the monopoly on legalized force, by their own decree. But in essence the government politicians and bureaucrats are powerless without the government enforcers - those with the guns. Were the enforcers to quit, the legislators and executive administrators (including the President and staff) would would be left to continue simply spouting off words.
Yes, Robert A Heinlein made the phrase, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch" one that can easily roll off the tongue or spill out onto media. But when one understands what this really means and has fully digested the underlying principle and implications, then the idea can be properly used without simply repeating a quote. As for Heinlein quotes in general, his works are full of priceless ones that are well worth further thought. I think I own a copy of everything he has ever written...with some multiples in fact.
I consider myself a spiritual inheritor of the Grand Old Lech's intellectual spirit; par exemplorum, I've always found it amusing that he wrote Starship Troopers while writing Stranger in a Strange Land.
That being said, though; to help with the definitions I was using -- because the enemy of semanticism is precision -- when I was speaking of political leaders I was referring also to those whom form the political opinions of the nation; the Michael Moores, Ann Coulters, Bill Mahers, as well as the ones whom direct the political parties themselves; the "back-room dealers".
Insofar as I can tell, there will always be a system of government: "Anarchy" in this case being no different in class than anything else which is classified simply as, "A system of government."
What I fear more than a select group of individuals limited by the will of the masses and constrained -- if only nominally -- by a "piece of paper" is what would happen if mob rule became the whole of the law. I speak, quite legitimately, from the position of being for example an atheist. In my age bracket less than 20% of all people are atheists -- in a "true" Anarchy, what is to stop a group of ten people with guns from deciding that my merely existing constitutes, say, a violation of the anarchist's wet dream philosophy, the NIFP?
That is //not// to be misconstrued as saying that the current way of doing things is even close to ideal; obviously, it's not.
But that element is a key clincher to me: an individual can only be free if he has the freedom to offend society. I don't see that happening in a stateless society.
Also being precise - since to be otherwise easily leads to distortional thinking - there is no thinking entity as a "nation". Therefore there can be no "political opinions of the nation". Opinions can only be formed, held, reviewed and retained or dismissed by an individual after listening to or reading the ideas of others. Discovering the facts of reality is something else again and requires unique critical thinking, rather than merely the sifting through of the ideas of others.
An orderly society - one without chaos - does not require the State, government - enforcer of regulations with physical force or its threat. I see from your website that you are a serious seeker of a better way for large numbers of people to interact, and that you appear to look for improvements in or variations of the current mechanism that exists as the solution. You have obviously invested a great amount of time and effort in your writings. Despite this investment you have made to date, I suggest that you step back a bit and take a look at some ideas you may not have considered by reading (not skimming or perusing) "Social Meta-Needs: A New Basis for Optimal Human Interaction" - http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/
...lmetaneeds.html I hope I am correct in concluding that you are much like me and Paul in the profound desire to live in a world of minimally restricted individuals interacting to mutual benefit for the purpose of optimizing the lifetime happiness of each.
Only had time to skim over that Social Meta-Needs in the current time-frame; enough to evaluate it on a preliminary basis.
The step of separating "Freedom" from "Liberty" is a good and important one. What would do this work a great deal of good would be efforts to discern the fundamental basis of the argument, extract it, and find a way to communicate that intactly.
Par exemplorum: At the bottom of the "logo picture" of my site, the four sentences can be found: "Function. Verify. Cultivate. Invent." (Sentences in that they are grammatically correct in the second-person invective tense) These are sufficient, in and of themselves, that with a little mental elbow-grease, just about anybody can derive the same benefits from them that I do -- they are, to be frank, my life-creed. There are, of course, much deeper complexities; but without that core comprehension it is my experience that all complicated works are lost to the medium of communication; they die with the creator.
Commenting by HaloScan
