Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Don’t fret, Friedman’s towering intellect will light the way

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Don’t fret, Friedman’s towering intellect will light the way

    I don’t know why I am continually surprised that people still think this way outside of a college lecture hall. Thomas Friedman in, of course, the NYT today:

    Watching both the health care and climate/energy debates in Congress, it is hard not to draw the following conclusion: There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today.

    One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century. It is not an accident that China is committed to overtaking us in electric cars, solar power, energy efficiency, batteries, nuclear power and wind power. China’s leaders understand that in a world of exploding populations and rising emerging-market middle classes, demand for clean power and energy efficiency is going to soar. Beijing wants to make sure that it owns that industry and is ordering the policies to do that, including boosting gasoline prices, from the top down.
    Our one-party democracy is worse.


    Progressives do envy totalitarian regimes. Of course, such a system of government has “drawbacks” too but nothing the masses should worry about. Sleep tight little people – the big brains will make everything dreamy.

    Democracy is only favored while out of power; once power is achieved it becomes so inconvenient. This song and dance is nearly 100 years old and the bit has gone stale.

  • #2
    Progressives aren't concerned about other people's freedom or liberty.

    Comment


    • #3
      That isn't very fair Royal. That is the same as me saying Republicans don't care about people without health insurance, and only care about protecting corporate profits.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by RockChalkWUShock
        That isn't very fair Royal. That is the same as me saying Republicans don't care about people without health insurance, and only care about protecting corporate profits.
        Do you understand the difference between giving people the freedom to make choices such as who they spend their earnings helping and forcefully taking it from them to help those a few feel are worthy of helping?

        Comment


        • #5
          I think that you missed my point, or maybe you didn't either way that is fine.

          I didn't think the blanket statment that you made was fair. Just as my statement wasn't fair.

          Just like "all blondes are dumb", totally inaccurate and not fair that is all I was trying to say.

          Yes I understand the difference, I just see it differently. I feel that certain things in life become a public necessity, and those things should be nationalized and controlled by a goverenment elected by the people. We will always disagree on that, which is fine. Please correct if I am misunderstanding your position.

          Comment


          • #6
            My position is that people who want more government and are willing to circumvent the Constitution to get it are not concerned about the freedoms and liberties of others.

            If you want the federal government to provide healthcare then start lobbying for a constitutional amendment providing for that power. Otherwise, mind your own business (money) and stay out of mine.

            Comment


            • #7
              But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as Germany is today...

              Thomas Friedman, 1942.
              /At least that's how it sounded in my head
              "Don't measure yourself by what you have accomplished, but by what you should accomplish with your ability."
              -John Wooden

              Comment


              • #8
                If you want the federal government to provide healthcare then start lobbying for a constitutional amendment providing for that power. Otherwise, mind your own business (money) and stay out of mine
                I think that it should be passed with a constitutuional amendment. Where do you fall on social security, medicare, medicaide, s-chip, education, fire departments, police, libraries, road maintence etc?

                Not trying to bait, or argue, just oddly fascinated by your position.

                Comment


                • #9
                  SS, Medicare, Medicade, etc., anything of that nature done by the federal government that is it is not expressly allowed to do (that pesky Constitution), I am against.

                  The other stuff you mention is done at lower levels of government, subject to the constitutions and laws of those jurisdictions. I do think those things should be as minimal as necessary. Police, fire, road maintenance is fine. Libraries, museums, etc. are up to the voters. If they want to pay for them, fine.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Thank you Royal, for the answer. It is much appreciated, and I respect your viewpoint.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X