Wednesday, May 13, 2015


During a recent conversation, the person made the blank statement, all politicians are crooked, and big money bought and pays them: they do not represent anyone but themselves, etc. There is enough truth to that statement to make it debatable. The thing about that conversation that made it interesting was because it made me realize there are people who just want to be disgusted with the government. At face value, that statement makes no sense until one realizes their real objective is to avoid thinking, about anything to do with government, apparently because solving problems is hard work. Along that line, I thought back to one of my best friend who often declared he was a libertarian. When asked why, his answer was enlightening; it was because he didn’t agree either Republican or Democrat, which I now realize means he did not have to make a decision about anything. I engaged in a debate concerning evolution with my physician. When we got to the big bang, his response was, “Yes, but who caused the big bag?” The second a person says he believes in “God”, that means we do not have to think about it anymore. God will do it. Doesn’t this mean that my physician does not have to make a decision about anything he doesn’t want to decide; God, will decide. These positions have one thing in common; they avoid the necessity of thinking further about government, politics, or any of life’s dilemmas. These positions are an expression of mental laziness. Government is not an option; it is necessary; therefore, it must be debated. Unfortunately, we often become involved in debates that over problems that have no solution. People are extremely clever in avoiding mental traps. They do this by avoid taking extreme positions, but the simple pursuit of issues can reveal the weaknesses in their arguments, which is a debate. For example, I have debated welfare with Republicans who are quick to declare the government should stop giving welfare because people cheat. However, when you present individual cases were giving welfare is justified; they agree this or that person should receive help. They then usually jump to what I call the Nancy Reagan position, which is individual giving should replace all government welfare programs. Her position means, that in contrast to government decision making, individual decision-making, is flawless, which is another tail-chasing exercise in logic, which brings us right back to the beginning, which is the government is there to do what individuals cannot afford to do. There is no spirit outside man to decide things, which means that you and I should spend as much time and effort to get what government does right and debate is part of getting things right. That takes a lot of work! URL: Comments Invited and not moderated

No comments:

Post a Comment