Despite this Platonism is alive an well, even among many who profess skepticism about Plato's concepts. Indeed it is a central element of Liberal (in the American political sense of the word) political thinking, which typically looks for rational, government imposed or operated "solutions" to social, economic, and political issues - as opposed to the chaos of individual choice or the free marketplace of choices and ideas. Increasingly in American political discorse the notion of "solutions" to social or economic problems is itself implicitly restricted to government activity -- the absence of a specific government activity or regulation is taken to mean no solution at all, thereby excluding any possibility of individual activity or free choice providing a solution from the dialogue.
See Okie? His question is proof positive that he didn't read those links.
Georgeob1 wrote:Quote:Despite this Platonism is alive an well, even among many who profess skepticism about Plato's concepts. Indeed it is a central element of Liberal (in the American political sense of the word) political thinking, which typically looks for rational, government imposed or operated "solutions" to social, economic, and political issues - as opposed to the chaos of individual choice or the free marketplace of choices and ideas. Increasingly in American political discorse the notion of "solutions" to social or economic problems is itself implicitly restricted to government activity -- the absence of a specific government activity or regulation is taken to mean no solution at all, thereby excluding any possibility of individual activity or free choice providing a solution from the dialogue.
Thanks, this is enlightening. If the liberal mind thinks that every condition of society that seems unfair (like the imbalance of incomes in the U.S.) and additionally , thinks that that unfairness must be dealt with then it must be extremely tempting for the liberal mind to seek out some sort of resolution even to the point of the ends justifying the means. Bullying is therefore justified.
Example: The town hall crowd feels a need to increase tax revenues to pay better benefits for town hall employees. It can't tax the local home owners any more so it claims their homes via "eminent domain" so that they can help a developer erect a shopping center that will generate more taxes. MAC thinking would have nipped the whole thing in the bud and allowed those so affected to stay in their homes.
As to Liberal's solution involving the perceived problem of income imbalance, Brit Hume of Fox News fame has famously asked: "Why do liberals insist on only those solutions that would make us equally poor?"
JM
The Supreme Court’s landmark public use decision Kelo v. City of New London was handed down three years ago today. On June 23, 2005, Justices Stevens handed down an opinion that held that “there is no basis for exempting economic development from our traditionally broad understanding of public purpose.” Justices Kennedy, Souter, Breyer, and Ginsburg signed on to their eldest colleague’s opinion against dissent from Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices O’Connor, Thomas, and Scalia. An excerpt from Justice Thomas’ dissent:
"The Court relies almost exclusively on this Court’s prior cases to derive today’s far-reaching, and dangerous, result. See ante, at 8"12. But the principles this Court should employ to dispose of this case are found in the Public Use Clause itself, not in Justice Peckham’s high opinion of reclamation laws, see supra, at 11. When faced with a clash of constitutional principle and a line of unreasoned cases wholly divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document, we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution’s original meaning."
http://dailywrit.com/2008/06/23/kelo-turns-three-today/
