We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Now (Max) Weber was a very learned and intelligent scholar. After all, he gave us the true definition of government, namely, a monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. It is a definition as full and accurate as it is sadistically useful for torturing our mild social democratic friends in Sweden or Massachusetts, who like to believe that the government is a festival of kindly collectivism, sort of like a loving family.
In a time when many people genuinely believe that government policy has the power to create nice weather, one considers whether god-like power and god-like benevolence is still ascribed to governments in a post-Enlightenment world.
The same fallacy is applied to health - and to economics. Why can't governments keep the economy nice?
The prospect that any feasible political corrective for market failure might also fail when compared against the ideal standard of efficiency was not examined.
It seems to be that political correctives are often critiqued by conservative economists, but the "something must be done or you don't care about ____" often wins the day in politics. This is part of why the only politicians I even half trust are those who did not seek a lifelong political career. I respect most those who do some service and then go back to the farm.
It's human nature, I suppose, to enjoy imagining that somebody or some thing can fix reality to make earthly life more like the paradise of our dreams. Worldwide, the powerful have sought to affiliate with gods, or to become gods in name, to exploit that human yearning.
And if only government had more money and power, it might work. Or not. At the least, it would help fulfill the dreams of those who seek power. Unlike wealth, power is a zero-sum game.
To say our constitutional system is undergoing a crisis is an understatement. The states have been crushed by the federal government, and the national legislature — the predominant branch of the federal government — has allowed itself to be neutered by the executive and judicial branches, abdicating its responsibility to protect the people and the states from such usurpations.
One of the most refreshing things about Trump’s address—it is characteristic of his speeches—was his frankness. At the U.N., this had a positive as well as a critical side. On the positive side, I found it a breath of fresh air to hear an American president celebrate the achievements of America.
“The United States of America,” Trump said, “has been among the greatest forces for good in the history of the world, and the greatest defenders of sovereignty, security, and prosperity for all.” This is the simple truth, but I do not recall hearing such sentiments from the White House in recent years.
My theory is that the purpose of higher ed is to prepare people for those Great Courses. These can enrich your life forever. Buy them when they are on sale, and trade them with friends and neighbors. That's what people do.
Following the Faust-type legend that has been repeated in many forms over the millennia, government entails doing something bad to achieve what the actor regards as a greater good. In the liberal political setting, government entails the use of an instrument of evil, the imposition of force over people, in the hope or presumption that damage done by the force will fall short of the good that is done.
As Washington Post sports columnist Sally Jenkins wrote in what may be the finest piece of writing to emerge from Hurricane Harvey, (re the Cajun Navy) “They’re used to maneuvering through the cypress of Caddo Lake or the hydrilla and coontail of the Atchafalaya, where the water might be four feet or it might rise to eighteen, and the stinking bog is called ‘coffee grinds’ because of the way boots sink in it. Spending hours in monsoon rains doesn’t bother them, because they know ducks don’t just show up on a plate, and they’ve learned what most of us haven’t, that dry comfort is not the only thing worth seeking.”'
So rather than malign these men, or tut-tut that they are too libertarian, why not thank them for risking their lives to help others (a service for which none of them were paid). I doubt the judgmental journalists scolding the Cajun Navy would have been willing to do the same.
I did not win yesterday's Powerball, darn it. I guess I can't have every material thing I can think of.
I don't need a new car, but I am constantly tempted by new car ideas. Fact is, there are other things I choose to spend my money on. Some are necessary expenses (eg dental), some are optional, recreational, and some are charitable. A simple explanation of Marginal Utility.
The idea of retirement from work was a 20th Century invention, growing out of Bismarck's utopian vision of the welfare state. It may turn out to have been a short-lived social phenomenon as people live longer, in better health. It's to the point that many people spend more yours in retirement than they did in their productive years.
My observations are that people (mostly men) tend to feel useless if not emasculated by retirement, and end up finding new challenges. Forced retirement, due to health or being let go for whatever reason, is particularly crushing to the male self-image. A vacation is one thing, but a permanent vacation is not so special for most people. You can only play so much golf, and a wife usually does not want a guy hanging around a house all day.
What's your view? Is retirement a life goal or an ending of some sort? I clearly feel that it is a lousy life goal, because life is only today regardless of age.
I strongly suggest taking math, engineering, or a hard science as far as a kid can go in high school and/or college. If they only use it to read newspapers and magazines, it will train the mind and make a good impression on future employers. If a kid is a "no math creative," then I don't know what to say other than "I'm sorry to hear it."
