OT: The Last Necessary Column on Politics (By Fred)

[Guest guest]

Hi Ien,

 

> Very funny, and now I finally understand why the word

> " Liberal " has become a pejorative in some circles.

 

It is a bit contrary to the natural desire of mankind to be free in

their decision making processes. Some of the older Europeans understand

this .. but many of the youngsters haven't seen the alternatives.

 

> In my mind the word still has its original meaning of

> " live-and-let-live " , like this:

 

Those who accept state control of how far one stands from the urinal and

how many times they can shake it after use as being live-and-let-live

have read something in it that I missed. ;-)

 

I think less government is the best kind .. and that .. to me .. is the

idea of live-and-let-live.

 

Pretty soon .. those in the EU are going to get upset about another

restriction that will be placed on them .. use of Tea Tree EO. In time

they will have their citizens living like the child in the bubble.

 

> " Sir, I disagree with every word you are saying, but I will defend

> to the death your right to say it. " Voltaire

 

Voltaire .. all philosophers .. are given more attention after they die

than during their lives and the facts become skewed with fantasy from

time to time. Those who use quotes to justify their own positions put

this or that great person on a pedestal but they faithfully avoid use of

any statements that person made that doesn't support their cause.

 

It was probably a lot more difficult to have the mentality to be against

the things Voltaire opposed during the time of his life than we can

imagine today because cruelty, barbarism and tyranny are not norms most

of us have experienced. The avant-garde thinkers like Voltaire and

Kemal Ataturk and many others deserve to be highly regarded if for no

other reason than the fact that they dared to be different at a time

when it was not politically acceptable .. and they went in harm's way.

 

There are some basic historical problems with the above statement in

that Voltaire was not always willing to walk the walk even though he had

talked the talk. He denied authorship of most of the things he wrote,

condemned them along with other folks, and even attended some of the

book burnings and cheered along with everyone else. So I think his

desire to " defend to the death " was more a matter for public consumption

than a path he had chosen to live.

 

It worked .. he was able to avoid going under snakes and continue to

put out rebellious literature .. but he was NOT into martyrdom. ;-)

 

If one wants to be totally objective it could be said that Voltaire was

a hard core Conservative .. or maybe a Libertarian .. because he was

into respect of the rights of the individual rather than the legitimate

powers of those who would control the individual.

 

Voltaire was a rebellious, anti-government type .. which could also be

said of some famous Conservatives. Its the Liberals who want more

government control .. not the Conservatives.

 

But when Voltaire was alive there were no Liberals or Conservatives so

we can only cull what we want to cull from their life in support of a

position today .. in fact, Voltaire was just a rebel with a cause.

 

Voltaire loved the high life .. he was a carouser and a spend thrift and

was slick enough to know who were the right folks to smooch .. and

still he was able to piss off almost everyone who was someone back then.

This leaves me to think he was an opportunist of the greatest magnitude

but lacked the charisma to maintain the momentum after he established

relationships .. which could put him on the left side of the fence. ;-)

 

But while in France he had no idea of what liberty was really all about.

It was after he decided to settle in England that he got the first real

glimpses of human dignity and freedom of choice.

 

> I suspect most people of opposing sides want more or less the same

> things out of life.

 

I think that is pretty much the case when we deal with the basics of

food, shelter, security and such .. though the difference might be when

we get into areas beyond those basic needs .. like self actualization

and maybe more so, self esteem. Its certainly more complicated than

mere protection of life, liberty and property .. or ensuring no harm

comes to us by overprotection from those who claim to know better and

who would have us live in a bubble to ensure our security.

 

Overly protective parents do NO FAVORS for their children .. this holds

true for over protective governments and their citizens.

 

> They just have different ideas about how to go about getting them.

 

True .. and a Liberal can no more help thinking as such than can a

Conservative .. its not within their power to change their mentality. I

didn't know this .. or maybe hadn't given it much thought .. until a few

months ago when I read an article written by medical doctors and some

psychologists who claimed that there were different chemical processes

driving the thinking of the two sides .. and that there were non-verbal

tests that could be conducted to determine how a young person would

function within the political realm in later life. Interesting.

 

> Ien in the Kootenays

 

Y'all keep smiling. :-) Butch http://www.AV-AT.com