On Intellectual Laziness

[souderwan]

Intellectual growth should commence at birth and cease only at death
                                                                                               -Albert Einstein

I’ve never been a fan of punditry and I resent the appeal of the mercenary analysts that saturate our media. I’m not about to go into a diatribe about the famed left-

Comments

[mustafear]

Well, looks like I'm late to this party. You covered all the bases as usual. Well spoken.

More later, maybe, when I've had time to chew on this. I'd say 'I agree!' except then you are thinking for me. :P

[anonymous]

i hope you know that ive send carbon copies of this post to ann coulter, pat buchanan, and ted kennedy.

you'll be sorry, kiddo. just u wait

- starPWNER

(america or gtfo)

[cenestpasunewok]

Interesting... my thoughts are still in the oven, and may have to simmer for a while - but I'm glad to have found this blog!

'ewok

[wyns]

That's the most rational political definition I've ever read. Great job :)

[irregardless]

There is nothing inherently wrong with the perspective of either philosophy and if people were intellectually honest with each other (or themselves, for that matter), we’d probably have a lot more people being able to “disagree without being disagreeable”, as Sen. Obama likes to say.Except that 'disagreeing' in matters of public policy is not like disagreeing on what flavor of ice cream tastes best or what make of car we should buy. When a small-government libertarian/conservative to the right of me disagrees with me about what government ought to do, he merely leaves undone what I think should be done (and usually leaves me free to pursue whatever it is by private-sector means). When a big-government liberal to the left of me disagrees with me about what government ought to do, he holds a gun to my head to compel my cooperation via paying taxes & obeying his laws

[souderwan]

the underlying philosophies you're talking about aren't really compatible with amicably agreeing to disagree, since all non-anarchist stances unavoidably endorse the use of violent force to obtain compliance from those who don't agree.But "compliance" is not obtainable in any real democracy without consent (at least by the representatives). A "big government Liberal" who disagrees with you about what government ought to do can't hold a gun to your head to compel your cooperation unless he has the power of the government behind him. No Liberal or Conservative can legally compel acceptance without laws