[QUOTE]Originally posted by Plato the Soul Brother:
Doubtless there is a point where one stops listening to someone because otherwise we'd all be spending our lives attempting to reason with angry drunken tramps who ask us for change outside the kebab shop.
Especially the black ones, eh, Margin Walker?Eh, eh?
These notions are based on nothing more than centuries of party political tradition, at root, there is no logical reason why a belief in low taxation has to go with a belief in draconian policing, for example.[/QB}
Actually, quite reasonably, because low taxation tends to lead to decaying public services, which tends to lead to civil unrest, at which point a numerous and well-equipped police force becomes an extremely useful thing to have around.
Also, because low taxation assists the unfettered accumulation of wealth and property by a minority, generally at the expense of those who stand to lose less by a lowering of taxes because they earn less. This, in turn, is liekly to lead to attempts by the latter group to redistribute wealth from the former on an individual level, whether this is through mugging, housebreaking or white-collar crime. Highly-developed law enforcement is therefore required to protect the inalienable right of capitalists to capital.
It may be possible to advance one and not the other, as it possible to be a Conservative without being a homophobe, but the argument that right/left distinctions in politics are meaningless can be historically and socially idle.
[QB]It is far better to be able to discount an opinion because one has successfully argued for its irrelevance than it is to dismiss it out of hand because it pushes the wrong pop-culture buttons.
Which is not by any means what I was advancing, inevitably. My point was rather that if you went to a fly-fishing bulletin board and began a thread on fistfucking, you might get a fairly cool response. Likewise, the remit of the Switch Board is, although I don't have time to go and grab the summaries right now, to discuss a particular form of politics/insurgency - call it what you will.
The question is, should there be an incumbency to argue that irrelevance. If, for example, somebody expresses a point on the desirability of involuntary repatriation, or the Hegemony of Nonce, is there an incumbency to address this point seriously? Is it the kind of mined-out areas politics or philosophy that we are on the Underground to avoid?
And on that point, this is what I'd like to call Haus on. Not out of malice but curiosity: what are your views Haus? You are fond, particularly on threads dealing with gender, pop culture and abstract philosophy, to vilify the views of others, but very rarely do you ever say what you personally believe. So I'm curious. Do your views 'fit in'? It's much harder to be the one who has to state his case, I'm wondering if you're up to it...
My views have repeatedly cropped up, expressed in my reactions to other views, as statements of belief, as discussions of the viabiity of various proposals or practises. I must humbly suggest that you haven't been paying attention. If, on the other hand, you are complaining that there has never been a Haus manifesto, then you are quite right, and I see no particular reason to publish one now, any more than I felt a need to post a "Hey, everyone! I'm back!" thread on the Conversation.
And what do you mean by views? Would you like me to explain everything I think about gender, pop culture and abstract philosophy, or is there another project here? |
