With Liberty and Justice for All

"...not because I am blindly patriotic and indifferent to the failure of our society to achieve such lofty goals, but because it expresses a devotion for concepts that I revere."

You remind me here of one of the most irritating tactics in debate with the left (and the stupid). It boils down to "Since I can point to evidence that your concept has been imperfectly achieved (or has been perverted/ watered-down/ manipulated/ unequally appplied/ etc.), it is not a valid position and those who hold the position are naive/ignorant or reasonably painted with the same brush as those who misuse the concept."

For example:
I say: "The Declaration of Independence is clear that people possess rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness/property and agree to limit those rights to enjoy benefits of government like justice, common defense, etc."
My opponent says: "Yes, and Jefferson was a slave owner and the original Constitution codified the ownership of people by other people. So, you and your rich, white, rascist, homophobe buddies believe in that, too?"

It's a strawman, yes, but people who stand up strawmen never accept that defense.

Interestingly, I think this tendency also accounts for the all of the socialists who feel the need to argue that socialism works just great and is a superior system to capitalism, but it's never been truly implemented anywhere. My argument is never that socialism isn't any good because it's never succeeded, but that socialism has never succeeded becaused it is fundamentally flawed (for reasons that you are much better at articulating than I). Nevertheless, opponents want to knock down that strawman to "prove" that socialism is viable. It's irritating to have it happen again and again -- and with people who are, in other regards, pretty smart.

"I will raise taxes to provide universal health care." (or very close to verbatum)


Translation:


..I will take from the haves and give it to the have nots...

Foreign Translation:

..From each, according to his ability, to each, according to his need..

You raise a good point. The "imperfect implementation or flawed champion" argument IS an irritating debating ploy.

And, you also correctly mention the fact that Leftists can use the same defense when trying to prove that Communism/Socialism is still a viable concept despite the demise of the Soviet Union.

It is therefore necessary to examine ideological positions from first principles. While engaging in such 'purist' examination, any contradiction has to be seen as a show stopper.

For example, the fact that Socialism/Communism is inconsistent with freedom - is a show stopper!

Another example: Socialism/Communism is inconsistent with the pursuit of self-interest, a proclivity not just of humans but all living things!

This is another reason why the PRAGMATIC defense of Capitalism isn't sufficient to deal a death blow to Leftists. Conservatives also need to launch a MORAL defense of Capitalism. I attempt such a defense (with mixed success, given the touchy topics of religion and altruism) at my blog (http://voice.townhall.com/) and welcome your input.

Well said. There's another way to view it.

Your definition of Liberty is on target, and there's no such thing as too much liberty.

Not so with Freedom, as too much freedom is anarchy.

Freedom has as an inherent quality a lack of accountablity.

I just posted a new essay at the Island entitled "The Governator, El Presidente, and You", so swing on by if you get a chance.

Sorry that this is off-topic, but I'm referring to the recent exchange with Syler on Stossel's now stale thread re: Bill Gates' speech at Harvard.

Great combination of erudtion and explanation .. like a series of one-two punches.

Excellent posts, Fletch!

Yeah, I've had enough strawmen thrown at me over the years, I could build a version of the Kon-Tiki (if anyone gets THAT reference).

The argument for Marxism goes something like this: "'True' Marxism has never been implemented. If it WERE implemented the way Marx envisioned it would solve all of society's problems and be 'fair' to all. Oh, and it's entirely coincidental that every attempt to implement it over the last century and a half has failed to implement it 'properly'. Of course, we can do what Marx REALLY meant".

That's the "Blecch Girl"...

...with apologies to mad Magazine.

Good point, though I have a couple of anarchist or anarcho-capitalist friends who would quickly object. Your take is right on but the word you're looking for is not "anarchy" but "license" - heedlessness for the precepts of proper behavior; licentiousness (thanks on-line dictionary). Classical liberal thinkers like John Stuart Mill had a lot to say about the difference between that and liberty.

...though I had less luck on the Bruce Bartlett thread on alternative fuels. Ah well, that's the topic of my latest column if it ever arrives in my e-mail from home...

Thanks for the personal invite to your site and your suggestions for the (ongoing) debate. I 've been to visit you before and find your work compelling. I'll look up your moral defense of capitalism articles for further ammunition.