Sacrifice

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

Hitler, Stalin, etc. all provided the same public "goods".

I am short on time (be back in 45min or so), so hopefully this quote will make my point clear(er):

"It's a major conceptual breakthrough for anyone, of any political stripe, to realize that advocating central state power for their own purposes is tantamount to advocating that same power in the hands of the enemy."

And I would hardly call Hitler and Stalin simple men, either. Look, if they didn't do some things their population regarded as positive, they wouldn't have been able to hold onto power.

Great quote-- I wonder if the current Republicans are thinking of this quote since the Dems, using the rules the Republicans themselves set up during the past 6 years, are keeping the Republicans out of a lot of decision-making for the first 100 hours of the new Congress. Centralizing power and stifling dissent works great as long as you're the one in power... but the pendalum will usually swing, and a person or a party can find himself or itself hoisted on its own petard.

What the hell is a petard, by the way?

[GenuineRisk]

"Pendulum," not "pendalum." Frack me.

[GenuineRisk]

On the theme of sacrifice, here's Christopher Hitchens on Saddam's execution:

http://www.slate.com/id/2156776

In the interests of full disclosure, I can't stand Christopher Hitchens, whom I long considered an apologist for the Bush regime. Which is not to say he doesn't say some smart things. It's a good piece.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

I think it is "retard" and it is Bush in this case.

Bababooyee, you fracking crack me up (twice in one day, and on two different boards, no less!). That's as funny as an email I saw on ballon-juice.com, where someone said about the topic being discussed, "You can find my sympathy between sh*t and syphillis in the dictionary."

[GenuineRisk]

To the main point of your post though, I think you're right that power in too few hands is dangerous, regardless of the economic system the country follows. One of the reasons the increase in power of the Executive Branch should be a big cause for concern here- no matter to which party the man (or someday, woman) in the White House belongs. Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown, and all that.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

To the main point of your post though, I think you're right that power in too few hands is dangerous, regardless of the economic system the country follows. One of the reasons the increase in power of the Executive Branch should be a big cause for concern here- no matter to which party the man (or someday, woman) in the White House belongs. Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown, and all that.

GR,
Please forgive me for only hearing one side of this debate, yours. The other is on "ignore".
I'll just say that it's really not about an economic system. Many have succeeded that didn't hold to ours. Look at China, India...on and on.
The thing that makes our great country a model to the rest of the world is not our economic system, but rather the "balance of powers" as shown in our Constitution. Alas, when one of those branches usurps the powers of the others, that balance no longer exists. It is cause for concern.
It is not only seen by those that believe in the wisdom of the founders, but also by all those outside of our nation, to which we hold a standard, something worthy of trust, something worth sacrificing lives to uphold.
DTS