If you argue that men must be governed, do you really have an argument against a kind or type of government?
If you believe that government has a purpose, does that purpose follow from the use of government, or the outcome of governing?
How do you measure the outcome of government? What standards of judgment can you, or would you, use? Can those standard possess any objectivity if the people articulating them developed their morality and conceptual frameworks under government?
How do you compare and define the purpose of government in relation to the intended outcomes? Do you judge government by the disparity of effect between statement of purpose and the reality of outcome? Do you determine the type of government needed according to the purpose, or the intended outcome? How do you know that a social circumstance results from government action, and not instead as a reaction to it?
Crow's Eye: Maintaining a commitment to Pointless Acrimony™ and Hate Filled Invective™! Also available in corvid mischief and traditional sly dog's mistrust.
6 comments:
I dig the template change, but next time, more American flags, okay?
Insubstantial Answers:
No [insert Other of the Week].
Yes.
Maybe.
Ask Again Later.
All Signs Point To Yes.
No.
No.
Maybe.
Yes.
Randall,
I will get those flags, but only if they are (a) dipped entirely in black paint and/or (b) invisible.
Respect,
Jack
Ay-yi-yi... Diogenes, his tub-o'-home and his feral dog pals have left the building!
Leaner, meaner format?
ALSO: not insubstantial at all.
If I can find a way to bring Diogenes back without being all off center and choppy - his tub goes back where it belongs.
Leaner format was just an attempt to use both sides of the page, since I've accumulated 120+ links to places better than my own.
Thanks, Charles.
With apologies to Randall for the ripoff of his brevity without resort to his better good humor, and with apologies to the host on general principle:
1. Sure.
2. Neither, and it's not binary.
3. Why? Depends. Of course, and the question sneers at the answer (bonus for illustrations here).
4. Meaty. No. Both, maybe, not binary. Relies on assumptions not in evidence.
On format: nuh-uh, not going there, respect your reasoning, and, with mortal embarrassment, thanks to Charles for enlightening me that the guy with the dogs wasn't Jesus.
Heh, landru, I always try to get the snark out first so I don't have to pretend I'm smarter than I actually am.
And gotta second charles, not insubstantial questions, but that's a fucking book-length essay in that bunch.
Post a Comment