Comments on: Republicans Have No Equipment, Philosophical, That Is

By: John Danforth

John Danforth — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 07:00:55 +0000

Uh, Ilana, I didn’t write the post above. Someone else shares my name or else perhaps there was a software glitch of some kind. [A different email, but same name.]

I believe Tibor is correct; he points out that most Republicans share the same underlying premises of the Democrats and are hypocrites. Basically, they have been boxed in by their logical inconsistency.

Whoever wrote using my name above didn’t get Tibor’s point, I think. But I wholeheartedly agree with whoever it was about Toilet Regulation.

By: Myron Pauli

Myron Pauli — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 08:57:36 +0000

Republicans oppose expansion of the welfare state but only while Democrats are in charge.

Democrats oppose expansion of the warfare state but only while Republicans are in charge.

By: Jack Slater

Jack Slater — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 00:30:11 +0000

I too am unsure as to the ruckus over this article. Mr. Machan is simply stating that the Republican Party’s claim that it adheres to constitutional principles is watertight like a sieve. Their history betrays legitimate arguments for limited government, individual liberty, and respect for private property. It is a pot/kettle issue, plain and simple.

By: Æ

Fri, 26 Feb 2010 20:31:32 +0000

Clearly some missed the point which was very well put. Republicans, over the years, have rationalized away many violations of what they claim to be their principles. A quick survey of the GOP finds nothing but lip service paid to antiquated ideas like: inviolable property rights and absolute freedom of association. They ignore the societal implications of fully recognizing these principles. Choosing with whom you will do business? That’s fine for a restaurant, but not for healthcare. We must help people.
A similar example, to help illustrate, might be: Republicans are equally unable to make a principled case against raising marginal tax rates to say 60%. After all, rates have been higher than that in the past. Moreover, when you agree that it is not immoral to seize a man’s property, then the rest is merely haggling over how much.

By: George Pal

George Pal — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:05:41 +0000

Absent a philosophical peg(leg) to stand on the Republicans might assume a penitent’s pose. But to sell it at this point will require a public admission in front of cameras with the attendant apology, properly and genuinely (practice, practice, practice) emoted. Personally, I still wouldn’t buy it – not until each makes a pilgrimage, in sack cloth and ashes, to the Rotunda for the Charters of Freedom.

By: Tibor Machan

Tibor Machan — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 05:13:12 +0000

I cannot grasp the points raised in connection with my piece. If there is the perception that I have any sympathy at all for socialized medicine or even the FDA, you got me completely wrong. The point of my piece was something in political theory, namely, when one is in an argument it is a bad idea to abandon principle and, of course, Republicans have done so since a long time ago.

By: John Danforth

John Danforth — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 04:47:33 +0000

Tibor’s assessment is absurd! Leaving aside the republican spending during the Bush years (yes they were wrong) what Constitutional basis is there for government control of healthcare? For goodness sake, when a government agency can control how many gallons of water my toilet is allowed to use to flush, then most Americans understand how wrong the path we are on. No matter how noble the cause, government should stay out of healthcare, as one look at the VA system points to the inability of lawyers running hospitals. When the November elections are over, Obama won’t have enough support to pass bubble gum for kids. Only a return to the founders ideals and constitutional law will save this country. America is bankrupt and only a cut in government spending and a return to a free market society will save us now. But to be fair I don’t believe the republicans can do much better, it will take the American people returning to principles of self sacrifice, personal responsibility, and good old-fashioned hard work to maintain the American dream.
Lecturing by a 47 year old President who cannot run a cash register at a 7/11 will not work.

Thanks for your blog and the ability to express myself.
Ask yourself why someone who fails to educate themselves, has three children before the age of 20 should have world class healthcare when they fail to prepare themselves to take care of everyday issues. Families need to look out for each other and quit expecting the government to provide for their every need.

[Hey; this is Tibor’s article, not mine. Not sure why the confusion. It’s good that the article has caused a reaction.–IM]

By: bioqubit

bioqubit — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 04:44:09 +0000

Tibor is just dead wrong on all points. First, the persistence of an overreaching, overregulating government does not in any way legitimize it’s continued existence in whole or part. You don’t justify an agency’s continued existence by its just being there. If anything, that becomes the kind of conservative argument liberals decry. It is like saying that federal regulation is a tradition, and should therefore be allowed to continue. What sense does that make to you liberals?

Instead, with philosophical principles intact, each agency should be measured by a new metric, a what-if metric, if you will. What would society be like if a particular set of regulations never existed? The fun you can have with shaping the assumptions would be a philosopher’s heaven! Cultural history, morals, ethics, even metaphysical arguments would have to be brought into resolve the many thorny issues raised by timid chicken-littles over doing with various government programs. My God, how did the nation EVER get along without a Dept. of Energy, or Education, or the EPA? My goodness. Some 200 years without those useless bodies where we became the most powerful nation on Earth also providing welfare to countless other nations, and now, there is no basis for eliminating them? Pretty lame, Tibor. Pretty lame.

The real battleground Dr. Machan might be alluding to is the Philosophy of Equality. These philosophical hegemons referred to might include racial quotas as a tool of “equality”. Now, there’s a philosophical tour de force conservatives can’t handle: Rank Hypocrisy.

Tibor, you need to go back and rethink this one.