Levi Bard wrote:
>> The only other
>> alternative is a political revolution which will undoubtedly lead to
>> communism or fascism. So, in conclusion, our poor little country here
>> is headed toward one of three things: Anarchy, Communism, or a Facist
>> dictatorship. There. I said it. (Oh, I suppose this would fit better
>> on the "politics" list, huh? How do I get on that, anyway?)
>
> Why do you assume that a revolution will lead to an extreme right or
> extreme left government? The American revolution didn't lead to
> fascism (unless you count the gradual approach we're making now). The
> French revolution didn't lead to fascism or communism. Generally
> after a revolution, the people that instigated it are keen to avoid
> the mess they worked so hard to get out of.
>
Maybe, but maybe we should throw out the word "revolution". A desperate
country has a tendency to listen to guys who sound like they have good
ideas, like that guy who took over Germany in the 30s. ;-} I don't think
people as a group often make good decisions. Witness some of the crappy
presidents we've had in the last 50 years (take your pick, depending on
your political leanings).
Although the founding documents of this country argue extensively
against socialism, surprisingly we've had more and more of it over time.
But I'm inclined to believe that there is a current in this country
against socialism, which is trying to mediate it.
Where will this end up? I dunno. But I have to agree there is waaay too
much business influence in our government, and too much nannyism. I'm
conservative, but I have to say that one of my two beefs with
conservatives is their almost slavish adherence to the desires of big
business. Even conservative pundits, despite all the evidence to the
contrary, act like Microsoft has been unfairly targetted.
Paul
-- Paul M. Foster
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:47:09 EDT