Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dciem.UUCP
Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt
From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Listen here, Paul V. Torek!!!
Message-ID: <1666@dciem.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 27-Aug-85 17:52:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: dciem.1666
Posted: Tue Aug 27 17:52:13 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 27-Aug-85 20:15:07 EDT
References: <9563@ucbvax.ARPA> <1106@umcp-cs.UUCP> <10166@ucbvax.ARPA> <245@pedsgd.UUCP> <10203@ucbvax.ARPA> <10204@ucbvax.ARPA>
Reply-To: mmt@dciem.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE)
Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada
Lines: 51
Summary: 


>However, as a committed wimp, (excuse me, centrist), you get to 
>survey the intellectual frontier, picking and choosing the ideas you
>like.  So let me put this to you: which of the following doctrines,
>in your opinion, should we draw the most of our ideas from if we're
>going to solve as many problems of the world as possible?
>
>        1) conservativism 
>        2) liberalism
>        3) libertarianism
>        4) populism
>        5) other (*NOT* centrism, please.  Centrism has no ideas of
>                its own)
>
>        I'm looking for a real opinion here: no wimping out by saying
>that they all contribute equally.
>
>--Barry

It is impossible to answer a quantitative question like that in a meaningful
way, but it IS possible to extract a consistent set of basic ideas from
these "isms", while avoiding the unfortunate "isms" of (unwimpy)
extremism and dogmatism that seem so popular on this net.

Conservatism:  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.  (Let sleeping dogs lie).
Liberalism:  Tolerance for, and encouragement of, reasoned disagreement.
Libertarianism:  Appreciation for freedom of the individual who does not
                 encroach on the freedom of others.
Populism: ?? (If I understand it right, it means "Let the mass decide". It
             is what most of our politicians do most of the time.)
Socialism:  Appreciation of the inherent problems of the disadvantaged, and
            a desire to help them overcome those natural disadvantages.
            Recognition of the fact that any social entity IS more than
            just the sum of the individuals in it.

A good approach to political questions can be based on these fundamental
notions.  Trouble happens when one of them is taken as supreme in all cases.
I have argued frequently that libertarian notions are basically word-magic,
but that doesn't mean that the ideals are wrong.  Similarly, I have argued
in favour of Socialist ideas on several occasions, mainly because the net
seems to be so overbalanced in the other direction.  It seems to me that
the (wimpy) Tony Wuersch has a good appreciation for the balance, and that
it in fact takes a good deal more strength to keep one's balance "on the
fence" than to lean on the fence from either side.

I'd rather be seen as a wimp than as a bully, any day.
-- 

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt