Divide, Conquer or Capitulate: Questions that Sting

Argument for Arguments Sake:

When we dream of a world we wish to live in, do we inadvertently dismiss the notion that others may not like it so much? Or do we honestly acknowledge our lack of interest in what another may think of our faux utopia. Man’s dissent is an ageless act, therefore we should not shy away from argument. Thucydides recorded for us how verbose Athenians and Spartans could be when deliberating the subjugation or liberation of one another. The history of the Peloponnesian War leaves us with a remnant of high rhetorical devices. Judges and emissaries were sent to hear grievances or pleas for mercy. In the end, such beautifully winded men saw their countries torn to pieces.

I wish we could teleport a long dead ruler or philosopher, show them the history of how their society broke down and ask them what they think went wrong? Fortunately for us, we have access to the masters of all human deliberations. Plato and Socrates are a Google click away. We can choose whether we want to identify with Darwin or Dr. Gerald Schroeder. Finding a champion for our cause is quite simple. But are we reaching a point in history where we will no longer accept virtue over vice? Will liberal ideology become enforced by court order in the near future? Will religious institutions adopt a bigger tent so that it may blend better with non-theist houses? Are we running towards arguments or running away from them? Yes…

We have become a society of one liners and twitter tailored feedback. Fewer individuals are asking why or how come questions. The process of automatically tuning out opposition is manifest in name dropping. Mention Sarah Palin in a conversation among Liberals and the immediate response is “what an idiot.” Try to discuss Bill Maher with religious conservatives and you quickly hear “religious bigot.” Are these Freudian slips of tongue or conversation copouts? If I mention God, will you turn away and think less of me? If I quote Christopher Hitchens will you dine at my table and regale me by reciting his best articles? I believe we’ve become quite impatient with one another and are losing the art of decent debate. How did freedom create so much narrow focus?

I would like to know what it is about the leftist mentality which gives free pass to decadent statesmen and women, but vilifies successful right of center. I would like to know how they justify the palatial mansions of political figure heads like Al Gore and criticize nearly all the businessmen on Wall St. Or better yet Randi Weingarten who is the American Federation of Teachers Union president, while she makes $428,000 per year from union dues, our children learn less. Personally I don’t care what a successful person of any background makes (except rappers), but don’t point fingers for reform while snatching greater power for yourself. This is an egregious use of political power to play the lowly consumer like a patsy.

“To take only the most characteristic case: when capital and labor in an industry agree on some policy of restriction and thus exploit the consumers, there is usually no difficulty about the division of the spoils in proportion to the former earning or on some similar principle. The loss which is divided between thousands or millions is usually either simply disregarded or quite inadequately considered. If we want to test the usefulness of the principle of “fairness” in deciding the kind of issues which arise in economic planning, we must apply it to some question where the gains and the losses are seen equally clearly.” F. A. Hayek – The Road to Serfdom.