You said “… your use of Germany in the 1920s is questionable. The country had started the decline that led to Hitler’s rise. In fact German culture looked amazingly like the hedonistic seen [scene?] today in the USA. There was no right or wrong, just shades of things and as the song went “everything goes”. As a result the rise of Hitler was conditioned by societal changes leading to a dissolute culture as well as the failure of anyone to take on the better organized bullies (read Nazis). ¶ Look around and see where we are…it is chilling.”

In what way does German hedonism of the 1920s negate my point education is no surety against bigotry. No one disputes German culture in that era was dissolute. But, then, so was American, French and British culture. Yet, only Germany stands accused of genocide, an object lesson to the world and scapegoat for socialists by other means. At the same time, don’t overstress the influence of pre-Nazi decadence on Nazi perversion. The two things were very different. Nazi ‘culture’ was in many ways moralistic and Nazi propaganda stressed family and ‘values’. Whether we like it or not, the Nazis represented a ‘return to morality’. Crime and loose morals in the general population were suppressed even as party operatives found themselves increasingly free to indulge sadistic pleasures. The regime depended on values of family, temperance, education, and rule-of-law to give it legitimacy. Does this mean family, temperance, education, and law are in some wise evil or that excessive moralizing leads to barbarism? Of course not; it just means all things can be subverted to serve evil. Witness the high moral conduct of the present Iranian regime.

Despite this see-saw between hedonism and temperance and the ravages of war, German learning and intellectual output remained high. Germany’s universities continued to attract the best and brightest of Europe, America, and elsewhere. German art was less decadent than the French, American jazz was imported from us, German film was more intellectual than American film, and German philosophers and jurists remained near the forefront of shaping world opinion. German intellectual capacity only suffered as the Nazis came to power, and only because of a mass exodus of its best and brightest. Otherwise, few of Germany’s intellectuals gave much thought to the Nazis until trapped and isolated. German scholarship, science, and industry remained ‘progressive’ and the early Nazi recovery lead to an expectation Germany would lead the way out of the Great Depression.

At the same time, race bigotry was deeply ingrained in the German psyche, and no amount of intellectual rigor seems to have done much to disturb it. Pre-Nazi era Jews were not barred from military service, but could not serve as officers. The highest legal positions were reserved for Germans of good family; ditto for the administrators of state hospitals. Jews were encouraged to contribute to society, and socializing with Jews was in some degree tolerated; but ‘good Germans’ did not generally mix or intermarry with us. So, Germany as an exemplar of intellectual vigor and educational excellence makes my point education is no protection against bigotry. At most, it can help but only if the right things are taught. The liberal attempt at teaching ‘tolerance’ (without proper reference to other valid considerations) only shows us how badly things can still go amiss even when the intention is the very best.

It was Mickey G that suggested the education thing, I did not.

I asked because your comment about confronting bigotry is the way a leftist would phrase it so that government would be the agent (to a leftists, the collective “we” never means you and me, it means government).

Biotry is a failure of interpersonal relationships, a lack of individual maturity, and wisdom. It is not a matter for government to intervene. That’s Why I asked.

Look around and see where we are…it is chilling.

In answer to your #28.

You. Me. Everyone who comes into contact with it. Confronting racism doesn’t mean you have to defeat it or shout it down, just make clear to racists (and everyone else) you want no part of it. Isn’t that what we’ve been doing here by answering biases with their opposite?

I’m sorry but ‘educating our way out of bigotry is a platitude, and if you rely on that while giving an ear to the bigot you only encourage and enable it to grow. The knowledge required isn’t all that great even if momentous. We know instinctively we are as good as the next person, and the person who pretends superiority is a fake; and it takes a kind of ‘re-education’ to make us believe otherwise. Therefore, the bigot does not share in your enlightenment and doesn’t want it. When we laugh at his nasty jokes, nod our heads in feigned agreement, or look away while he curses or kicks the object of his scorn; we become part of the problem which no amount of smug enlightenment can disguise.

It takes courage sometimes to confront the bigot (if a bully) and sometimes not (if just a fool), but it is the courage to confront that matters because otherwise it is the bullies of the world who get to make the final determination. 1920s Germany was a highly enlightened country, one in which bigotry had almost no place. Ten years was all it took to change that completely, even while Germany continued to lead the world in learning. It could have been prevented and was strictly a failure to confront that made that possible.

Regarding post #26 – Precisely. Or, at least, that’s what his handlers thought. I had this conversation with the IC editors a few weeks ago, so I’ll just repeat what I said there. The anonymity is a facade and Obama has a past that’s coming back to bite him. Still, he’s worked very hard to remain an enigma (just as you say) to fool voters into think he’s the vanilla [one size fits all liberal] messiah, the guy with outstretched palms ready to heal our divisions. There is no record of him making enemies while in government and nothing but allies before that. But, what allies! Rezko, Ayers, Wright, Davis, &c.

*** “The [present tax] system”, or “[any] tax system”. There’s a big difference.

“It IS a system of coercion, of force, even if you ‘agree’ with it.”

*** This is rhetoric. In a dictatorship, where people have no voice, taxation is coercion, In a representative republic, where people give the government limited powers to act on the public’s behalf, it is not coercion. People who form a government and empower it to tax for the common defense, to build roads, etc. are not participating in “system of coercion” or “force”. However, it IS coercive to compel taxation for things the people (as expressed through the ballot box) object to. This is why it matters what is being funded through public taxation — such as birth control vs. national defense.

“Your agreement is immaterial, irrelevant and unnecessary. You will be fined and/or put in jail if you do not pay. There is no choice about the matter.”

*** Again, this is sophomoric. In a representative republic people cannot substitute their own wishes and wants for decisions properly made within a constitutional framework that derives its authority from the consent of the people. That is pure anarchy.

Living in a constitutional, representative republic does not mean that every single person must agree with every single decision made by these representatives, or else they are being “coerced”. The tipping point is whether the power of the state is used to enforce decisions made in accordance with the Constitution — which is why the debate over a strict constructionist or activist court is so critical. An activist court that imposes decisions on the people that I happen to agree with is no more valid than an activist court that imposes unwanted decisions on me.

Your quarrel about your personal agreement being “immaterial” ignores the constitutional, representative republic framework within which valid decisions are made, and focuses only on the outcome (whether you personally like the decision or not).

“’tax” money is used to fund education of some people’s kids, so why shouldn’t it be used to fund the non-procreational choice made by other people?”

*** Because in a constitutional representative republic, we elect people to set parameters and limits. If enough people don’t like those decisions, they organize to elect different people. We don’t focus on only the outcomes we personally support, nor do we say ‘if the government funds X, it must therefore fund Y, because to fund one thing means it must/should fund all things.’

AMAI, I’ve read other comments you’ve offered, and you’ve always impressed me as a serious person. But your reasoning here is completely ahistorical, ignores the nature of consent in a democratic social order, substitutes wishes for legitimately arrived-at policies, and ignores our constitution and its policy processes.

You may be right or you may be wrong about overthrowing the present tax system, but your reasoning supports none of your conclusions.

Sorry about the poor quality of my first paragraph. I forgot to proof read it. But the essence is there – “tax” money is used to fund education of some people’s kids, so why shouldn’t it be used to fund the non-procreational choice made by other people? If some things are funded by public money, why not others? Where do you draw the line? Why is it okay to spend “tax money” on daycare, but not on birth control – a decision that is supposed to help lower income people?

Yes, I know there has to be a line somewhere, and my point is that the line should be drawn at the very moment of collecting the money in the first place. Do away with initiation of force altogether, is what I say. And that means doing away with the “tax system” as presently set up. There are other ways to fund PROPER government services, and other ways to fund all the other stuff.

*** This doesn’t make any sense.

“But seriously, using that “taxpayer money” excuse is seriously lame. All of us who work are taxed, and that money is used for a multitude of purposes many of which individually we might disagree with and given the choice would not pay for.”

*** This doesn’t make any sense either.

The issue was that by virtue of an elected official making a policy decision to not use taxpayer money for public funding for birth control, this is somehow “forcing abstinence” on people. There are lots of other things we don’t fund with public money. Just because an elected official, in their capacity as an elected official, doesn’t want to use taxpayer funds doesn’t imply that he/she is “forcing” people to abandon that activity by outlawing that activity. People are free to use their own money to buy condoms and birth control pills, and take personal responsibility to teach morals and values to their children.
Moreover, calling all taxation immoral is, well, ignorant, as is suggesting that there should be no taxes at all, as is stating that “all working people pay taxes”. There are different tax rates, certain levels below which people pay no federal or state taxes at all, income taxes, local taxes, use taxes, sales taxes, government fees, etc.

If this response was meant as satire, I obviously missed it. If it wasn’t, then, well, you get the point.

But seriously, using that “taxpayer money” excuse is seriously lame. All of us who work are taxed, and that money is used for a multitude of purposes many of which individually we might disagree with and given the choice would not pay for.

So, what’s the answer? I think it’s to get rid of the tax system altogether, but there just aren’t enough people who want that much responsibility for their own lives unfortunately.

Outlawing birth control is “forcing abstinence”.

Refusing to fund birth control devices or birth control education with taxpayer money is not “forcing abstinence”.

We need to be clear on the language we use. I don’t believe that Palin’s position is to outlaw condoms and the birth control pill in Alaska and the US. Her position involves the proper limitations on what taxpayer money should or shouldn’t be used for.

We can debate whether her abstinence policy is correct or not, actually works or not, is counter-productive or not. But it’s disingenuous to say that opposing taxpayer funding of birth control is “forcing abstinence” on anyone.

She’s not “forcing her decision [i.e. abstenence]” on anyone. She’s promoting a policy option involving public funds due to her election to office; a decision that can overturned if enough citizens elect someone with an opposite point of view.

This isn’t “force”. It’s the policy result of a democratic electoral process.