Sailorcurt likens incrementalism to Allied opposition of Hitler, pointing out that D-Day did not cause the immediate surrender of Nazi Germany. As much as I enjoy reading his opinions, I don't believe this analogy works, and here's why.
The tactics used to achieve the strategy of defeating Germany involved making concessions and decisions due to logistics, resources, manpower, terrain, the weather, battlefield conditions, etc. They did not involve making concessions to Hitler.
And as D-Day was used as an example, we saw there some troop transports going off course and landing on the wrong beachhead.
I'll accept this analogy if someone can show me where Eisenhower sought Nazi permission. Otherwise, it seems the Allied strategy--the unconditional surrender of Axis powers--was pretty much an example of "absolutism."
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
David C., I am so glad you said that. I had intended to make that point, but got sidetracked with life and never got back to it.
Good show.
Even more "absolute" was our two subtle 'messages' sent to Japan...you know, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Seemed to bring the matter to a screeching halt, didn't it?
Although I guess it was somewhat incremental...first Hiroshima, and then Nagasaki.
I don't want to get wrapped around the axle about an analogy I used. It was only an analogy after all which is, by definition, a "Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar" (dictionary.com)[emphasis added]. If the two situations were exactly the same, they wouldn't be "analogous", they would be identical.
With that said:
The tactics used to achieve the strategy of defeating Germany involved making concessions and decisions due to logistics, resources, manpower, terrain, the weather, battlefield conditions, etc. They did not involve making concessions to Hitler.
We cannot be considered to be "giving concessions" to the enemy by taking back things which they already have.
Again, using the analogy, Was Ike "conceding" Paris to Hitler when we "settled" for only taking Normandy on June 7th?
Ike didn't go after Paris because of "logistics, resources, manpower, terrain, the weather, battlefield conditions, etc. " We have analogous (not identical) considerations in the war to take back our gun rights. Had Ike overextended and tried to take too much too fast he faced the real possibility of losing the war...and so do we.
Perhaps we are looking at this the wrong way.
We are placing ourselves in opposing camps and treating each other as the enemy.
If we work together versus belittle each other, perhaps our two approaches can be complementary rather than adversarial?
I elaborate in my full post on the subject here.
sailorcurt, I absolutely am not belittling you--I am discussing the merits of a concept, that is, permitting a right.
Rather than address that, many on the majority side have resorted to dismissing any discussion by characterizing people like me--among some of the accusations--that we are immature, tilting at windmills, non-pragmatic, having temper tantrums, not being helpful, etc.
On top of that, my position is pretty much misrepresented in the article you linked to where he says:
"At one point he likens gun licensing to paying the local thug for the right to drive your own car. In essence, he believes that to even join the discussion is to concede that the other side has a point; or to carry the analogy, to negotiate your driving with the thug is to agree he has the right to stop you from driving in the first place."
Although my senior moments are more frequent these days, I'm pretty sure I never made that analogy...
sailorcurt, we have a fundamental disagreement here, and as I wrote earlier, it's my intention to explore it in depth as I have time. As I also said, I fully expect to be in the minority.
One point of agreement--the terms CAN get in the way--as I tried to illustrate in my response to your D-Day analogy, just because one is an "absolutist" doesn't mean one can not emply incremental tactics. It's just that the ones I mean to illustrate don't require a democratic majority of voters to achieve, and don't cede further powers to the usurpers.
Stay tuned.
David, I didn't mean that EVERYONE engaged in this debate is belittling each other...I haven't felt that anyone engaged in this debate has leveled a personal attack against me or my opinions. But there has been some temper flaring and some belittling going on. I don't like to point fingers and I don't think it's necessary for those who have been following this debate.
You have always been respectful of me and my opinions even on the rare occasion that we have disagreed. This is one of the many things that I respect about you and this discussion has been no different.
The thing is that I agree with you completely on your point: It is completely unacceptable for the government to "permit a right" as you put it.
The only question is the tactics employed to reverse the infringements upon our rights that have already been enacted.
I re-iterate my opinion that there is room in this war for a multi-pronged approach involving both the "absolutist" and "incrementalist" strategies. We should not be arguing amongst ourselves about who is right and who is wrong, but firing for effect at the enemy on ALL fronts.
(Sorry about all the military analogies, 21 years in uniform will do that to you).
SailorCurt - "I re-iterate my opinion that there is room in this war for a multi-pronged approach involving both the "absolutist" and "incrementalist" strategies... but firing for effect at the enemy on ALL fronts.
(Sorry about all the military analogies, 21 years in uniform will do that to you).
Would think there is nothing to be sorry about. And, that 21 years in uniform can come in quite handy. Am convinced we need to gather support among the military and L.E.
They are, after all, sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States from ALL enemies foreign or domestic. Trick is, getting them to see the fact, that those issuing the orders to them are in fact the enemies.
If they can be enlightened and reasoned with. Showing the necessity of ALL citizens to UNITE against the Usurpers. We can have a truly upstanding and free nation once again. Everyone, especially if they have children, wants to be free. Most don't understand, that in the present system, they really are not free. As they are under the arbitrary rule of greedy, selfish cowards.
If military and police can be brought to see the fact. That an armed populace will make their jobs much easier and safer. The'll be under far less stress.
Stress is a very wierd evil, causing people to do and say things they usually wouldn't. Or to excuse the inexcusable. But, it is a prevalent spirit among L.E. and military. And for good cause. The system intended by the framers, of 'checks & balances' was designed to make things less stressful on all, if properly applied. And the military was meant to be kept in check by the militia + backed by the people.
What has been very hard for me to understand is. Are not cowards universally abhorred? Why are their whims being fulfilled by men of supposed valor? It defies logic.
There are numerous examples in history. Where armies have been used to eliminate enemies of the state. And then the state perceives the army as the next threat to it's corrupt rule. And dispenses with it in one way or another. (Stalin, Himmler and the SA, Hitler and his generals, Mao, etc., etc.).
Remember, absolute power, corrupts absolutely. And it is very greedy, not wanting to share with anyone.
Getting these truths expressed to people, in such a way as the TRUTH will be accepted. Is the key to our dilema. Once the TRUTH is accepted, the ball will roll on its own power. And squash all whom oppose.
We must light the fire of resistance in people's minds.
There is room for different tactics. We must never lose sight of the common end aim, however - FULL RESTORATION of OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.
We are starting to get some broader exposure:
http://www.fmnn.com/Analysis/180/4446/2006-04-10.asp?wid=180&nid=4446
Outline our argument clearly, and in the best manner possible!
Post a Comment