re: #336 laZardo

Exactly what I meant by authoritarianism not being specifically partisan. Democrats wanting to impose Can/Euro-style National Health Care while the previous Republican administration was tempted with the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Terms and labels are so over used they’re pointless. Strip them away and look at the person’s positions based on the scale of the rule of law vs. the rule of men. The dichotomy of the visions is presented in terms of black and white, while Dr Sowell points out that in application, it’s really more of a degree or scale still- as we would expect. Humans are complex and so too would be defining each person’s vision.

It has helped me, however, is spotting the point at which two opinions start to split. First it’s important to note that most people are starting from a perspective of wanting to help. It’s all in the conclusions where we disagree, but unless we’re talking about real authoritarianism, it’s important to realize our ideological opponents are not evil.

One of the things I hope will come out of more people looking into that book is a return to a more civil level of political discourse. There will always be conflicts, but much of the current levels of rhetoric are troubling and ugly.