Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!
Someone wrote what I've been trying to communicate about this "you didn't build that" brouhaha:
The basic substantive problem with the Lakoff-Obama argument is that it blurs the distinction between an uncontroversial proposition (government is necessary) and a highly disputed one (government of its current size and scope is necessary and may even be insufficient). The ability to blur such distinction is a useful skill for a politician; the best way to accomplish something controversial is to persuade people you're doing something uncontroversial. [bold added]
I like how he works in Isaac Newton's quote: "If I can see further than others, it is only because I stand on the shoulders of giants."
Some people are getting silly. Without taxpayers, there is no government. Without private industry, there are no taxpayers. (I'm talking about the US system here; you could try to argue that one could have a system in which government owns
everything and no person owns
anything....try arguing that a person doesn't even own the clothes s/he happens currently to be wearing [if any] and see how well
that is received!)
The only way you can try to argue that "government" takes precedence is if you say "mom and dad are the 'first' government, 'ruling' over their children."
Otherwise, fire, domesticated animals, the wheel, stone and bone tools, all take precedence over the first goverment. Some sociologists argure that it was the development of agriculture that made "government" possible; before then we merely had extended family groups. Perhaps some early tribal government started before agriculture, I don't know.
As I noted earlier, what we need is symbiosis; what Obama and his minions seem to want is dominance instead.
