Cafe Hayek - Latest Comments in Reasonable Ideology

Re: Reasonable Ideology

Crusader — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 15:06:19 -0000

vikingvista - they would bring Federal troops in and spark a Civil War.

Re: Reasonable Ideology

vikingvista — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 10:45:24 -0000

Crusader--

Interesting thought experiment. What do you think Obama & Congress would do if, say, Alaska, or Oklahoma, announced that it would begin formal proceedings to peacefully secede from the Union?

Re: Reasonable Ideology

Crusader — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 09:54:10 -0000

In the end the clash of my reasonable ideology against muirduck's self-proclaimed "reasonable" ideology is a civil war in America. There is no other way. Probably will result in a 10-20% population reduction.

Re: Reasonable Ideology

Sam Grove — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:00:05 -0000

How about:

reasonable ideologue

rational ideology

Re: Reasonable Ideology

vidyohs — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:31:17 -0000

Lee,

Re: your post.

"And common ground is not necessary for someone who is reasonable.

Posted by: Lee Kelly | Mar 20, 2009 10:06:50 AM"

"and in that little tidbit of wisdom is all the ideological conflicts of the ages."

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 20, 2009 9:19:33 AM

See what I mean?

What is reasonable? Lee, Muirduck, Randy, Brotio, Gil, STrUmPiT et.al.?

Re: Reasonable Ideology

Lee Kelly — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 06:06:50 -0000

The word 'reasonable' means 'able of reason'. Ideologies are not reasonable or unreasonable, people are, or at least we hope they are. And common ground is not necessary for someone who is reasonable.

Re: Reasonable Ideology

John — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 06:00:55 -0000

I certainly cannot compromise with any ideology that forces me to pay for something that I don't want.

Re: Reasonable Ideology

vidyohs — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 05:19:33 -0000

Mario Rizzo makes a good point. However his point hinges on the word reasonable.

My reasonable ideology might not be your reasonable ideology, and in that little tidbit of wisdom is all the ideological conflicts of the ages.

Unless we can find some way to agree on what is a "reasonable" ideology we are doomed to continue that conflict.

I need to do no more than point out the ideological difference between muirduck and vidyohs.

There is no mutually acceptable ground and never will be because in the case of both there is no room for compromise.

Vidyohs sees nothing to gain in a compromise with socialism, if there is no gain, then there is no compromise; because, both parties have to benefit in some way in order to have a compromise. Socialism has nothing to benefit a T-Brazorian.

I am confident that muirduck would echo my sentiments, but from the exact opposite compass point.