tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post3899530282206185187..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: Campaign Finance ReformRichard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-10834725204035844322008-07-02T01:10:00.000-04:002008-07-02T01:10:00.000-04:00Reagan as a neocon? Now that's something I've not...Reagan as a neocon? Now that's something I've not heard before.Clark Goblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03876620613578404474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-77376352087545284842008-06-27T09:07:00.000-04:002008-06-27T09:07:00.000-04:00I know that neoconservatives were able to make cha...I know that neoconservatives were able to make changes over the last few decades (Reagan or even perhaps, <I>lato sensu</I>, Nixon up to now), but they also constituted lots of think tanks. Even libertarians have a very deep voice nowadays (think of the overwhelming Ron Paul internet campaign), for they were able to develop things like Mises Institute and myriads of others. Up to now what is the big "liberal" (or utilitarian, as you call it) option?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-59629085496533998172008-06-26T10:24:00.000-04:002008-06-26T10:24:00.000-04:00Of course, I'm under no delusions about my persona...Of course, I'm under no delusions about my personal political power. But I'm not deliberating about what reform I, personally, should institute. (As you say, I'm obviously not in a position to institute any such reform.) I'm just interested in the theoretical question of what reforms would be best.<BR/><BR/>But on your broader question of efficacy, it seems to me unquestionable that change is possible if enough people (in the right places) support it. (And contributions to the public debate constitute a step -- however modest -- towards this.) Just look at what the neocons and torture apologists accomplished -- change for the worse, no doubt, but America has done (atrocious) things no one would have dreamt possible 8 years ago.Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-60571531559561356452008-06-26T09:04:00.000-04:002008-06-26T09:04:00.000-04:00I guess you won't agree and also might delete this...I guess you won't agree and also might delete this simply because I don't forward the discussion; but my intention is to pose not exactly an objection, but a difficulty which arises from that kind of commentary you just posted.<BR/><BR/>Put simply, isn't naïve to defend that kind of "change"? I know it's theoretical and not actually empirical (though it should be), yet that seems close to proposing everyone or at least big amounts of people should buy bicycles so we can give an answer to Global Warming.<BR/><BR/>Okay. Now I have a question that I'd like you to answer (again, if you may want): do you really think we can change the world, or at least "change" America? Because I really think all your presuppositions involve an epistemic flaw. In fact, contrarily to what Marx said in his eleventh thesis on Feuerbach, philosophers shouldn't try to change the world, since the world just can't be changed (in a big way).<BR/><BR/>And more than that, can there be changes or revolutions (I know you're not talking about this) in modern 21st century societies? Isn't there much more big things than lonely players (like voters)?<BR/><BR/>That is why I used the strong word "naïve", viz. because you don't seem to acknowledge there is very big real politics that won't even give a second of its time to you or to theoretical man like you (or me).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com