Fuzzy Libertarianism

Jerry Freeman · Post by **Jerry Freeman** » Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:43 pm

Ladies and gentlemen,

We will now observe a minute of silence to mourn the passing of Nano's dear beloved, bloated screed.

Best wishes,
Jerry

(Interesting thread, BTW.)

Post by **Nanohedron** » Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:52 pm

*sobs quietly*

elendil · Post by **elendil** » Thu Feb 12, 2004 7:05 pm

I'd like to return briefly to Charlie's post, while Nano gets his screed back together.

The schools where I live are among the best and wealthiest in the nation. Why are they getting Federal aid? And why are so many school systems continuing to have several employees who are paid just to write grants, and several more to ensure compliance with all the Federal requirements, just to get an average of 7% of their budgets in Federal aid? I think the net return in the vast majority of cases is negative, but I guess it helps employment.

Bingo! I blush to admit this about my misspent youth, but in my law school days, after I'd finished two years and was engaged, I decided to get a job (one that paid better than clerking) and finish up at night. So I got a job at a federal welfare agency. Being young, I entered with a completely open mind. I was in the anti-fraud unit. But it didn't take more than a few weeks to figure out that the real fraud was the program itself. What Charlie neglects to mention are the vast numbers of people at the receiving end: those who process all those grants application, monitor compliance and on and on. That's where the real hit to employment happens.

But now back to the MAIN POINT.

Back in my last post I referred to Hayek's recognition that rule of law is a sine qua non for a market economy (sorry, Bloomie, some things you just have to say in Latin). But that raises the question of: just what is law? I would maintain that law arose from the man's attempt to put himself right with God's cosmos. In other words, law reflects a religious vision: man's place in the world. In the West, that means the Christian world view (Israel, Greece, Jesus, Rome, Barbarians, etc.), as we know it still. But in America, what we largely have is the Enlightenment version of Christianity: gentle Jesus meek and mild, turn that cheek again and again, love is all you need, etc. We can go into the merits of all that some other time. What I'm getting at is this: the Fuzzy Lib vision of a radical philosophical individualism (I'm OK, you're OK, as long as you stay outa my face) ill comports with even the watered down E. version of C. Moreover, having rejected the metaphysical foundations of Christianity and its moral vision, in fact, having rejected all metaphysics, where do Fuzzy Libs get off acting as if everyone will naturally agree with those values? Well, Jim Stone is always here to point out the slippery slope that that kind of inconsistency leads to, but people being what they are, no one will reconsider until a major crackup occurs.

Jerry said:

(Interesting thread, BTW.)

Are those parentheses supposed to indicate when you're speaking through a Hazmat face mask?

Jerry Freeman · Post by **Jerry Freeman** » Thu Feb 12, 2004 7:09 pm

Mffph fumph gomrfeph.

elendil · Post by **elendil** » Thu Feb 12, 2004 7:23 pm

Oh, Greek, eh?

Post by **Nanohedron** » Thu Feb 12, 2004 7:29 pm

elendil wrote:...while Nano gets his screed back together.

Gone, all gone....*rends garment*

Basically it was about my conviction that examining issues and attempting critical thinking in informal social settings has dynamic merit, but now that I've encapsulated it, it seems a bit vapid.

elendil · Post by **elendil** » Thu Feb 12, 2004 7:35 pm

Well, as I said at the start, this is intended as a come as you are thread. The choice of formal (Hazmat with black tie) or informal attire is strictly a personal expression issue. Call it a totally ambiguous social setting. Fuzzy.

Bloomfield · Post by **Bloomfield** » Thu Feb 12, 2004 7:47 pm

Isn't a screed something you fry in a pan, lightly breaded, with butter, and a sprig of parsley?

Bretton · Post by **Bretton** » Thu Feb 12, 2004 7:54 pm

Nope, that would be a char.

chas · Post by **chas** » Thu Feb 12, 2004 8:18 pm

elendil wrote: May I ask a personal question: were you wearing Hazmat when you posted?

No; I'm one of those people with a fear of conflict. It's just not all that often that people will bring up a political point of view that is close to mine (current).

Darwin · Post by **Darwin** » Thu Feb 12, 2004 8:20 pm

I don't understand. Don't librarians have a right to be furry?

DCrom · Post by **DCrom** » Thu Feb 12, 2004 8:26 pm

Darwin wrote:I don't understand. Don't librarians have a right to be furry?

Ook!

Lorenzo · Post by **Lorenzo** » Thu Feb 12, 2004 8:54 pm

I just woke up. I have only read this page of this thread. I was inmediately led to a web site that provided this:

FOG INDEX
How High is Your Fog Index?

Find the average number of words you use per sentence. Take a fair sample of 5 to 8 sentences. Count clearly independent clauses as separate sentences. Example: "By and by I ran; I jumped; I hid." This counts as three sentences.

Calculate the percentage of words that are three syllables or more. Don't count proper names. Don't count verbs that make three syllables or adding -es or -ed.

Add these two figures. Example: if your average number of words per sentence was was 15, and the percentage of words three syllables or more was 12%, you would add 15 and 12 to get 27.

Multiply that sum by 0.4. The resulting number is your Fog Index, a rough measure of how many years of schooling it would take to understand what you have written. In our example, multiplying 27 by 0.4 equals a Fog Index of 10.8. The Bible, Shakespeare, Mark Twain, and TV Guide all have Fog Indexes of about 6. Time, Newsweek, and the Wall St. Journal average about 11. If you find your Index soaring into the teens (or higher!) --- beware --- you've lost most of your audience in the dense fog.

Jerry Freeman · Post by **Jerry Freeman** » Thu Feb 12, 2004 9:08 pm

My father used to write for Sears Roebuck and Co. Any copy that fogged out higher than 8 was automatically rejected.

The version of the fog index he taught me is very similar to the one you've posted, Lorenzo. I believe his version (attributed to Robert Gunning, from the 1950's) also said to treat compound words as two words, independent clauses of compound sentences as separate sentences, and it didn't have the rule about verbs that get an extra syllable from "es" or "ed."

"Short words are best, and the old short words are best of all." --Winston Churchill.

Best wishes,
Jerry

Post by **Nanohedron** » Thu Feb 12, 2004 9:12 pm

Well, that's two votes for putting a sock in it.