Talk of democracy has little content when big business rules the life of the country through its control of the means of production, exchange, the press and other means of publicity, propaganda and communication.

John Dewey

And even Andy Jackson knew, "There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses."

The poor object to being governed badly, while the rich object to being governed at all.

G. K. Chesterton

Svensker:

The thing that always amuses me (wrong verb, but

A difficult question. The peril of infinite regression is our constant companion, dressed all in black with his hand on our shoulder like the puppeteer in Bunraku. That's why the self-satisfied have no patience for philosophy, reducing it their minds to a meaningless nuisance (when it isn't an outright threat.)

On the old UT, I once described myself as a left pragmatist, which is far from being a utilitarian. Definitions of the greatest good for the greatest number are indeed vulnerable to the sophist's jiu-jitsu, as well as the juggling of means and ends. That's why we'd be well-advised to cultivate a conscience, consult it frequently, and observe the effect on others of what we do. It doesn't hurt, either, to take the opinions of our peers into consideration, especially when we they don't favor us.

Will this prevent people, even women themselves, from sincerely believing that society is better off if women are kept barefoot, pregnant, out of the sight of men, and out of public affairs? Probably not, at the present moment, except in certain countries.

Then again, even if, as pessimists insist, there's not such a thing as progress, there's most certainly a dialectic, in which we can all take an active part if we so desire.

It was the pragmatism of John Dewey that Bucky1 is calling "socialism".

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dewey-political/#3

Your point is well taken but one must consider the times. Even before Dewey's death in 1952, the same crackpots that populate the halls of George Mason University today were doing this:

http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2004/SO/BR/gill.htm

Seeing communists wherever they look. It's positively pathological.

Today I used caution. Grumpily,
I stayed at work long past quitting time
because workmen were working with torches and solder
in the office next mine, but mine was involved, too.

They had removed the HVAC radiator cover
for better access to ill-placed valves.

And they made jokes! about fires... both starting them and not.

So, I couldn't go home until they did.

Meanwhile, at my other half's place of employment,
similar goings on were happening,
before he got there,
and all out of order.

The heat from torches set off the sprinkler system
that flooded an equipment room... very quickly,
and then started a fire with an electrical arc
from a computer standing ankle-deep in water.

My day started off well, though, with blueberries from the farmers' market
baked in some oatmeal with a well-beaten Omega-3-enriched egg.

And a very tiny dash of demerara sugar. I thought of you.

Apparently, I really don't over-react or worry too much. Things do happen.

Perhaps there is a political parallel in all of that.

bebop-o:

More questions for sysprog.

If I don't hear from you I'll consider sysprog said, "Eat a hard shelled rotten oyster, or a crab, or a rotten peanut, or a cashew, or politely whispered: "ShadDup, You darn Pup (I keep getting a virus Pup?), Shoo you, Scram dammit." Then I'll stop my worry over it.

Sysprog said, "I'd NOT worry about it." okay.

I know the F.B.I. seized files from the office of Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La) as part of a bribery investigation, and House Republicans leaders erupted. Why?

[ . . . ] Tuesday, June 26, 2007 01:16 PM

I don't know why. It's even possible the Republicans just may have accidentally been correct, even if their motives were bad. And the FBI may have been wrong, even if their motives were good. Due process is funny that way. The due process issue is that the spirit and letter of the "Speech & Debate" clause should be interpreted very broadly. My opinion on that is unpopular.

The more popular opinion is to agree with Barney Frank, who does sound persuasive when he argues that it was a proper warrant, but I think the FBI should have avoided trouble and looked for a different way to nab Rep. Jefferson, and that seems to be what they ended up doing anyway.

And can you imagine how big a stink there'd have been, if not Bush and Cheney, but a couple of Dems, had intervened and stopped the FBI from looking at the stuff from Rep. Jefferson's office? Limbaugh would be bouncing in his chair and howling like a hungry beagle. Not now, though, cause the "cover-up" was done by his guys.

As far as stink goes, I wonder if Rep. Jefferson's thawed greenbacks ended up smelling as fishy as some of the Katrina houses? My son did some volunteer work near Rep. Jefferson's district and my son told me about how he cleaned out Katrina houses where thawed oysters, thawed crawdads and thawed shrimp had been rotting for months in fridges and freezers. He lost his appetite for seafood. Maybe if cash stinks enough, a Congressman will lose his appetite for it? Just kidding.

Another standard of American justice under George W. Bush: Human Bargaining Chips by Joanne Mariner @

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/mariner/20070626.html

Re: ...why phenomena like the Emancipation Proclamation, women's suffrage, the expanded interpretation of the commerce clause, the Fair Labor Standards and Civil Rights Acts, etc. should be seen not as usurpations, but as adaptations to changed circumstance, and entirely in the spirit of the Constitution...

I have this idea that part of what has gone wrong is that the very improvements WT lists above were made possible by arguing for the from a utilitarian basis (e.g., John Stuart Mill re: women's rights). I freely admit that I have not read even an iota of what you two have-- that's why I'm asking for your thoughts.

Utilitarianism may have been intended to present the best case, the benefits of making changes, and how they would be for the greater good. But, it seems like it is a short slip on a banana peel (I read that somewhere here tonight) from "benefiting the greater good" to the "ends justifying the means." Which is why we now find ourselves hanging onto the end of a fraying and greasy rope.

Surely, there is some other school of thought that, instead of weighing good v bad, or justfying ends v means, just considers what is actually best in a situation. Inherently. Again, inherently, people of color and women should be able to vote, learn to read, go to school, have credit, own property, etc. etc.

Isn't that what our (white, Christian, male) founders (bless their Other-omitting little hearts) really meant by "inalienable?"

Anyway, this is why I have very little patience for what I perceive to be "utilitarian" arguments. If they can be argued one way, they can as easily be argued another. Just look at the plight of most women in the Middle East, etc.

Obviously, it is for the greater good of their culture that women be kept under wraps-- not to mention for their own good.