I'm not trying to raise your ire. Your perspective is historical and mine is more in the arts and engineering. As such, when I see a question such as "where should the optimum level between government and individual rights lay", I'm thinking of an equation. Not in the characteristic sense that an equation can reliably and predictably take input and give a set output, but in the characteristic sense that a question that asks for such a line in the sand is like asking for another person's equation for society. A general function that informs how they might answer on any number of specific questions.
The specifics, to me, resemble any number of specific outputs, like "5" or "2.75". The trouble with specific answers is, is that it informs little about the principle (or that line in the sand that was the subject of the question) that got you there. "5" is the 'correct' answer to "2*x-3" when "x=4" but also to "4x+5" when "x=0". Same specific answer, two completely different guidelines to get there.
I'll correct myself in that yes, you offer examples. When I'm reading your response, I see both (though they were in separate responses. Railroads and canals may or may not be something two people agree that government should provide, but it doesn't answer the question of their respective 'lines' that got them to the answer.
For one person, railroads should be provided because they think government should be responsible for all 'critical' systems, transportation included. Others arrive at the same conclusion because they think the "optimum level of governmental influence is that seen in the industrializing UK, USA, and German Empire, which blends positive building of viable economics while constricting the monopolies that inevitably result from attempts to have a purely free market.
Even then, if you were to run into someone else who shared that exact wording as their answer to the question, they could still arrive at two different specific interpretations because it is still nebulous enough to generate that kind of dual response when it comes to policy, which, as I noted, is the only kind of specificity that matters in politics, in my estimation.
In summation however, I don't think it's necessarily fair to expect a specific answer to a necessarily (as I see it) abstract question.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 21/1/12 18:52 (UTC)The specifics, to me, resemble any number of specific outputs, like "5" or "2.75". The trouble with specific answers is, is that it informs little about the principle (or that line in the sand that was the subject of the question) that got you there. "5" is the 'correct' answer to "2*x-3" when "x=4" but also to "4x+5" when "x=0". Same specific answer, two completely different guidelines to get there.
I'll correct myself in that yes, you offer examples. When I'm reading your response, I see both (though they were in separate responses. Railroads and canals may or may not be something two people agree that government should provide, but it doesn't answer the question of their respective 'lines' that got them to the answer.
For one person, railroads should be provided because they think government should be responsible for all 'critical' systems, transportation included. Others arrive at the same conclusion because they think the "optimum level of governmental influence is that seen in the industrializing UK, USA, and German Empire, which blends positive building of viable economics while constricting the monopolies that inevitably result from attempts to have a purely free market.
Even then, if you were to run into someone else who shared that exact wording as their answer to the question, they could still arrive at two different specific interpretations because it is still nebulous enough to generate that kind of dual response when it comes to policy, which, as I noted, is the only kind of specificity that matters in politics, in my estimation.
In summation however, I don't think it's necessarily fair to expect a specific answer to a necessarily (as I see it) abstract question.