cyn:
1. when you say this:
Quote:
|
Governments have come and gone, and yet the people have stayed. Business have thrived, families grown rich and poor.
|
you seem to be arguing that politics is a matter of policy and everything not involved directly with policy, either at the level of forumlation (regular politcos) or as objects of policy are somehow operating at a level outside of politics.
on what basis do you say that?
2. "people in general" seems to me nothing more or less than a plural version of "the average joe"...who is "the average jpe"--this guy is generally a fiction, a name invoked in order to feign justifiation for what amount to prejudices you hold but which you pretend are developed from observation and reinforced from outside.---but both "people in general" and "the average joe" are non falsifiable categories--they are not rooted in anything beyond an individual's sense that they are smarter than other people--and the categories are basically just a way of personifying these prejudices.
unless you imagine yourself to BE the average joe: in whcih case i expect that you must spend lots of time fielding phonecalss from marketing companies all of whom want nothing more than to isolate something like the average joe--so if you were the average joe, you would quickly find yourself becoming a professional average joe, which would mean that you werent one at all.
i dont think you or i have have the faintest idea what "people in general" think. framing your arguments via this category is goofy because it undermines what you have to say--what is clear in your post is that **you** dont care about whether the bushpeople institute surveillance measures like opening mail etc.---that's fine--but your view is your own and does not come from any coherent "people in general" or "average joe". you dont speak for anyone beyond yourself, really.
3. you note phenomena that have to do with the question of the distribution of wealth and social mobility--but you act as though these are not political matters: on what basis?
4. i assume that you also somehow imagine the basic struggle for economic survivla to be extra political as well (from your post)--that view is wholly absurd.
side note: when you refer to people in general being agreed that bushpolicies are not a problem, how do you position debate in a space like this? tfp is not of "people in general"? then what is it? some curious space wherein the intellectual elite comes to debate? you cannot be serious....
fact is that, without an enormous amount of work that you have not undertaken, and the utility of which would be doubtful from the outset, you cannot position tfp population in a general context....so you have no way of knowing whether the folk who post here represent a cross section of anything--you cant position them inside or outside "people in general"----yet you seem to think you have worked out a way to do it and have no problem with trying to route arguments through this distinction. but there are folk who have posted on this thread who do not agree with these policies: are they therefore not of "the people in general"? the circle your post sets up is interminable--neither you nor i could resolve this matter. but unless you did resolve it--and hundreds of other questions of parallel character, your argument remains circular.