Has Mr. Frum never heard of systems thinking problem-solving? You start with your vision of the end goal, then you set your plans with that vision in mind.

I believe Mr. Frum really doesn’t understand when Mr. Obama notes that the founders set the framework for a more perfect union, never perfect, but always allowing for improvements to be made.

Not exactly. He was talking about policies that would try to reverse decades of government favoritism for “sprawling soulless suburbs” and their colossal macro-consequences, like petroleum dependence, air pollution, climate change, separation of city dwellers from green areas, etc. Instead of addressing the merits, he tossed out a hackneyed and insulting shibboleth about liberals fondness for coercion, and so far he hasn’t had the grace to withdraw it.

Breaching zoning laws is in fact illegal, you may be surprised to learn…

Nope.

That might appear to be the case because you, willfully or not, misunderstood slocum when he said that he didn’t like policies intended to coerce people into changing their ways. I’ll go out on a limb and say that he is perfectly fine with people being coerced in all sorts of ways (e.g. crime prevention) and that he was talking about a specific subset of coercion, namely policies that are intended to micro-manage our lives. You then go on to criticize him for being only against some kinds of coercion, not others which as a general criticism is ludicrous. The individual cases where coercion is deemed adequate or not might well be disputed and in the course of this someone’s general political stance might be criticized. But that’s not what you’re doing, rather you are trying to construct some contradiction that is supposed to be inherent in being for some types of coercion and not others. That contradiction is simply not there in this case, since slocums stance is coherent, even if you don’t happen to like it. If developers do something illegal, I’m sure he would want them to be punished according to the law. Had he said something like the police should keep tabs on the black folk, but leave the white people alone, such a criticism would have been justified, but he didn’t. Now, I’ll leave it at that, get back to me when you feel the urge.

This is the most inspiring thing I’ve read in a long time. Whatever else we all disagree about, I hope at least we can agree that rhythm, clarity, and grace of language are eternal, all else ephemeral.

These are fighting words, my friend. Epithets at twenty paces?

slocum@124: Libertarians don’t oppose the idea of a safety net

No, any more than liberals oppose the idea of personal freedom. Discrimination, please.

I don’t get the impression that people who think America just plain sucks are shy about saying so and would necessarily lie to surveyors.

Virgil, you can square my comments about nationalism with my comments about absolutist crap very easily – assume that it is possible for a conservative to be either a nationalist OR a nationalist of the absolutist crappist strain, and assume that I don’t question the nationalism of the former and reject the absolutism of the latter. I presume you agree that Hitler would be of the latter strain of thought, while Churchill or Chamberlain might be the former? Could we even extend the former to include Barack Obama, who by my lights (as an Australian) is conservative?

I would be amused to see your “independent pathway” to American exceptionalism. Is it the late abandonment of slavery, the genocide, the guns or the lack of nationalised healthcare which makes America great? (Or do you mean “exceptional” in its denatured sense of “a very long way away from anyone who can stomp us”?)

Novakant I agree with you about smoking, but given the practicalities of licensing an establishment where the staff are going to get cancer, and the huge costs to everyone else of you smoking (i.e. healthcare costs) I don’t think we are going to get very far with a licensing proposal, so really I was just ribbing you. (Like you I believe people should have the right to destroy their own health and have society pay for it – actually I don’t know if you agree with that part – because boxing, drinking alcohol, driving and having unsafe sex are fun). Nonetheless I think smoking is a disgusting habit and I really hope you don’t throw your butts away in the street like 99% of your kind.

Believe it or not I even know what my point is, namely that criticizing someone for favouring coercion in certain cases while rejecting coercion in others is rather baseless. Unless you are an anarchist (in which case you are proposing an unworkable model of society), which by your own admission you are not.

And while it’s a bit unclear what your position in this regard actually is, I’m pretty certain that you want people coerced into not harming others, paying their taxes and all sorts of other things that benefit society.

If being able to walk into any restaurant in town and order all sorts of delectables along with a wonderful assortment of beverages means house arrest, yes I am.