I reproduce the comment I just left on the blog in his article Gonzalo Olmos fallacies of the new conservatism, the current Director of the Office of Board Relations with the Principality of Asturias, under the Ministry of Presidency, Justice and Equality of the Government of Asturias and is a good person, and do not say because I have studied at the San Ignacio de Oviedo. I hope that, at least, make you think and if you do you like better.
For starters, I get out of the script set by the system and that nobody has dared to discuss even a fallacy. Sometimes it reminds me of Matrix. So I contest the meaning given to the political terms left and right anyone who enters the site of the RAE will not fit at all with the real and original meanings. That left, according to the RAE:
And right:
The truth that is left is the professed reformist ideas in general, not conservative. And what does that mean "conservative"? According to the RAE: 2. adj. Such a person, party, government, etc..: Especially favorable to continuity in the forms of collective life and adverse abrupt or radical changes. U. tcs
Exposed this, you can argue that the party seeking to change the current system may be conservative? Not at all, because How can you be both conservative and reformist? Sounds like these dialectical tricks aimed at keeping up appearances, as the case of the Institutional Revolutionary Party. And so the speeches and arguments based as opposed to a concept frowned upon or vilified. For the article, the author's unconscious opposition wanted to emphasize a particular idea or proposal that is based on "conservative", which is a contradiction in terms because you can not appeal to reform and that in turn is a conservative idea. Therefore, the author, who is considered left wing, has internalized, as happens to many other people, handled some concepts whose origin comes from the development of propaganda aimed at the layers of the population illiterate. Recall that in the early twentieth century, the illiteracy rate in Spain was very high. And some feared certain parties, such as the PSOE, the English Second Republic, that the implications of extending universal suffrage to vote for women was that women, very devout them voted him to tell the priest, and therefore voted against women's suffrage, for all that we can appropriate the figure of Clara Campoamor, who was MP for the Radical Party Lerroux Alexander, who chairs the Government suffered the coup attempt of 1934.
Finally, leaving aside the historical paragraphs, The main reason is that society by labeling left and right, is none other than having a fixed vote fishery, based on the viscera, the family vote. So it does not matter honestly take any educational reform, aimed at citizens to think for themselves. They want to stay in power, occupying carpet. After all what has become a profession. So the librepensantes are uncomfortable for the English parties are excluded because they fear the devices to people who can make shadows.
Finally, to the reasons for my objection, I go to the merits and, as an introduction, I assume the Aristotelian concept that virtue is in the middle. Unable to destroy the State, nor the state should occupy all usurping the private aspects of people. The state should not intervene where it is not necessary. Many times, a state drowning too intrusive, if not kill private initiative, preventing its most enterprising citizens can both enhance and enrich the country they belong to or reside. Nor should completely dismantle the state because it is always necessary instruments of control or a mechanism to ensure equal opportunity. Recall that the state is not an end in itself, but sometimes confused objectives. Because when you start with the confusion, mixing just the interests particular the government of the day with the general interests, and hence, in the absence of arguments, it is intended patrimonializar the entire society.
For starters, I get out of the script set by the system and that nobody has dared to discuss even a fallacy. Sometimes it reminds me of Matrix. So I contest the meaning given to the political terms left and right anyone who enters the site of the RAE will not fit at all with the real and original meanings. That left, according to the RAE:
10. (For the position occupied by the components in the assemblies of the French Revolution). f. In the parliamentary assemblies, all the representatives of non-conservative or centrist parties.
11. f. Group of people who profess to reformist ideas, in general, not conservative.
And right:
25. (For the position occupied by the components in the assemblies of the French Revolution). f. In parliamentary assemblies, representatives of the conservative parties.
26. f. Group of people who profess conservative ideas.
The truth that is left is the professed reformist ideas in general, not conservative. And what does that mean "conservative"? According to the RAE: 2. adj. Such a person, party, government, etc..: Especially favorable to continuity in the forms of collective life and adverse abrupt or radical changes. U. tcs
Exposed this, you can argue that the party seeking to change the current system may be conservative? Not at all, because How can you be both conservative and reformist? Sounds like these dialectical tricks aimed at keeping up appearances, as the case of the Institutional Revolutionary Party. And so the speeches and arguments based as opposed to a concept frowned upon or vilified. For the article, the author's unconscious opposition wanted to emphasize a particular idea or proposal that is based on "conservative", which is a contradiction in terms because you can not appeal to reform and that in turn is a conservative idea. Therefore, the author, who is considered left wing, has internalized, as happens to many other people, handled some concepts whose origin comes from the development of propaganda aimed at the layers of the population illiterate. Recall that in the early twentieth century, the illiteracy rate in Spain was very high. And some feared certain parties, such as the PSOE, the English Second Republic, that the implications of extending universal suffrage to vote for women was that women, very devout them voted him to tell the priest, and therefore voted against women's suffrage, for all that we can appropriate the figure of Clara Campoamor, who was MP for the Radical Party Lerroux Alexander, who chairs the Government suffered the coup attempt of 1934.
Finally, leaving aside the historical paragraphs, The main reason is that society by labeling left and right, is none other than having a fixed vote fishery, based on the viscera, the family vote. So it does not matter honestly take any educational reform, aimed at citizens to think for themselves. They want to stay in power, occupying carpet. After all what has become a profession. So the librepensantes are uncomfortable for the English parties are excluded because they fear the devices to people who can make shadows.
Finally, to the reasons for my objection, I go to the merits and, as an introduction, I assume the Aristotelian concept that virtue is in the middle. Unable to destroy the State, nor the state should occupy all usurping the private aspects of people. The state should not intervene where it is not necessary. Many times, a state drowning too intrusive, if not kill private initiative, preventing its most enterprising citizens can both enhance and enrich the country they belong to or reside. Nor should completely dismantle the state because it is always necessary instruments of control or a mechanism to ensure equal opportunity. Recall that the state is not an end in itself, but sometimes confused objectives. Because when you start with the confusion, mixing just the interests particular the government of the day with the general interests, and hence, in the absence of arguments, it is intended patrimonializar the entire society.
0 comments:
Post a Comment