Archive talk:Targeted Advocacy

Revision as of 20:39, 10 May 2004 by Firas (talk | contribs) (hierarchy stuff)
Jump to: navigation, search

What this page is about

One thing I realized from reading Lessig's Free Culture is that the argument we're pushing is just common sense. Common sense that appeals to the right and left.

Lessig was talking about Democrats (free speech) and Republicans (get the government out of my face). I figured we can try to make convincing and involved arguments from various philosophical points of view, not just confined to the major players in the American political spectrum: voila, Targeted Advocacy.

(There is no such thing as a 'bad' philosophy. Hence rather than spending time attacking other points of view on this page it's best to add free culture arguments from the perspective we personally support.)

--Firas 22:39, 4 May 2004 (PDT)

Your categories are all screwy

As a libertarian, I'm iffy of being lumped in with "Liberalism", since that has so many different meanings depending on who you talk to. I dunno... your political categories are just weird, I would organize things differently somehow. Check out or for the 2-d "Nolan Chart" they use to categorize political groups and which makes a lot of sense to me. Or Wikipedia:Nolan chart. -- Nelson 07:33, 5 May 2004 (PDT)

Oh, I dunno. Both the libertarians and the far-left want the government to just fade away, don't they? Libertarianism was born of classical liberalism, the notion that we don't need a king, humans can self-govern. Modern liberalism says wait a minute, we can't, let's get the state involved to fix inherent prejudices. The end result for both is less government interventionism. But yeah, I was thinking about I'll see if there's a better way to do this. Anyway, it was late and I'm no political scientist. Anyone's welcome to reorganize it or just make it an alphabetized list free of heirarchy. What I'm interested in is in the end, producing a powerful argument from each point of view, like a collection of essays. However we get there. --Firas 07:52, 5 May 2004 (PDT)
The flatter political hierarchy is a bit better, though it'd be nice if whoever did that would set up an account so we'd know whom to credit/blame.  ;-) I could argue about splitting economics and politics, but as long as the basic angles for each are right that would be splitting hairs. --mjg 12:12, 10 May 2004 (PDT)
'Twas I. The reason I split economics and politics is that I wanted to add things like philosophy (self vs. society) and the whole thing can be listed under deep hierarchies like philosophy > politics > capitalism or we could've had philosophy > whatever : politics > libertarianism : economics > capitalism. It's just that deep heirarchies are hard to reorganize so I chose the latter. I'd encourage anyone who thinks another organization to make sense to try it out--it would be great if this stuff became so long that it spilled over into other pages (like Targeted_Advocacy_Capitalism). Who knows, we could compile it into a digital publication of sorts when it's decent; a way to show that collaborative authoring works. --Firas 13:39, 10 May 2004 (PDT)