Letter: Here’s an engineering question
Re: “How I went from Marxism to conservatism”
So, Glenn Beaton (6/8 column) prides himself on discovering conservatism as the solution to problems, as his “aim is to solve problems not milk them.” He cites his engineering education followed by law school. In his article, he describes himself as trying to be cool as a “Marxist.” Then, using fallacy of logic techniques he relies on “strawman” dialogue to tear at “social programs” and then gives us his “reason” for failure with a fallacy “get on the band wagon” logic.
Over simplification runs amuck with his diatribe. He made a grandiose observation, “If you subsidize a behavior, it’s natural to get more of it.” And, he was applying it to government “hand-outing” to people.
Here he was skirting the age old problem — while progressives liken to have government spend on people, conservatives like to do it for the few. To describe what he avoids in his type of words, “witness the flow to the uber-wealthy and loss of middle class.”
What he misses is the point that there has to be a balance in social systems just as there is in “natural” systems. Through all of his education, he has been “role playing” for self-image. He is still doing it.
So, he wants to solve problems. I’ll give him a problem involving his engineering and law skills with the following to test his “conservative” skills:
With scientific evidence showing accelerated milestones of climate change, how would you propose a transition from manmade economic systems to maintain quality of life (as a minimum requirement) to transition to balanced system energy sources (with the exception of the sun’s energy) to deter the effects of man’s overuse and squandering of fossil “resources.” That is simply, restore carbon balance.
And to use the vogue, BTW, denial is not an option, and if he were awake in classes, he knows it is fact. For the law portion of his study, it is QED.