Wajoma-ism
11 Mar '11 10:061 editForum stalwart Wajoma tirelessly presents a certain ideological vision here with consistency and sometimes rather disarming straight forwardness - not to mention the odd fizzing zinger.
Some would say that his 'no force, no fraud' principle has an irresistible internally coherent resonance and that those who oppose him invariably reveal themselves to be craven control freaks and busyboddies.
Others would say that Wajoma-ism presents an ideal - a basis, a compass direction - that should at least influence or inform the management of political reality.
Others would perhaps say that his ideology misunderstands the nature of people and the nature of society, while refusing to acknowledge market failure and other inconvenient aspects of the economic mechanism that he argues should be given more or less unrestrained "sovereignty".
Still others would say that he just will not be pinned down on details and he quickly abandons real debate, riffs on absurb little anecdotes, quibbles about semantics, and becomes tetchy when his ideals/principles find themselves wanting beyond the shoot-the-breeze-laboratory, out there in the real world.
Whatever one's view is, I think it is relatively uncontroversial to say that the Forum is a richer, more diverse, more interestingly fractious place thanks to his participation and his distinctive contributions.
Why don't we nut out some of the details. Let's take a little volley of Wajoma principles that came up on a thread a few days ago but got overlooked, and see if he is willing to discuss them closely and in practical terms.
Let's see...
==============================
Originally posted by Wajoma
On Paying Tax - You should pay for the services you use, so if you believe yourself to be in credit you are morally justified in evading taxes.
Question: "So let's say I require less protection from force and fraud than someone else. Does that mean I pay less taxes [according to Wajoma]?"
Originally posted by Wajoma
On Food Safety - The factory should be allowed to produce poison provided they don't claim it is something it is not.
Question: "What if a factory produces poisonous food but doesn't make any claims about it? Should it be allowed to to do that?"
Originally posted by Wajoma
On Pollution - The factory should not be allowed to harm me or my property.
Questions: "Who defines and regulates the "harm"? How much should be spent on protecting us from this kind of harm? What other things do you define as being "harm"?"
=====================================
There are many more things that come up like these, and yet do not get addressed or answered. But this should be enough to get the ball rolling.
Some would say that his 'no force, no fraud' principle has an irresistible internally coherent resonance and that those who oppose him invariably reveal themselves to be craven control freaks and busyboddies.
Others would say that Wajoma-ism presents an ideal - a basis, a compass direction - that should at least influence or inform the management of political reality.
Others would perhaps say that his ideology misunderstands the nature of people and the nature of society, while refusing to acknowledge market failure and other inconvenient aspects of the economic mechanism that he argues should be given more or less unrestrained "sovereignty".
Still others would say that he just will not be pinned down on details and he quickly abandons real debate, riffs on absurb little anecdotes, quibbles about semantics, and becomes tetchy when his ideals/principles find themselves wanting beyond the shoot-the-breeze-laboratory, out there in the real world.
Whatever one's view is, I think it is relatively uncontroversial to say that the Forum is a richer, more diverse, more interestingly fractious place thanks to his participation and his distinctive contributions.
Why don't we nut out some of the details. Let's take a little volley of Wajoma principles that came up on a thread a few days ago but got overlooked, and see if he is willing to discuss them closely and in practical terms.
Let's see...
==============================
Originally posted by Wajoma
On Paying Tax - You should pay for the services you use, so if you believe yourself to be in credit you are morally justified in evading taxes.
Question: "So let's say I require less protection from force and fraud than someone else. Does that mean I pay less taxes [according to Wajoma]?"
Originally posted by Wajoma
On Food Safety - The factory should be allowed to produce poison provided they don't claim it is something it is not.
Question: "What if a factory produces poisonous food but doesn't make any claims about it? Should it be allowed to to do that?"
Originally posted by Wajoma
On Pollution - The factory should not be allowed to harm me or my property.
Questions: "Who defines and regulates the "harm"? How much should be spent on protecting us from this kind of harm? What other things do you define as being "harm"?"
=====================================
There are many more things that come up like these, and yet do not get addressed or answered. But this should be enough to get the ball rolling.
Back to Top