Wim and all,
Wim wrote:
> Do I understand rightly (from your 2/7 9:48 -0700 post to Marco) that
> your "real libertarianism" implies that the US should not deploy its
> army outside its own borders at all and that a "really libertarian"
> population would boycott US arms manufacturers when they export arms
> to anyone using them for the wrong cause?
Yes and No. The Libertarian position is to not deploy the armed forces
of the state outisde the state. No Kuwait, no Bosnia, no Vietnam.
However a American Libertarian population would probably have some of the
population on both sides of the boycott. Some for, some against.
Wim wrote:
> You think that bad-mouthing your country is enough to keep your
> government from unashamedly supporting the economic interests of
> Americans who already consume far more than their fair share of
> earth's resources?
Hmmm... "Fair share"? Who should determine waht is fair?
That's a loaded question and one that I can't answer. I think
bad-mouthing my is better than not bad-mouthing them and
better than an armed uprising.
Wim wrote:
> I am curious how your story went on. Did those
> officers grant you your freedom? Did you go on testing your freedom of
> opinion, for instance by setting fire to one of those
> stars-and-stripes flags whose provocative presence irritates so many
> people all over the world or to a copy of the Declaration of
> Independence?
No they did not. I was forced to take the soviet flag down so I put
an American flag with Jim Morrison's face on it wearing a crown of
thorns which they grumbled a lot about but did not make me remove. I
would not burn a US flag and certainly not a copy of the Declaration
of Independence. Then again I wouldn't burn a Soviet flag either.
Provocative presence? Irrates? Yeah I know the world hates the US so
much that much of it feels compelled to move here and hate us in house.
Wim wrote:
> We also agree on the basic right and duty of self preservation. We
> disagree on the translation of that right into an individual right to
> possess and use arms. Only when you identify solely with a biological
> pattern of value (your living body) "self preservation" translates
> directly into "defending your self with arms" (when other means of
> defence are exhausted). To the extent that you identify with a social
> pattern of value (a society) averting your death isn't necessary for
> self preservation. ....
> No single human being is essential for social and intellectual
> evolution. The harm done to a society's or a system-of-ideas' ability
> to grow and change by killing a single human is infinitesimal compared
> to the static social or intellectual quality of the whole (as is the
> potential harm done by letting him live, for that matter).
I have no idea where you are going with all this. You sound to me to
be arguing for the right of societies to kill members as you don't
seem to think this causes no lasting ill effects, while renoucing
violence as a means to defend oneself in all but... What circumstances?
I confess I have no idea when you would consider violence justified.
Wim wrote:
> My most compelling reason for renouncing capital punishment and the right
> to kill in self-defence is that it bars me from experiencing Dynamic
> Quality.
?
Wim wrote:
> However infinitesimally small my individual contribution to the
> migration of static patterns of value towards Dynamic Quality may be
> by renouncing capital punishment and the right to kill in self
> defence, contributing to the Cause of DQ is in the end the only way to
> give Meaning to my life. I have to do what I can and accept it's only
> a drop in the ocean.
I am completely lost. What does DQ have to do with non-violence?
Sorry I don't follow your line of reasoning.
Wim wrote:
> I fully agree with you that "peace and order exist in society not
> primarily because of laws but because most people agree on how to
> behave." and I have no idea what gives you the impression that I am
> "labouring under the illusion that actions of the state are always a
> step forward in social patterns of evolution." I happen to consider
> societies dominated by government to be only on the second tier of
> four in social development. (I will elaborate on this in a later
> post.)
I would be curious to hear this elaboration.
Wim wrote:
> Indeed "if you're not willing to stand up for your rights, then it's
> certain that after a while you won't have any", but people like M.K.
> Gandhi proved that there are better ways of standing up for your
> rights than armed violence, even if they still may have to be adapted
> for use against more totalitarian and dictatorial regimes than British
> colonial rule.
Adapted? Buried in mass graves is perhaps an 'adaptation'.
Wim wrote:
> I still hold that "whether non-violence would succeed against
> totalitarian dictators is not a valid argument" for your right to
> individually possess and use arms. You think US government could
> change overnight into a totalitarian dictatorship? Seems hardly likely
> to me, whatever idiots you elect. That gives you ample time to stem
> the tide in other ways before you might need your rifle to kill the
> dictator.
I don't have any illusions about the idiots we elect but unless you are
prepared to debate the specific merits of these idiots please tread lightly.
I wonder how you would have refered to these idiots in 1944?
Wim wrote:
> As my time-travelling machine is temporarily being repaired, I cannot
> prove to your satisfaction that "Socrates would not be remembered for
> establishing the independence of intellectual patterns from their
> social origins (Lila ch. 22) had he defended with arms his right to
> brainwash the youth of his day with Ratio". He apparently thought so,
> however, and a certain Jesus of N. thought so even more explicitly,
> asking him followers not to use their swords when he was arrested. So
> I am in good company when I hold that accepting capital punishment was
> for Socrates the better and/or the more effective (the same according
> to MoQ!) way of standing for that right.
I think very little of Jesus. If that's the company you wish to be in then
you are welcome to it.
Wim wrote:
> I can however explain to you why I did not use my time-travelling
> machine when it was still functioning to kill A. Hitler. I "didn't on
> the" exact "grounds" you mention: "that killing is wrong",
> implying -given MoQ, which equates morality/wrong with
> reality/ineffective- that according to me killing A. Hitler would not
> have averted WWII. ...
I think you side stepped the question but you do have a point. Still
there were individuals who knew what Hitler intended and did nothing.
I do not absolve them of guilt. In this case however you sound you
would be siding with them.
Wim wrote:
> By the way, one of the things for which A. Hitler was rightly
> condemned, was having the arrogance to decide that certain kinds of
> human beings -Jews, gypsies, homo-sexuals, mentally handicapped- could
> better be removed from the gene pool of his Aryan race. Your
> argumentation for capital punishment of serial killers (29/6
> 21:26 -0700) comes dangerously close.
I think it quite easy to differentiate between a serial killer caught
in the act and a homosexual.
Wim wrote:
> Would you recommend removing every "sick cookie" from the gene pool,
> i.e. everyone that is only a biological pattern and/or has only
> sick thoughts (if any) in your assessment?
Do they go around killing people? Are we in a situation where
incarcerating them would be very difficult? I don't have a
"sick cookie" thought detector but I can tell dead people from
living ones.
Wim wrote:
> In your 3/7 16:04 -0700 post to Rasheed you tell us "that the founding
> fathers expressly stated the citizenry should be allowed to own the
> same kind of firearms the Army was equipped with" in order to enable
> them to beat the Army "if the Army ever tried to overthrow the State
> or if the State became a tyranny". Do you think the founding fathers
> would or should have legitimised private ownership of nuclear,
> biological and chemical weapons if they had already existed?
Well the founding fathers specifically refer to rifles and muskets and
not cannon or ships of war which did exist at the time so, So No, I do
not think inidividuals should be allowed to poccess nuclear weapons.
Chemical and biological weapons present more of a challenge.
Wim wrote:
> I did and do intend to provoke you into giving away the static
> patterns of value you identify with in order to establish (together
> with you) whether they are of the highest available quality. If I
> interpret your reply rightly, a "real libertarian" does his utmost to
> identify exclusively with his biological patterns of value (his living
> body) and the idea that individual freedom should be maximised (not
> with any social pattern of value and not with any intellectual pattern
> of value that does not include this idea).
The MoQ suscribes to Empiricism. I think that experience has shown that
unleasing the inidividuals and their perception of Dynamic Quality is
superior to giving away control to all too often distant and unconnected
static social pattern (eg the State). The State as the formal expression
of social patterns of quality has a very poor history of acting as a
moralizing force. (And if you desire citiations from european history I
would be happy to provide them.) People are moral, States seldom are.
Usually your neighbors won't confiscate your cow, unless the State tells
them it's the thing to do.
We obviously have completely different views about the meanings of
social and intellectual patterns. I see my biological pattern as
neccessary to supporting my intellectual pattern. I am an
intellectual pattern of quality that requires a physical form to
support it. Exactly like the computer analogy in Lila. Turn off
the computer and where do the intellectual patterns it contains go?
They cease to exist. In fact I identify so strongly with my particular
intellectual pattern (and assume others do as well) that I support
the use of violence in defense of it. I see my principle social loyalty to
a static pattern of social quality that defends the individuals right
to determine for themselves what has quality.
You might be interested to note that in order to join the Libertarian
Party one is required to sign an oath that reads as follows:
"I hereby certify that I do not believe in nor advocate the initiation
of force as a means of acheiving social or political goals."
I signed this oath willingly and intend to keep it.
Wim wrote:
> As a test whether you don't identify with any social pattern of value:
> if the discussions on this list would make you concede that some
> aspect of your libertarianism which you covered on TV is false, would
> you tell that on TV (risking your reputation and/or your programme's
> ratings) or would you fuzz around, change to another subject or just
> go on telling them something you now know to be false?
I am assistant director on the TV show in question and do not decide
all aspects of programming. I am currently working on developing my own
show which if I was convinced I had misinformed my viewers would air a
retraction. There is no dishonor in being in error, there is only
dishonor in refusining to be in error.
Wim wrote:
> I am now going to provoke you even further (as the trick with the
> coward and the backward country didn't work well enough).
When your on top everybody throws stones at you. My purpose in
corresponding with you is not to defend the USA foreign or domestic
policy, much of which I disagree with. Yet you seem to desire me
to take up this position. I won't do it. I think perhaps it is easy
for you to see the US as some monolithic structure because you have
little direct experience of it and the problems the populations of the
US faces. Trying to catagorize Americans is like trying to herd cats.
Wim wrote:
> What if I told you that maximising individual freedom is a very bad start
for
> any intellectual pattern of value as "freedom" is essentially an empty
> idea? Freedom means the absence of other static patterns of value.
IMHO So far your agruments seem blurly and poorly thought out what
difference would one more make? Nonsense! Freedom means the ability to
choose from a range of static patterns not neccessarily the absence of one,
although some people might choose that position. If your not for Freedom
what are you Oppession?
Wim wrote:
> Only deterrence will keep people from using their weapons, but when
> they start making agreements to limit anyone's freedom to own the more
> destructive kinds of weapons, someone will rightly experience this
> agreement as a static pattern he/she will want to be free of. Who/what
> will guarantee the balance of power that prevents mafia structures to
> come into being?
Wim wrote:
> I may have a right to own a machine gun, but if have
> only the money to buy a simple rifle, my neighbour who does have a
> machine gun can simply disarm me and all other neighbours without
> machine guns and force us to act as his mafia gang.
Easily? Try playing more paint-ball sports Wim. Your going to force
a bunch of other guys with guns to do your bidding because you've a
bigger gun? Maybe once, but everybody has to sleep sometime.
Wim wrote:
> Please explain to me why "really applied" libertarianism would not be
> the surest and quickest way to hell.
You can look at examples of applied Libertarian economic theories in Hong
Kong. Did it lead to an economic meltdown there? No. What about the
opposite (Authoritarian) economic theories, have they produced states that
prosper or states that meltdown? Try North Korea. Central planning has
really worked out well for them. Libertarian personal theories aren't
really that different than what we have now. Of course we would stop the
War on Drugs and government controled education. I think we can
reasonably believe that a Libertarian state would not be a complete
catastrophe. On the other hand an Authoritarian state might well be.
I doubt Americans would ever actually elect a fully Libertarian federal
government, and I do mean ever. We're too diverse.
Wim wrote:
> The other side of the picture of America's contribution of "freedom
> from hierarchy" to the world, is that America is forcing upon the
> world an addiction to material wealth, to boundless maximising of
> biological value, that will kill humanity if it goes unchecked,
> leaving only pre-social and pre-intellectual humanoids. America is
> forcing this "contribution" on the world by appealing to the
> quintessential social drive in other peoples: wealth gives Americans
> status, so we want it too! America may have obliterated social
> hierarchy internally to a large degree, but it has instituted a global
> hierarchy instead, with itself in the apex. Hence this unholy pride in
> your Great Nation Americans often exhibit.
I don't think that my wealth causes your poverty or vice versa.
Yeah the US is so far at the apex that's why we got kicked off the UN
human rights committee. Seems to me like you would dislike whomever
was at the apex. This sounds more like a diatribe than a reasoned
argument. You make some pretty big predictions without little support.
Humanoids? Really. Got any good scientific data? No? Sounds like
scare tactics mascarading as science.
Wim wrote:
> ... Please leave us some of our most valued static
> patterns of value and spare us the risks of a freedom that kills even
> new static patterns of value the moment they are created by Dynamic
> Quality, for we fear the degenerate static patterns of value that we
> would have to fall back on. We know them all too good! ...
This has got to be the poorest defense of why you would accept a
State controlled by Nazi's i've ever heard. I think "I was only
following orders." was better.
I apologize for leaving so much of your post out but it was quite large.
Sincerely,
Glen
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:24 BST