Howdy Ed!
(I used to live in Texas)
Rog(previously):
I was also a bit perturbed by Ed, who greatly agrees with much or all of
Jeremy's comments and can't avoid blaming the deaths -- at least to an
extent -- on "the intellectuals of current society."
ED:
No, you still don't get it. I do not blame the deaths, in some extent or any
extent, on "the intellectuals of current society." I blame the terrorists.
The crimes, as expressed previously in my concurrence with what Sam had
noted, "are unjustifiable."
I do agree with Jeremy on certain items. (Although, I'd prefer to set forth
the degree to which this is the case.) In his 9/14 post he wrote, "Because
Americans were victimized on Tuesday does not mean that America is innocent.
I'm not saying that these people died for a just cause, it was murder pure
and simple. But these actions are a reflection of growing anti-American
sentimentalism in the world as a whole and within America itself. Anyone
thinking why?"
....(snip).... One primary reason (not the only
one) for the negative sentiment is the gross imblances that I had referred
to in my prior post.
ROG:
Back to my metaphor, you clearly do not approve of rape. I see this. But
you do blame the woman for bringing it on. That is what I said, and that is
clearly what you repeat above.
ED:
Rog may defend these gross imbalances in the name of freedom, but I believe
the opposite. Scott Peck in The Road Less Traveled reminds us, "The
difficulty we have in accepting responsibility for our behavior lies in the
desire to avoid the pain of the consequences of that behavior." We can
defend the 'pursuit of freedom' justly, but without accepting responsibility
for the resultant gross imbalances we are inadvertently fueling
anti-American sentiment. And this can effectively reduce our freedom.
As I had noted, I agree with Rog's condition for the pursuit, "AS LONG AS
THEY DON'T HURT OTHERS." But I think, Rog, and Platt who believes with other
scientists that environmental concerns are overblown, you have one hell of a
gross-imbalance-platypus to contend with in defense of your pursuit of
freedom ideas, and America has a nationalistic blindness to the pain of
accepting responsibility for these gross-imbalances.
ROG:
The success of modern society is fueled to a great extent by the unlimited
freedom to succeed as long as it stays within the prescribed bounds (the rule
of law). I agree that gross imbalances can foster very unhealthy power
imbalances that can lead to exploitation. I also agree that the weak must be
protected from the strong and that some of the wealth of the rich can and
should be used as a social safety net for all.
However, I don't think the problem is success, it is failure. My goal -- and
one that America in general tends to try to practice -- is to export recipes
for others to create similar wealth, freedom, health etc. (However, I am
sure this would just be used by forum members to prove our arrogance. We can
either keep fishing ourselves and be more successful than others and get
their resentment, or we can teach them to fish and get accused of arrogance.
Such is life.)
A fundamental point that you seem to ignore is that wealth, health,
technology and knowledge are not (primarily) re-apportioned, they are
CREATED. The solution to imbalance is to show others how to create it. If
they choose to not follow the recipe, and they very well might not, they
better be prepared to live with the results though. You seem to preach
equality by bringing everyone down to a common denominator. Platt and I
preach bringing everyone up.
Please clarify the platypus, and whether it is ours or a problem of that
silly collectivist theory. (That has been buried, to paraphrase GWB , in an
unmarked grave of discarded lies. But perhaps you missed the obituary?)
As for the environment, I assure you that I am extremely concerned with
environmental destruction and depletion. This must be solved. I reject
economic suppression as a solution, of course. Lets not go off on that
tangent though.
ED:
My argument is not that economic inequality is justification for mass murder
(not that you necessarily suggested mine was), but that gross imbalances are
not necessary to the pursuit of freedom and may actually serve to reduce it.
It is certainly not our role to succumb to blackmail, but rather to promote
greater balance. I don't think we can easily ignore this issue.
Why not reduce these tremendous imbalances? It may be a quality activity
that promotes greater freedom.
ROG:
I agree if it means teaching others how to fish. What do YOU MEAN?
Rog
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 - 16:01:31 BST