Bob-
On 6/5/99 at 11:20 AM -0500, Bob Wallace wrote:
> When the State takes over family functions, it destroys the family.
The State and the family are both on the level of society and I believe
families to be more dynamic, so I agree that is better for the family to be
in charge of raising children and other family functions. I don't know
that the family gets destroyed, that seems like a statement looking for an
argument...
> Just because Intellect is dominant over Society (in other words, ideas
> are what ultimately runs society--as James Burnham put it, "ideas have
> consequences) does not mean intellectuals should run society. Since the
> advent of the 'professional intellectual' about 200 years ago their
> ideas have been an overwhelming castatrophe. Almost everyone of them
> has been liberal/leftist/Marxist.
While this opinion of yours is interesting, in my opinion it goes directly
against Pirsig's conception of the MOQ and, frankly, it reeks of McCarthy's
witch hunts for "intellectuals." You've found a class of people you dislike
and you are turning them into the boogeyman, another phenomenon mentioned
in Lila.
Of course, Pirsig is an "intellectual" so what do you expect. Then again,
I think you might be one too..<G>. How, by the way, if all intellectuals
are liberal/leftist/Marxist, could the right have survived this long?
I think you should look over page 347 of Lila where he talks about the
*last* liberal intellectual. You might want to reread that whole chapter
since he provides some insight which seems to contrast your current opinion
of society and intellectuals. No, I don't doubt you read the book, I just
know too many conservative intellectuals to agree with your statements.
> They support biological values that are against society.
Pirsig says, on page 357 of Lila:
"A culture that supports the dominance of social values over biological
values is an absolutely superior culture to one that does not..."
While I disagree with you about all liberals supporting biology over
society (and I don't think you've even tried to substantiate your point), I
think we both agree with the above statement. However, the sentence
concludes:
"..., and a culture that supports the dominance of intellectual values over
social values is absolutely superior culture to one that does not."
This supports the notion that intellectual values should be in charge of
society and, if intellectual values are found most often in intellectuals,
shouldn't intellectuals be in charge? The MOQ would seem to say so...
>>Liberals are convinced that the solution is to ban guns,
> Bob replies:
> Won't do a bit of good. It's a violation of people's property rights and
> leaves them unarmed against biological criminals, who, by definition,
> don't follows laws.
I have yet to hear a liberal politician seriously advocate banning
guns...that's a media play which the pro-gun lobby like to use to cast the
discussion in a "loss of rights" framework only to appeal to the rank and
file of the left. Why do this? Well, they can't maintain free (in terms of
regulations) access to guns without help from the
liberal/leftist/pinko/Communists, that's why.
This may shock you, but drugs are not banned either...they are just
intensively regulated (by conservatives one could argue). The liberals and
conservatives who are tired of *easy access* to guns or drugs, are
advocating further *regulation* of guns or drugs. With regard to guns,
this is also constitutional...isn't the phrase "well-regulated" in that
second amendment some place?
As for its effect on *planned* violence, I agree with you. It won't help a
bit. Criminals will always get guns, including those kids at Columbine. In
fact, increasing the regulation of guns will increase the number of
criminals because more normally law-abiding citizens will break this law
which they see as unjust. This is just like regulating drugs which
increased the number of criminals artificially in the 1930s basically to
give the FBI something to do.
However, for "road rage," "kids playing with guns," etc, it will help.
Pardon my lapse into fake math, but if x guns result in y accidental
shootings, having x divided by two should also have y divided by 2, no?
> Bob replies:
> Much of the problem is massive taxation--again, a violation of property
> rights. In a family, almost the whole of a woman's salary is for taxes.
First, according to the MOQ, taxation is justified. The only individual
rights greater than those of a society are intellectual ones, not
"property" ones. I don't have the page handy, but I seem to remember Pirsig
explaining how taxation is moral according to the MOQ in Lila itself.
Anyone have the quote or am I mistaken?
As for "woman's salary" I'd like to say "bzzzzzz." It is the *lesser*
salary. In my particular case (my wife is a doctor), the lesser salary is
mine.
Also, the lesser salary goes towards:
daycare (the most expensive slice in the recent study I read, btw)
a second car/insurance/etc
a more expensive work wardrobe
increased food expenses (lunches out, etc)
taxes
If the whole salary went to taxes, the other items in that list would make
a second job a "negative" cash option. Americans don't do such things
easily. The only way you can make that claim is to have the lesser salary
pay all of the taxes for the higher, which is just a number gimmick.
> Parents are forced to let tv and video games be the babysitter because
> they're too busy working to support the exploiting classes who have
> gained control of the State--witness the over a billion dollars that
> trial lawyers are getting in their assault against the tobacco
> companies. Every cent of it is taxpayer's money.
Forced? We're not forced and we work two jobs. People are encouraged by
the culture to have more and work more outside the home, they are not
forced. And the majority of that money does not go to taxes.
Exploiting classes? Excuse me? If 30% of the society is starving to death
(biological problem), it is a moral imperative for the society to fix the
problem. If a fix becomes corrupted, it is society's responsibility to
remove the fix. One such fix is welfare. It's not a good mechanism, but it
is there. BTW, wasn't it Eisenhower that started welfare (money for
nothing)? FDR had work programs (oh my, money for *work*) and I enjoy the
national parks because of them. Seems to me this is one issue where the old
new left knew what it was doing and the old new right messed it up after
the fact.
> Bob replies:
> I lived next door to two 'welfare mothers.' One had four kids by
> different fathers, never had a job, and got more money for every kid she
> had.
Agreed. I think the current welfare system is a mistake. I just don't
blame it on the left...<G>. The "right" has been in power for the far
majority of the latter 20th century in America.
For the record, I prefer a flat tax, one synched to the poverty line.
People who earn under that amount would receive money from the government,
but it would not be enough to raise them above that line unless they
actually worked and had some income. Government subsidized jobs (public
works, etc) would also help (money for work again).
>>limits on the number of children per woman (yes, per woman
>
> Bob replies:
> This is what the Communist Chinese do. They force women to get
> abortions. They strap them down and abort them.
She meant limits on the number of children the state would subsidize, not
the number they would allow. I think you might agree with that based on
your note above. Regardless, society can regulate biology according to the
MOQ. One could argue that society has a vested interest in limiting the
size of the population through birth control while also increasing the
quality of that population through better education, etc. The Natural Law
essay at moq.org talks about the birth control/abortion issue to some
degree, btw.
> Bop replies:
> Intellectually and morally superior 'intellectuals" who believe they
> have the arrogant right to shovel people around like lumps of coals
> without taking their values into effect.
Whether you like it or not, society regulates the individual regardless of
his particular values. It is not the "intellectual left" doing it alone, it
is the "right" and the "left", the "intellectual" and the
"non-intellectual," it is society. Society does what is best for society
and if they make a mistake, the society dies. Nazi Germany certainly
shoveled people around like lumps of coals, was controlled by the "right,"
and generally seemed to have it in for "intellectuals" and "Marxists" and
"socialists" and the "left."
The point is simple...as I understand the MOQ, governments are constructs
of society used to help regulate biology in the form of individuals. It
doesn't matter if the government is "right" or "left," it is still there to
control the individual regardless of any of the individual's values which
might differ from the State. This sometimes results in horrible
consequences if static wins over a better dynamic or a dynamic quality
fails to "latch." In cases like the brujo, the dynamic won, had a good
latch, and society survived.
Sorry for the second ramble...I might be done for the day. Also, most of
Bob's post and my reply seem political to me...would it have been better to
reply to him offlist?
Cheers,
Mark
________________________________________________________________________
Mark Brooks <mark@epiphanous.org> <http://www.epiphanous.org/>
How do you know who wrote this? <http://www.epiphanous.org/mark/pgp/>
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:04 BST