Hello all.
I promise to be more concise and topical today, really.
On 6/6/99 at 10:32 AM -0500, drose wrote:
> I don't think what Mary was driving at was "authoritarian" so much as
> "totalitarian." I believe she was advocating giving over children to the
> state.
This is a complete straw man...or straw woman...well, let's say straw
person...<G>.
All of Mary's posts on this subject have been in terms of *empowering*
families to raise their children as opposed to settling for daycare. She
never once suggested "giving over children to the state."
She suggested that, through artificial economic means, the state should
*encourage* one parent in each couple to stay at home and parent the
couple's children. She noted that society needs to equate the importance of
parenting with the importance of protecting the state militarily. They are
both, after all, necessary for the state to survive. Equating the
importance of two items does not imply the need to use the same model and
mechanisms for both.
I see now that Struan has made these same observations, so I'll break this
off here. Like Struan, if I have misrepresented Mary's position, I
apologize. Also, I agree that education in an organized manner is necessary
and I am not truly advocating "home schooling"...that is a different topic
for a different day.
> We don't live in a democracy, thank you. I desire not to live in one.
Why?
I was skimming this page today:
http://www.quantonics.com/Level_5_QTO_MoQ_Moral_Codes.html
and they hold democracy to be a good example of intellectual patterns over
social patterns.
> I am not fooled. To be anti-government in a representative republic is
> to be anti-democratic. If you will recall, democracy - rule by the
> majority - is no more workable, more repressive and ultimately just as
> tyrannical as anything socialism has produced.
Again, why? Feel free to respond off list if this is getting too far off
topic.
> That is why I refer to an "individualist/statist" split. I hold that the
> individual is primary and the State is antithetical to liberty.
How does that fit in with the MOQ? Isn't the individual, a pattern of
biology in some contexts, subservient to the state, a pattern of society,
in some contexts? Also, isn't the state, a pattern of society, subservient
to the individual, a pattern of intellect in some contexts, in some
contexts? Wow, that'll be hard to read!
Let me try again. Society is supposed to be free of biological control and
this is achieved through regulation *of* the members of society. Intellect
is supposed to be free of societal control and that is achieved through
regulation *by* the members of society.
So, if you are either individualist or statist, aren't you denying some
basic premises of the MOQ? The correct answer, it seems to me, is that in
some things the individual should be supreme and in others the state should
be.
So, you ask: Are you an individualist or a statist?
I answer: Yes.
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