>Bob. Oh my god. Your posts are not only anti-democratic they are also >anti-intellectual. Very dangerous combination. Intellectuals were not
>far behind the democratic forces in their march into Hilter's death
>factories. Sowell's "annointed" ones and Hayek's "fatal conceit" are
>both just fancy ways of saying they don't like the way intelligent
>people make them feel. Its anti-intellectualism in the most carefully
>couched terms, but it still smacks of the envy and resentment you >assign to liberals.
Bob replies:
You are quite right I am as anti-democratic as can be. Democracy is a
biological value--might makes right. The will of the majority. If two
people decide to outvote a third and kill, cook and eat him, then
logically there can be no disagreement--if one believes in democracy. As
a nasty example, Hitler and the Nazis were democratically elected to
office. Once in, they took control of the government. We all know the
results.
My posts are not anti-intellectual. I am a graduate student in Political
Science. I am all for intellectual freedom. I'm pointing out
intellectuals cannot plan and run society. Societies evolve over
hundreds if not thousands of years. For 'intellectuals' to believe they
can impose their values on top of societies--through the biological
force of the State--has been uniformly a disaster.
Thomas Sowell has a Ph.d, teaches college, and has written over a dozen
books. Same with Fredrich von Hayek, who also won a Nobel prize. Both
were Austrian economists, which is the only economics school that takes
people's values into account. Don't you think it's a little odd that the
only economics school that is based on values doesn't believe
intellectuals can plan society, doesn't believe in large government, and
does believe in the free market?
>You seem to assign bad qualities and motives to those who
>disagree with your politics and then hate them for the assigned >qualites and not the disagreements.
Bob replies:
I don't hate anybody and actually assign good motives to social
engineers. However, the road to hell is paved with good intentions--a
very true statement.
>Am I demonizing you or conservatism? No, but I am objecting to the
>irrational demonization of liberalism. "Oh, what horrors have been
>wrought by American liberals! Oh, I'm so opressed by the lowest tax >rate in the industial world! Oh, Bill Clinton has ruined the economy >and our military is a laughing stock!"
Bob replies:
I am not a conservative. I am a classical liberal, now unfortunately
called 'libertaranism.' The mean average tax in the U.S. is 40% of a
person's income.
>Peace and prosperity, baby! That's all we ever want from the government
>and we have it.
Bob replies:
I dare you to walk through any inner-city neighborhood late at night.
Biological values reign.
>for some clarity, originality and intellectual honesty.
Bob replies:
I'm pointing out when government makes laws they should be extremely
careful. They should have a Classical as well as Romantic understanding.
They should carefully, logically imagine all the consequences of the
law, both good and bad. They should look to history and other countries
to what they effects of these laws are. They reason why is because
government is pasting its values on top of people's values. Then you get
what is called the 'law of unintended consequences.' You get the exact
opposite of what you expected. Millions of people lives can be affected.
Here's an example. After thinking about it for a long time, I decided
the best way to deal with drugs is to legalize them. It is a biological
problem best handled by society, not government. As William James wrote,
"The best cure for dipsomania is religiomania." The problem is best
handled by churches, medicine, etc.
Since many people enjoy the biological value of drug use, what
government has done is create a huge black market that has damaged
society. Since it is easier to smuggle something of small volume and
high value (such as a cigarette package of crack) as opposed to
something of low value and high volume (such as a large suitcase of
marijuana) any economist could have predicted the biological crack
epidemic. It's reflected in prices--which is why crack is now much
cheaper than marijuana. It means there's a lot more crack in society
than marijuana.
I've always thought one of the ways to handle this is to legalize coca
leaves, so many who live their lives by biological values could have a
steady high instead of that extremely dangerous up-and-down of crack.
There's an old medical saying--"Small doses stimulate, moderate doses
poison, large doses kill," The government, in it's infinite wisdom, has
turned the small dose of coca leaves into the large dose of crack.
The law of unintended consequences.
>MOQers: I realize it seems as though we are no longer discussing
>Pirsig's MOQ I suppose that technically we are in violation of the
>charter. IMHO, this is where the rubber (MOQ) meets the road >(reality).
>The MOQ works here or it is applicable nowhere.
Bob replies:
How can discussing the proper function of government in order to support
a high-quality society and keep biological values down be in violation?
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