From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Thu Jun 30 2005 - 15:19:25 BST
Hi Arlo,
> I'm with you all the way on your outrage about this, but I find it odd you
> place the blame on "liberals" (almost as slick a trick as GM blaming the
> workers' healthcare for sagging profits)
The conservatives on the Supreme Court -- Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist
joined by O'Conner -- dissented from this outrageous decision by the
Court's liberals.
> Indeed, this move was specifically
> designed to provide power (or increase the power) to large capitalist
> corporations, something that has absolutely nothing to do with liberal
> ideology, but has everything to do with seeing what power is behind the
> "democracy" we claim to have.
Since the decision goes against liberal ideology, you have to wonder why
liberals like Dean, Pelosi, Kennedy, Durbin and the like haven't expressed
outrage at the Court's decision. Their silence speaks volumes. When it
comes down to choosing between big government and protecting the little
guy, their silence shows where their loyalties truly lie.
> Placing corporate profit over individual rights is something both
> "conservatives" and "liberals" alike should deplore. But wealth acquisition
> in this country is an unassailable, unquestionable goal (as you yourself
> have evidenced). Who cares about some peon's house if it means someone can
> earn more money and get richer. Sound familiar? Once, long, long ago I
> tried to talk to you about changing the dialogue, so that people have a
> framework by which to criticize "wealth ueber alles", our governing
> philosophy. You ridiculed this, said that I was going to come take
> everyone's freedoms away. You feared a world in which anyone's "right" to
> accumulate wealth was challenged in any way, shape or form.
Wealth is property, and the right to accumulate property should not be
abridged because individual freedom depends on it. Those who are not
allowed to accumulate property are slaves.
> Well, who's taking away the freedoms, Platt? Some Marxist "liberal" who
> advocates being able to say there are more important things than rampant
> wealth acquisition? Or the wealth-at-any-cost corporations who have now
> petitioned for the right to take your property so that they can increase
> their revenue?
I hate to correct you, but it wasn't corporations who petitioned for the
right to take your property and your freedom. It was local governments in
order to increase their tax base, and the courts who gave local
governments permission to do so. Corporations have no power to throw you
in jail for wanting to stay in your home. As I wrote in another post, even
a child knows the difference between those with legal power to create jobs
and revenue and those with the power to arrest, jail, and kill.
> I'd laugh at the irony, were I not so otherwise appalled.
We as conservative and liberal are equally appalled. Now if we could agree
that to take from the rich to give to the poor is just as immoral as
taking from the poor to give to the rich, we'd walk arm and arm to the
promised land of a truly moral society.
Best,
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 30 2005 - 15:28:30 BST