From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sun Jul 03 2005 - 15:24:12 BST
MSH wrote:
> On 30 Jun 2005 at 19:20, Platt Holden wrote:
>
> So, you believe there's an incestuous relationship between government
> and private wealth, meaning I presume that there should be no such
> relationship between the two? We agree! Let's work together to get
> the government's iron-fisted hand out of our pocketbooks!
>
> msh:
> This is an attempted Platteral Shift. I agree that there should be
> no relationship between private wealth and government, but don't
> agree that government should keep its hand out of our pocketbooks.
Surprise, surprise.
> Unless you want no government at all, it (government) will need to be
> financed. The problem today is that government is influenced by wealth,
> which means that input of, say, 90% of the citizenry is largely ignored:
>
> JEFFREY H. BIRNBAUM WASHINGTON POST - The number of registered
> lobbyists in Washington has more than doubled since 2000 to more than
> 34,750 while the amount that lobbyists charge their new clients has
> increased by as much as 100 percent. Only a few other businesses have
> enjoyed greater prosperity in an otherwise fitful economy. The lobbying
> boom has been caused by three factors, experts say: rapid growth in
> government, Republican control of both the White House and Congress, and
> wide acceptance among corporations that they need to hire professional
> lobbyists to secure their share of federal benefits.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
> dyn/content/article/2005/06/21/AR20050621
> 01632.html
Doesn't support your claim of "90% of the citizenery is largely ignored."
> msh:
> Now, how many lobbyists do you think mom and dad can afford to hire?
Many Moms and Dads work for and support corporations or other entities
whose associations lobby Congress, including business associations and
labor unions not to mention the NAACP, NOW and AARP among many others.
> platt:
> You bet. The key move here was "The City handed over its power of
> eminent domain." I don't know why you can't see that legalized
> government force is the culprit here.
>
> msh:
> Because government is not the problem. Government influenced by
> wealth is the problem. Government, uninfluenced by wealth, may very
> well have made an entirely different taxing decision regarding
> Pfizer's use of its land, then used the proceeds to pay displaced
> home owners a fair market value and turned the acquired land into
> parks and libraries and public housing. Of course, in reality, this
> would fail because Pfizer would simple shift its development plans to
> another town. But this is where the dreaded idea of "collectivism" might
> come into play. What if every town Pfizer went to had coordinated with New
> London and therefore offered them the same deal and nothing more? I
> realize this is idealistic, but it's not impossible, but will never be
> achieved if competition is forever championed over cooperation.
You're advocating centralized economic planning by government. Does anyone
know what that's called? Take a guess.
> msh before:
> The point Arlo and I have tried to make regarding political
> philosophy is that a simplistic clinging to the red-herring false-
> dichotomy of "Liberals" vs. "Conservative" is a sure way to halt
> meaningful discussion.
>
> platt:
> Nothing false about the difference between liberals and conservatives
> as anyone familiar with the history of the U.S. knows. It's a useful
> generality when discussing politics, just as are the terms Communist,
> Socialist, Fascist, Nazi, Anarchist, etc.
>
> msh:
> Here's where the falsity occurs: Generalizations beneath labels is
> useless and progressively obstructive when the labels are tainted
> beyond recognizabilty by constant distortion of the ideas they
> originally represented. For example, you hear the word "communism"
> and you immediately think of Stalin, though I have pointed out to you
> examples of communal societies that are neither brutal nor totalitarian.
Your examples were so small, so few and so far between as to be
meaningless compared to Russia, China, Cuba, Cambodia, North Vietnam, etc.
> When you hear the word "socialism" you immediately point out that the word
> occurs in the definition of the Nazi party and, therefore, equate it with
> Hitler's brutal totalitarianism when, in fact, elements of socialism are
> prevalent in many non-totalitarian societies, including our own.
See above about "central planning" to understand the meaning of socialism.
> platt:
> Why anyone who turns to government to cure social ills doesn't like
> to be called a "liberal" is a mystery to me.
>
> msh:
> You can call be a liberal all day long. The problem is that, due to
> your Limbaugh-skewed understanding of the word, you'll have no idea
> of what I really believe in. Why not just listen to what I say?
Well, for one thing you've told us you believe in socialistic central
planning (see above) which is commonly characteristic of liberals. I look
forward to what other centralized planning you have in mind to produce a
"moral society."
> As for the first the curing of social ills, business, too, relies on
> government to ease it's problems. I'll provide a nearly endless list of
> examples, though you should already be familiar with them if you've
> digested a fraction of what I've written to this list over that last 14
> months. Why should people who are not in business be excluded from equal
> consideration?
People not in business? Who are they? How do they support themselves?
> msh before:
> Today, particularly in the US, politics is
> about wealth, which means power, which means accumulation of more
> wealth. To call the Supreme Court's decision a "liberal" decision,
> to blame it on "the liberals," is to engage in regressive fantasy.
>
> platt:
> Talk about unsupported opinions!
>
> msh:
> Everything I've written in this thread and any other thread of a
> political nature supports my opinion.
Thanks for the tip. I'll just say that every time you question support for
my opinions.
> platt:
> If you ask me, politics today is about redistribution of wealth from
> the producers to the moochers. It was only a matter of time before
> such redistribution would be turned on its head, as is the case with
> the Supreme Court decision we both abhor.
>
> msh:
> In this country, the redistribution of wealth has been going on for
> more than 200 years, just not in the direction you indicate. If
> wealth is being redistributed from "producers to moochers," how do
> you explain the ever-growing gap between the rich and the poor? The
> last I looked, the wealthiest 1% of the population owns more than 40% of
> the country's wealth.
I know. You want to increase government redistribution from the rich to
poor, don't you? When will it be enough?
> msh before:
> I will be happy to pursue this line of reasoning, and to show the
> connection to the MOQ and the Moral Society. All I ask is that
> divergent opinions be supported by evidence and argument.
>
> platt:
> Forge ahead. Don't let me stop you. I know many will be interested in
> your idea of a Moral Society and how you intend to achieve it while
> taking into account human nature and holding dear the MOQ ideal of
> freedom.
>
> msh:
> I wasn't really asking your permission. I'm asking only that you
> support your opinions with evidence and argument. Keep your eye on
> this thread.
You bet I will!
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 : Sun Jul 03 2005 - 17:07:32 BST