From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Thu Jul 07 2005 - 01:12:13 BST
msh before:
Although the Constitution and its amendments (sometimes referred to
as the Bill of Rights ) does not specifically state that we have
the right not to die just because we cannot afford a pacemaker or
dialysis, it's pretty easy to argue that anyone who dies under such
conditions is being deprived of life without the due process of law,
as required by the Fifth Amendment.
platt 7-6-05:
If it's an easy argument, why don't you try to make it.
msh 7-6-05:
I didn't formalize it because it is obvious, or should be. When
someone dies as a result of being refused life-saving treatment, they
are being deprived of life. If the government allows this to happen
without showing legal cause, then the government has deprived
someone of life without the due process of law.
msh before:
Now, on to the next subject. Here's the reply to my example of a
car manufacturer's decision to allow expected injury and death to
occur because it would be more cost effective to do so:
"Freedom doesn't mean ... freedom from the risks of driving an
automobile. Criminal neglect that causes injury to others can be
redressed in courts of tort law."
My example shows deliberate action resulting in a dramatic increase
in the risk of driving an automobile, and then more action to
conceal the heightened risk from consumers. This is certainly
criminal, but way more than simple neglect. The idea that death and
injury and general familial misery resulting from this activity can
be compensated through law suits after the fact is obscene. Anyone
promoting such an idea is operating at the same moral level as the
executive who made the decision in the first place.
platt 7-6-05:
Somehow I don't to look to MSH for guidance on what moral level
someone occupies.
msh 7-6-05:
This is a non-responsive insult devoid of argument or evidence,
platt before:
By owning things I don't deny others the right to own the same
things.
msh in response:
This is simply false. If you own the water or mineral rights to all
the land in your community, how can others in the community own
those rights?
platt:
You got me there. What I had in mind is what most people have in
mind when they think of property -- houses, cars, furniture,
clothes, lawn mowers and such -- the artifacts of intellect.
msh:
Well, I'd say that mineral rights, as well as copyrights, patents,
etc., are the artifacts of intellect. What I'm trying to explore
here is the moral limitation of private ownership. Is there a point
at which the accumulation of individual wealth becomes a threat to
society and is therefore immoral, in accordance with the Metaphysics
of Quality?
Let me paste in, for general consumption and response, the series of
questions I asked someone earlier, in a different thread:
"Can you imagine any point in the accumulation of personal wealth at
which such an accumulation threatens the existence of society? What
if, due to highly concentrated real estate holdings, only 1% of us
were able to afford homes and the rest were required to pay
whatever rent the market will bear, or to live on the street? Would
this be acceptable to you? If not, what percentage would be
acceptable? And what would you propose to do about it if
combinations of extant wealth and power drove the percentage below
your acceptable amount?"
And...
"According to research done by Gilmer and Kronick of UC San Diego,
nearly 25% of US workers under the age of 65 are or will soon be
uninsured for health care because they are unable to pay the high
cost of coverage. Is this an acceptable percentage in your view
of a moral society? If so, what would be unacceptable to you, 30,
50, 75 percent? Or just the percentage that would include you? "
I think getting responses to these questions would go a long way
toward establishing some common ground for discussion.
platt 7-6-05:
I don't think quality of life can be measured in percentages of
wealth or insurance.
msh 7-6-05:
This is non-responsive opinion devoid of argument or evidence.
platt before:
The question I would pose is: Who decides when ownership becomes low
quality?
msh responded:
If one truly embraces the Metaphysics of Quality, the decision is
made by examining the moral hierarchy. Low-quality ownership is
that which leads to the destabilization of society. See my
examples above.
If a society's ownership arrangements are such that large numbers of
people are unable to afford basic services and products-- food,
water, clothing, shelter, life-saving drugs-- then the society may
be destabilized to the point of its own destruction. History is
full of examples of such self-destruction.
platt:
If you're talking about revolutions, they have many causes. Our own
had nothing to do with basic services and products. It had to do
with over taxation by an oppressive government.
msh:
As you suggest, revolutions occur for a variety of sometimes complex
and interconnected reasons. But I think it's safe to say that the
ROOT cause of any popular rebellion is a mass dissatisfaction with a
society's current distribution of wealth, power, and privilege, in
conjunction with the realization that the system will allow no
peaceful redress of such grievances. This applies even to the
American Revolution, though, for clarity, I think we should make a
distinction between colonial rebellions, such as ours, and domestic
revolutions such as in France (1789), Mexico (1910), Russia (1917),
Spain (1939?), Cuba (1959), as well as the Central American armed
struggles of the 1970s and 1980s, right up to the current situation
in Chiapas, Mexico, not to mention what's going on in Afghanistan
and Iraq.
platt 7-6-05:
There's a revolution going on in Afghanistan and Iraq? I thought by
your lights it was an American invasion.
msh 7-6-05:
The invasion is over. The insurrectionists are fighting against the
American occupation, as well as the American-backed government, which
they see as non-representative of their interests, just as the
American colonists in our own Revolutionary War fought British troops
and other representatives of the British government.
msh before:
Even in America, in the 1930's and later in the 60s, we have come
very close to insurrection. In the 30's the unrest was directly
attributable to the disparity between rich and poor. Massive
violence was averted by the domestic policies of the New Deal,
followed by the really huge economic injections of state cash
required by US involvement in WWII.
platt 7-6-5:
Massive violence averted by the New Deal? Talk about unsupported
statements.
msh 7-6-05:
Yes, "massive" was a bad choice of words on my part, suggesting as it
does some sort of large-scale organized rebellion. This was not the
case, though things may very well have gotten to that point had the
government not intervened economically.
In fact, there were many violent encounters between authorities and
desperate people in cities all around the country, with the number
growing each year the Depression wore on. For starters, read
Chapter 15 of Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United
States," and follow up some of the references.
Or "Hammer and Hoe: Alabama Communists During the Great Depression"
by Robin D. G. Kelley
I'm sure your own diligent research into the subject will turn up
many more references.
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com 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 Jul 07 2005 - 01:13:38 BST