From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Thu Jul 07 2005 - 23:21:50 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.
platt 7-7-05:
If your argument had value, the Supreme Court would have required the
federal government to provide a national health service,
msh 7-7-05:
This is an appeal to authority, not an analysis of my argument.
Besides, you're saying that any argument not endorsed by the Supreme
Court is without value. Does this mean you are convinced that the
recent decision in Kelso v New London was the right decision? That
the argument on behalf of Kelso was valueless? How about Roe v Wade?
msh before:
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 7-7-05:
No. It's answering you assertions by denying the relevancy (not to
mention the reliability) of your statistical measurements.
msh 7-7-05:
I've made no assertions. I've asked for a substantive answer to a
few easily understandable hypothetical questions exploring the
acceptable limits of ownership. A refusal to answer is evidence of
an unwillingness to engage in meaningful discussion.
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.
platt 7-7-05:
Of course. I should have known that this would be the view of
Chomsky's Chum. The terrorists that this morning bombed London are
the moral equivalent to the fighters at Valley Forge.
msh 7-7-05:
I've made no judgement of "moral equivalence," as I don't even know
the meaning of the term. What I'm saying is that the people fighting
against the American occupation of Iraq believe that their actions
are morally justified, just as did American colonists in our own
Revolutionary War. We can discuss whether or not these beliefs are
warranted in either case, but your talk of some vaporous "moral
equivalence" does nothing but allow you to avoid honest discussion.
Which is really the point, is it not?
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.
platt 7-7-05:
Right. You might try reading "FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New
Deal Prolonged the Great Depression."
msh 7-7-05:
Let me preface my comments here with saying that all of this talk
about the Great Depression is secondary to my original point, which
was that great disparities between wealth, privilage, and power, if
unresolved internally, leads to violent unrest which may destabilize
and destroy a society. Therefore, according to the Metaphysics of
Quality, any actions which permit or encourage such disparities are
immoral. This is the idea I'm hoping to explore in this thread.
As for your book recommendation, thanks. The fact that the author,
Jim Powell, is a distinguished fellow at the Cato Institute (which
has been leading the charge against Social Security, one of the many
enduring legacies of FDR's New Deal) leads me to suspect motives
ulterior in the bashing of a President elected to office four times.
Nevertheless...
I've ordered the book from Amazon for $18.15. Am I free to charge
this back to you if I am not satisfied?
Just to get people thinking about the real motives behind this book,
here are a few quotes from some excerpts I found online:
"FDR, who embraced "progressive deas," certainly wasn't a thinker.
Indeed, FDR appeared to be utterly ignorant of economics."
"Despite FDR's limitations as a thinker..."
"The New Deal was the American version of the collectivity trend that
became fashionable around the world, so it perhaps shouldn't be
surprising that New Deal utterances by FDR and his advisers sometimes
sounded similar to fascist doctrines associated with Italian dictator
Benito Mussolini."
And here are some reviewer opinions, not proof of anything, just food
for thought:
"A conservative's revisionist history of FDR. It is always good to
revisit popular assumptions to determine their validity but I'd be
more impressed by this book if I'd been able to read peer
reviews, which I have not been able to find, that substantiate his
research and conclusions. "
"I criticise Powell for not including tables and figures of critical
data to support his contentions, as well as ignoring what other
countries did and how they fared. I suspect these omissions were
often purposeful. After examining the data from various internet
sources, FDR comes out looking much better in the big picture than
the portrait Powell paints... "
"If the New Deal is liberal and socialist, then how does Powell
explain the Economy Act of 1933, which reduced federal
employees'(including Congress) salaries by $100 million and veterans'
pensions by $400 million? The Roosevelt Administration actually CUT
federal spending and reduced the bureaucracy!
What about repealing Prohibition to bring in additional revenue?
What about Roosevelt resisting efforts by Southern and Western
agrarian Senators to devalue the money supply and enact the free
coinage of silver?
What about the Revenue Bill of 1938, which repealed an onerous
undistributed-profits tax?
Much of the New Deal aided business. The Emergency Banking Act
restricted unsound banking practices, just as the Securities Exchange
Act did for the securities market. The Home Owners Loan Act bailed
out the lender as well as the loan recipient."
msh continues:
Finally, here are some simple economic facts regarding the period of
the Great Depression, expressed in today's dollars. These numbers
are verifiable by anyone sincerely interested in embracing the truth:
The GDP was 103.6 billion in 1929 at the start of the Great
Depression under Herbert Hoover. It dropped 12% to 91.2 in 1930
(under Hoover). It dropped another 16% to 76.5 in 1932 (under
Hoover). It dropped another 23% to 58.7 in 1932 (under Hoover). It
dropped only 4% in 1933 after Roosevelt finally took over and stopped
the crisis with emergency measures.
The GDP then rose a staggering 17% to 66.0 billion in 1934. It rose
another 11% to 73.3 in 1935. It rose another 14% to 83.8 in 1936. It
rose another 10% to 91.9 in 1937.
As the growth of personal income is almost identical to GDP, it is
incredible that anyone reviewing these numbers would suggest that the
New Deal hampered our recovery from the Great Depression.
Around 1940 Congress and FDR finally really souped up the GDP through
massive injections of cash. Congress passed a huge tax increase
focused on the rich, then spent, spent, spent, pumping money into the
economy via unprecedented military spending for World War II. Result?
The GDP DOUBLED in just three years, and the nation was fully
employed.
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since1983 WebSite: 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 - 23:32:31 BST