From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sun Jul 10 2005 - 18:00:43 BST
On 10 Jul 2005 at 9:29, Platt Holden wrote:
> 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.
If someone dies as the result of his neighbor refusing to donate
blood and the government fails to force the neighbor to give blood,
then the government has deprived someone of life without due
process. Hard to believe that anyone would make such an argument.
msh 7-10-05:
No one is making that argument. We're talking about taxes, not
blood. Governments, through due process of law, collect taxes to
provide any number of things: police, fire, and other emergency
services, roads, sewage systems, water systems. Not to mention less
critical services such as schools, libraries, museums, parks. My
argument is that, unless life-saving health services are included in
this list, our government permits the deprivation of human life
without the due process of law.
msh 7-8-05
> Do you believe a society is morally
> obligated to limit an individual's accumulation of personal wealth?
platt 7-10-05:
No.
msh 7-10-05:
Ok. Thanks for a direct answer. But wouldn't you agree that this
means governments should not interfere in the development of
monopolies? That government should not stop someone from owning,
say, all the timberland in the country? If so, how does this square
with your reverence for the free market? And wouldn't you say that
such ownership arrangements, in general, are contrary to the ideal of
freedom expressed in the Metaphysics of Quality, as well as the
principles of freedom outlined in the Declaration of Independence and
US Constitution?
> msh 7-8-05:
> You're assuming that the insurrectionists in Iraq are fighting to
> establish a brutal theocracy.
platt 7-10-05:
Do you honestly believe the terrorists are fighting to establish a
democracy in Iraq? Your sympathy towards suicide bombers is
heartwarming.
msh 7-10-05:
I honestly believe that the insurgents in Iraq are fighting against
the foreign occupation and control of their country, and the ME in
general. They are fighting what they see as unrelenting US support
for brutal governments in Saudi Arabia and other countries.
msh 7-8-05:
> The New Deal was an attempt to undo damage caused by 150 years of
> unrestricted "free enterprise."
platt 7-10-05:
Unsupported assertion, not to mention, wrong.
msh 7-10-05:
Well, I think the economic evidence I presented lends great
credibility to my assertion. But the New Deal is really a side
issue, as I've already said that no such programs would be necessary
in a moral society.
msh 7-8-05
> So, if we are sincere in our belief in the principles of democracy,
> we must also be sincere in our efforts to eliminate the obstacles
to
> democracy. This means we must work toward an environment where
> everyone has an equal chance to survive and be nourished both
> physically and intellectually; and we must eliminate the influence
> of wealth on social policy.
platt 7-10-05:
I find no support in the MOQ for your ideas of limits on personal
wealth or eliminating the influence of wealth on politicians. The MOQ
principles for a moral society are based on intellectual values over
the social order -- democracy, trial by jury, freedom of speech,
freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, of travel, habeas corpus,
and free markets. The the thrust of the MOQ is toward dynamic
freedom, not static limits.
msh 7-10-05:
And my response is that when a society permits the unlimited
accumulation of personal wealth, it undermines the MOQ principles for
a moral society -- the ones you mention above-- as well as the
freedom valued by all of us. Wealth provides better representation
in jury trials; wealth allows the dominance of the organs of free
speech and press; wealth permits the free assembly of its own
representatives, but impedes or prohibits the free assembly of people
who protest those representatives, as in the WTO conference in
Seattle, 1999.
And, most obviously, as suggested above, the unlimited accumulation
of personal wealth undermines your much-valued "free market."
Anyway, I'll be interested in your response to some of the questions
I posed above. Answering questions directly and honestly is the most
difficult part of any discussion, for all of us, including me.
Thanks for taking the time.
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 The following snippets are from Kevin Phillips' "Wealth and Democracy." "[in the modern U.S., laissez-faire] is a pretense. Government power and preferment have been used by the rich, not shunned. As wealth concentration grows, especially near the crest of a drawn-out boom, so has upper-bracket control of politics and its ability to shape its own preferment." "American wealth nourished itself on government influence and power -- and vice versa." "[a U.S. government] concerned with protecting wealth may do so at the expense of democratic procedures and may try to blame terrorism rather than flawed policy for hard times." 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 10 2005 - 18:01:53 BST