From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Tue Jul 19 2005 - 23:48:17 BST
Hi all,
I'm skipping the first few recent responses, as they are easily seen
to be complete distortions of what I stated, or asked.
platt 7-18-05:
Just following you lead in using "liberal" as shorthand for those
with a an easily identified political agenda.
msh 7-18-05:
But your not following my lead. I use the terms "liberal-
conservative," "left-right" to refer to collections of ideas
defining a political philosophy, no different than saying
"materialist-idealist." You use the word "liberal" to reject an
idea without debating it. As a recent example, I said that police
who engage in high speed pursuit of motorists, when there is no
reason to believe that the motorist is a threat to life, are
needlessly increasing the risk to society. This idea is
well-understood by many, many police agencies who, to their great
credit, have adopted policies for terminating such pursuits.
But this was your response to my idea:
platt 7-17-05:
Interesting you put the blame for life-endangerment on the police,
not the perp. I'll never understand liberals who love government
intrusion into the lives of law-abiding private citizens but hate
"pigs."
platt 7-19-05:
Let the record show MSH's recent rejection of ideas without debating
them by stating they come from "ignorant reactionaries like Vogel and
right- wingers in general."
msh 7-19-05:
Let's look at the full quote. I said:
"For me, the ideas expressed by ignorant reactionaries like Vogel,
and right-wingers in general, are so easy to expose as foolish, it's
a pleasure to keep them (the right-wingers) around. Truth comes out,
and Quality is served."
How are such ideas exposed as foolish? Why, through debate of
course. That is, if they are willing to engage in debate, which is
seldom the case, as can be seen in this very thread.
msh 7-18-05:
I don't claim it's my neighbor's responsibility to pay my health
costs. I say, in a moral society, people will not be allowed to die
because they cannot afford life-saving treatment.
platt 7-19-05:
Let the record show that MSH doesn't believe anyone has to pay for
"life- saving treatment."
msh 7-19-05:
Obvious distortion. No comment required.
msh 7-18-05:
Although my argument has been spelled out more than once in this
thread, I'll sketch it briefly here:
1) In the MOQ, ideas such as those found in the US Constitution,
are of higher value than society itself. That is, society in its
moral evolution, will move toward realization of such ideas.
platt 7-19-05:
Nowhere do I find in the MOQ a statement to the effect that "ideas
such as those found in the US Constitution" are of higher value than
society. He says ideas "take moral precedence over society" in the
context of capital punishment. In his discussion of socialism he says
an intellectually guided society is a higher form of evolution, but
goes on to point out the defect in current intellect. He also alludes
to the Bill of Rights but has nothing to say about constitutional
amendments.So your premise is suspect.
msh 7-19-05:
No, not just in the context of capital punishment, or socialism.
Here's the text I in support of this premise:
It [the MOQ] says that what is meant by "human rights" is usually the
moral code of intellect-vs.-society, the moral right of intellect to
be free of social control. Freedom of speech; freedom of assembly,
of travel; trial by jury; habeas corpus; government by consent--these
"human rights" are all intellectual-vs.-society issues. According to
the Metaphysics of Quality the "human rights" have not just a
sentimental basis, but a rational, metaphysical basis. They are
essential to the evolution of a higher level of life from a lower
level of life. They are for real.
(LILA Bantam 1st Ed, Chap 24, pg 307)
And the Bill of Rights ARE amendments to the Constitution.
Besides, you yourself have already conceded the gist of this premise,
in many places. Here's the most recent:
On 1 Jul 2005 at 16:59, Platt Holden wrote:
Freedom to me means the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights of the
U.S. Constitution, cited by Pirsig as intellect vs.society issues,
i.e., the individual vs. government.
msh premise 2, 7-18-05:
2) It's clear from the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments that no one
may be deprived of life without the due process of law.
platt 7-19-05:
The meaning of "due process" from Wikipedia: "Due process of law is a
legal concept that ensures government will respect all of a person's
legal rights instead of just some or most of those legal rights, when
a government deprives a person of life, liberty or property."
msh 7-19-05:
For a full understanding of "due process" I think we need something
more substantial than Wikipedia's first sentence. Here are some
citations from Black's Law Dictionary, including some precedent
cases.
"Phrase means that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty,
property or of any right granted him by statute, unless matter
involved first shall have been adjudicated against him upon trial
conducted according to established rules regulating judicial
proceedings, and it forbids condemnation without a hearing, Pettit v.
Penn., La.App., 180 So.2d 66, 69." Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th
Edition, page 500.
"Due Process of law implies the right of the person affected thereby
to be present before the tribunal which pronounces judgement upon the
question of life, liberty, or property, in its most comprehensive
sense; to be heard, by testimony or otherwise, and to have the right
of controverting, by proof, every material fact which bears on the
question of right in the matter involved. If any question of fact or
liability be conclusively presumed against him, this is not due
process of law." Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 500.
"Aside from all else, ‘due process’ means fundamental fairness and
substantial justice. Vaughn v. State, 3 Tenn.Crim.App. 54, 456 S.W.2d
879, 883." Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 500.
http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/duproc0.html
msh premise 3, 7-18-05:
3) If society allows someone to die because they cannot afford life-
saving treatment, that person is being deprived of life without due
process of law.
platt 7-19-05:
Due process doesn't prevent the government from depriving someone of
life. It charges government with protecting his legal rights before
doing so.
msh 7-19-05:
That's the point. His life to right is not being protected; he's
being deprived of life without due process of law.
msh conclusion 7-19-05:
4) Therefore, according to the Metaphysics of Quality, society has a
moral obligation to prevent this deprivation of life.
platt 7-19-05:
Let the record show MSH's logic is dubious to say the least. If he
thinks there ought to be a law to force me to pay for my neighbor's
drug prescriptions (Viagra anyone?), he ought to come out and say so.
msh 7-19-05:
Seems like pretty strong logic to me. I'd be interested to know if
anyone other than Platt finds my reasoning unconvincing.
The Viagra comment is just more distortion, as I've consistently
referred to life-saving treatment.
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 : Wed Jul 20 2005 - 00:08:50 BST