From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Fri Jul 22 2005 - 18:42:56 BST
On 22 Jul 2005 at 5:23, Mark Steven Heyman wrote:
> response 7-18-05:
> Well, I'd say if voluntarism is the issue that it's a lot easier to
> voluntarily opt out of the gym than a country.
>
> msh 7-18-05:
> This is an odd thing to say, coming from someone who regularly asks
> people who criticise American policy why they don't move somewhere
> else.
>
> response 7-20-05:
> Unsupported assertion; no evidence whatsoever.
>
> msh 7-20-05:
> All ya gotta do is ask. Here's just one version of the "love it or
> leave it" or "if you think something's better, go there" form of
> argument:
>
> "Where, pray tell, are these small scale 'implementations of
> communist theory?' Cuba perhaps? And if they really exist and are
so
> wonderful, how come you're not there?"
response 7-21-05:
Thanks. Did I get an answer? Are there more quotes to support your
charge of "regularly"? Do you deny the truth of what I said about
gyms being easier to opt out of than countries?
msh 7-22-05:
I gave you a link. See my answer for yourself. As for more quotes.
let's make it interesting: I bet you $100 I can provide more quotes
supporting my claim. Is it a bet? Do you have a Paypal account for
easy transferral of funds? As for "gyms being easier to opt out of
than countries," I agree completely. I just want you to keep this in
mind the next time you ask someone to love America or leave it.
Anyway, this really is unproductive bickering, and, regarding this
topic, it's my fault. I took the first poke. Sorry.
> platt 7-20-05:
> To compare such wrongs to the mass human extinctions of Stalinism,
> Maoism, Nazism and Pol Pot is obscene.
>
> msh 7-20-05:
> Who's doing that? You're the one who thinks a million dead is
> "worse" than 100,000. I'm saying that when people are killed or
> maimed it doesn't matter to them or their loved ones if none or a
> million others suffered the same fate.
response 7-21-05:
Who's doing that? We are. We're talking about moral societies and the
proper role of government.
msh 7-22-05:
In a moral society the proper role of government will be determined
by honest debate among fully-realized human beings who then grant to
citizen representatives the power to act in their names. This power
will be used to prevent business and political misery of any
proportion, whether it's one person killed in a sweatshop or a
thousand killed in domestic persecution, or 100,000 killed in foreign
adventures.
response 7-21-05:
And yes, I definitely do say that killing a million is worse than
killing 100,000, just as killing two is worse than killing one.
terrorists.
msh 7-22-05:
See below.
response 7-21-05:
I also believe some killing is justified, like killing biological
terrorists.
msh 7-22-05:
Do you mean killing people who fire missiles into your apartment
building while you're sleeping?
response 7-21-05:
What you imply in your last sentence above is if someone close to you
dies of cancer, it doesn't matter to you if anyone else suffers the
same fate.
msh 7-22-05:
I see no such implication, and wonder if anyone else does. What I'm
saying is the grief experienced by a mother whose son has been killed
in a car accident, say, is in no way ameliorated when you tell her
that strangers in the other car were killed as well.
response 7-21-05:
Also I wonder how someone who is killed can care how many others were
killed at the same time, unless, of course, you believe in the
afterlife.
msh 7-22-05:
This seems a kind of trivial diversion. Ask someone, or ask
yourself, the following question: If you know you are about to be
killed, would it make you feel better to know that others will be
killed along with you?
> platt 7-20-05:
> Distortion of the quote by omission. The third sentence should read
> "According to THESE "human rights . . ." referring specifically to
> the rights named. Furthermore, to jump from this to the claim that
> the MOQ says that all "ideas such as found in the U.S.
Constitution"
> are of higher value than society according to the MOQ is a gross
> distortion.
>
> msh 7-20-05:
> An obvious typo which I doubt anyone but Platt would consider a
> distortion. I get no sense that Pirsig is limiting human rights to
> just the few he mentions by way of example. He doesn't mention the
> right to life; does anyone here believe he would exclude this from
> his understanding of human rights?
response 7-21-05:
Right to life is not in the Constitution. However, I don't think
Pirsig would exclude the right to life either, but would not agree
with your view that the right to life imposes an obligation on
someone else.
msh 7-22--05:
Do you think he would have felt obliged to act to prevent the taking
of his son's life? Or to save a stranger's life under the same
circumstances?
Anyway, what RMP might agree with is, as I've said before, quite
beside the point. My argument is that SOCIETY has a MOQ-based moral
obligation to prevent poverty from depriving someone of life without
due process of law. So far, I've seen no refutation of this
argument.
response continues 7-21-05:
My right to speak doesn't impose an obligation on you to provide
a microphone. My right to travel doesn't impose on you an obligation
to buy my ticket.
msh 7-22-05:
The first sentence might be debatable, depending on what you mean. I
agree with the second. But neither sentence has anything to do with
my current argument.
response continues 7-21-05:
My right to life doesn't impose on you and obligation to support me
while I spend all my time surfing and hanging out.
msh 7-22-05:
No comment required.
And I'll snip the next four comments, which will be seen to be of
value equal to the response above.
> msh 7-20-05:
> Not blind, just not looking. Below my sig block are a few of the
> top 100 corporate criminals of the 1990s. These are companies who
> pled guilty or no contest to criminal antitrust activity, so we're
> not even talking about civil suits. And keep in mind that for
every
> criminal convicted, thousands of crimes go undetected, so it's safe
> to assume that the criminal activity below is just the tip of the
> proverbial iceberg. In fact, as long as a corporation's actuarial
> accountants can demonstrate that profits made from criminal
behavior
> are greater than anticipated fines, there is little reason to
> believe that such behavior will not be repeated. Indeed, many of
> the companies listed in the full report, linked below, are proven
> repeat offenders. This is why, in a moral society, assuming
> corporations are even part of that society, public supervision and
> regulation of corporate behavior will be essential.
"In the last century, governments have murdered more than one hundred
million of their own people. From the killing fields of Cambodia to
the fire bombing of innocent children at Waco, governments have
murdered more people that all other criminals and crime syndicates
put together. In fact, it's probably about one hundred to one. Yet
somehow we think that these people are there to protect us from
criminals and we willingly give up our means of self-defence to
them."
http://www.quebecoislibre.org/010303-11.htm
msh 7-22-05:
Interesting essay. I suspect that MacRae's numbers are HIGHLY
exaggerated, a suspicion bolstered by the fact that he provides no
documentation. His claim that "governments have murdered more
people that (sic) all other criminals and crime syndicates put
together" is probably correct, but he ignores a more interesting
question: How many deaths have resulted from the continued sale of
unsafe and demonstrably lethal business products? As I've mentioned
before, the deaths caused by cigarettes alone far exceed anything
accomplished through a world history of direct government violence:
"Tobacco is the second major cause of death in the world. It is
currently responsible for the death of one in ten adults worldwide
(about 5 million deaths each year). If current smoking patterns
continue, it will cause some 10 million deaths each year by 2020.
Half the people that smoke today -that is about 650 million people-
will eventually be killed by tobacco."
http://www.who.int/tobacco/en/
Moreover, what MacRae ignores in his attack on government is that
governments, particularly in the western so-called democracies, are
pretty much owned and operated by corporate and other forms of
private wealth. Again, we must remember that government is the
shadow cast by big business:
'"As long as politics is the shadow cast on society by big business,
the attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance."
- John Dewey
response 7-21-05:
Question:
Who regulates the regulators?
msh 7-22-05:
In a moral society, fully-realized human beings will empower
regulators to act on their behalf. That is, an informed and active
public will regulate the regulators through participation in a truly
democratic political system.
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 "A democracy is more than a form of government; it is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated experience." -- John Dewey 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 : Fri Jul 22 2005 - 18:54:13 BST