Re: MD MOQ Society and Health Care

From: Ascmjk@aol.com
Date: Sun Aug 07 2005 - 00:42:13 BST

  • Next message: david buchanan: "RE: MD Re: robertpirsig.org website"

     
    In a message dated 8/5/2005 2:22:37 PM Central Standard Time, ajb102@psu.edu
    writes:

    But be cautious here, Jon. You are coming very close to saying that wealth
    is an
    indicator of intellectual value. Hence, poor people are intellectually
    worthless. One person on this list feels this way, do you as well?

    Hi Arlo...I'm singling this part out because it seems that you think my post
    was a reflection of the above belief, which I do not hold. I think wealth
    has nothing to do with an individuals intellectual value, just as someone's
    physical body has nothing to do with it. A person can be physically out of shape
    but mentally very fit, mental body builders, if you will.
     
    I think that we need to take a balanced view. Any class, upper middle lower
    can have irresponsible spending habits. The thing is, when a government spends
     irresponsibly, with the money you say is has a moral right to take is some
    situations, it's irresponsibility has a greater capacity to harm greater
    numbers of people than a single individuals irresponsibility. An individual
    squanders his own money, a government squanders everyone's. This is a legitimate
    concern for those who decry high taxes.
     
    I personally believe government should have the revenue necessary to keep
    infrastructure in good condition, and to pay the EMTs. But the question is how
    much is needed? I'm suggesting lots of our social problems could be remedied
    with better thinking rather than more money. School systems are a fine example
     of society throwing money at a problem and in many cases its like shoving
    cash down a garbage disposal. There are some pretty strong theories to suggest
    a flat tax could keep the infrastructure strong and the EMTs paid, for
    instance. When dealing with the morality of intellectual decisions, we must take
    into account the practical ramifications of its implementation on the lower
    levels.
     
    And people should have some degree of freedom deciding what money means to
    them. They can't directly control what effect it has on their body or on
    society, but they should be able to decide for themselves how important money is
    to them. Hence, I strongly belief money is NOT an indicator of intelligence.
    Lots of smart poor people and dumb rich people and vice versa. I'm saying that
    if a poor person should be able to use his or her money however they chose
    (after taxes of course). We should not make people give according to their
    means, any more than we should make strong people do a certain amount of
    physical labor, or any more than we should make very smart people teach school.
     
    I do think people should have control of their money, just as they should
    have greater control than they now do over their own bodies (like deciding what
    to put in and take out).
     
    Jon

    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 Aug 07 2005 - 04:49:45 BST