From: Case (Case@iSpots.com)
Date: Mon Sep 19 2005 - 18:27:15 BST
Since this seems to be a kind of poll here are my answers. I have rearranged
the list a bit to relect a leveling of the items:
LIBERALS VALUE HIGHLY
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS ISSUES:
Abortion rights F
Legalized marijuana F
Gay marriage Don't Care
Gun control Don't Care
SOCIO_ECONOMIC ISSUES:
Redistribution of income Meaningless
Minimum wage F
Social security status quo F
National health insurance F
Right to welfare No such Right Exists
Affirmative action F
Diversity F
Kyoto treaty F
MORAL ISSUES
Secularism F
Moral relativity Meaningless
Laws against hate speech A
Darwinian evolution F
LIBERAL PLACE LOW VALUE:
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS ISSUES
Patriot Act A
SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES:
Republican tax cuts A
Capitalism For - with qualifications
Multi-national corporations For - with Qualifications
Profits F
School vouchers A
MORAL ISSUES:
Evangelical Christians A
Death penalty Don't Care
MILITARY ISSUES:
War in Iraq A
Nationalism F
Military force F
So I think I am more liberal than even Arlo.
But here are a few questions for you:
Could you make a conservative list like your liberal list or are we to
assume that if liberals are for it conservatives are against it. and visa
versa?
How do conservatives on the religious right reconcile themselves with the
fact that the early followers of Jesus were communists? (See Acts 2: 44-47
then later Acts 4:34- Acts5:10)
How is individual freedom served by laws that favor one set of religious
values over another?
How does our current use of military force to invade countries help us stop
the acts of terrorist who operate outside of national borders and in virtual
isolation from each other? It is hard to lump Tim McVey in with Bin Lauden
or the London subway bombers with either.
How does conservatism uphold individual freedom and at the same time favor
restricting it arbitrarily? (see your list)
You include on your list the redistribution of wealth. As I understand it
all economic systems are about the redistribution of wealth. Capitalism
works very well in this respect when dealing with tangible goods. I think it
is out of step and artificially forced in confronting an information driven
economy but that is another story.
Economics is all about money. Money is what psychologists call a conditioned
reinforcer. A conditioned reinforcer is one that derives its power to effect
behavioral change by being paired with primary reinforcers. Primary
reinforcers are typical things that satisfy biological needs: air, food,
water, shelter, sex, drugs... Money is an especially powerful conditioned
reinforcer because it can be used to get almost anything in the way of
primary reinforcment. As such it works very well to establish the relative
"value" of things. A problem occurs because money is such a powerful
conditioned reinforcer that it becomes an end in itself. In the United
States this has de-evolved to the point where money overshadows nearly every
other value.
The chief function of the U.S. political system is to maintain a system of
checks and balances. What this means is that it is a highly static system.
It is purposely designed to make sure either that nothing happens or that if
anything does happen it happens slowly and deliberately. However, the system
does almost nothing to specify checks and balances for powerful money
interests. There is a degree of government regulation of business and
industry. But it is implemented piecemeal and is not built into the design
of our government.
As I see it the biggest problem is that our law make corporations into
individuals and we assign most of the rights of individuals to then. This in
effect makes for immortal, abstract entities who can act as legal and moral
agents. This promotes a system that favors the accumulation of power into
the hands of entities whose only value is the accumulation of money. In some
weird sense, money is a primary reinforcer for corporations. In fact in most
cases it is the only reinforcer. I would hold that government regulation of
these superpersons is in fact a way for other values to play a role.
Examples would be environmental regulation, health and safety issues, union
law, air traffic control and monitoring of public utilities.
[C.L.]
>> I don't see dynamism as restricted to a particular "ism"
[Platt]
> Pirsig says capitalism is more dynamic than socialism.
[Case]
Social democracy and socialism seem to work pretty well in many countries
all over the world. But even so, is promoting rapid change really a good
thing. As noted above the U.S system is designed to thwart change.
[C.L. wrote]
>> And show me where the line between the idea and the
>> mental masturbation is drawn?
[Platt asks]
> Define "idea" and "mental masturbation." and I'll take a crack at showing
> you the line.
[Case]
Mental mastrubation would be the frequent stroking of an idea for the self
gratification that it brings.
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 : Mon Sep 19 2005 - 18:35:48 BST