From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Tue Sep 20 2005 - 23:51:14 BST
> [Case]
> >> So I think I am more liberal than even Arlo.
>
> [Platt]
> > Apparently so. Interesting that you favor capitalism, profits,
> > nationalism and military force. Definitely not your basic liberal.
>
> [Case]
> I am unaware of any liberals that are against these things. It is mainly
> how they are used and regulated that bothers us.
Most liberals I know favor socialism, ceilings on and redistribution of
profits, internationalism, and a U.N. military peace force..
> [Case]
> >> 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)
>
> [Platt]
> > How could the early followers of Jesus be communists since communism
> > didn't exist until the 1800's?
>
> [Case]
> I guess that is kinda of true in the sense that gravity didn't exist before
> Newton, whatever that means. But if you read how it is described in Acts,
> it sure sounds like what they were doing is pretty pink. Also for the over
> whelming majority of the time people like us have lived on this planet they
> lived in tribes which function more or less along communist lines.
I for one am glad I don't live in a commune or a tribe. As for what the
religious right thinks about it, I wouldn't know.
> [Case]
> >> How is individual freedom served by laws that favor one set of religious
> >> values over another?
>
> [Platt]
> > Some sets of religious values favor freedom, like " . . .endowed by their
> > Creator . . ."
>
> [Case]
> There is no question theat conservatives use the language of freedom. It is
> their practice that is disturbing. How specifically do you reconcile a
> respect for individual freedom with favoring restrictions on individual
> freedom in matters like abortion, drugs, prostitution, marriage, sexual
> practices and support of the "Patriot" Act?
Except for restrictions on abortion which is murder, marriage which
assures a viable society and the Patriot Act which defends against
terrorists I believe you should be free to fry your mind with drugs and
engage in whatever sex turns you on with whatever consequent diseases you
may acquire. Just don't ask me to pay for your doctor's bills.
> [Case]
> >> 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.
>
> [Platt]
> > Terrorism has its roots in the Middle East. When that area becomes
> > democratic, terrorism will abate.
>
> [Case]
> This a simplistic view of the situation. McVey was not connected to the
> middle east nor was the crew that gased the Japanese subway. Terrorism is
> not restricted to the middle east nor to any particular country in the
> middle east. Chomsky would hold that the US is greatest purveyor of
> terrorism in the world, we just name it something else. Ever wonder why we
> don't count Iraqi bodies?
Who doesn't count Iraq bodies? Chomsky hates America. If you research
terrorist acts in the past 10 years, you'll find the majority have their
origins in the Middle East.
> [Case]
> >> 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.
>
> [Platt]
> > Capitalism creates wealth, socialism redistributes it.
>
> Capitalism creates nothing. Individuals create wealth within whatever
> system they operate. The "ism" mearly decribes how the wealth is
> redistributed.
Capitalism consists of entrepreneurs who who organize, manage and assume
the risks of producing goods and services, thus creating wealth. Socialism
consists of bureaucrats who redistribute the wealth created by others.
> [Case]
> >> 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.
>
> [Platt]
> > Money is the medium of exchange between free traders. As the measure of
> > the value of goods and services in a free society, it is indispensable.
>
> [Case]
> Are you saying that money is not as I have described it? I am saying that
> by understanding it better we can use it more wisely, both as individuals
> and as a matter of public policy.
Yes. Money is not as you have described it. What you describe is
psychological mumbo jumbo..
> [Case]
> >> 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.
>
> [Platt]
> > If government would keep hands off private business, there would be no
> > need for politicians to accept bribes .
>
> [Case]
> I think letting power run amuck is a prescription for disaster and so did
> the founding fathers. Why would you place more trust in private companies
> that are not answerable to the public interest at all?
Companies must answer to the public interest or they couldn't survive.
> At least when a
> public official takes a bride we have a right to find out about and do
> something about it
Likewise, if you don't like what a company does, don't partake of its
goods or services.
> Consider if you will all of the individual rights you
> have already surrendered to private interests. We are now under almost
> constant survellance whereever we shop.
You mean by cameras designed to foil criminals?
> If it was government cameras spying
> on us we would be horrified.
Are you not aware of police cameras viewing public streets?
> We surrender many of our constitutional rights
> to companies every day. The fact that we do it voluntarily does not make it
> any less a surrender.
What constitutional rights are you talking about?
> [Platt]
> > Government is the only superperson (The Giant) who can legally use guns
> > to force its will on it citizens. Corporations cannot force anybody to do
> > anything. They must fight for survival in the free competitive
> > marketplace by offering goods and services people are willing to pay for.
>
> [Case]
> Government does indeed need watching. But I find it curious that
> conservatives see it as the root of all evil. The Giant is us. Remember "We
> the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect union..."
> '...government of the people, by the people and for the people..." I am
> truly mystified by this self loathing.
If government would mind its own business as outlined in the Constitution,
we conservatives would have no problem with it. But today it's hand is in
everything and everybody's pockets.
> I totally favor open govenment laws
> and think that almost no government business should be conducted in secret.
> Corporations are super person's under the law. When the 14th amendment was
> passed to insure the rights of black Americans, it was actually
> corporations that were involved in the vast majority of case law resulting
> from that amendment. What you say about the law of evolution and the free
> market is partially true. However the natural environment is largely beyond
> our control, while the market place is an conceptual environment that is
> not beyond our control. It does offer the advantage of allowing diversity
> of interactions which is healthy. But that is not the same as saying it
> should be allowed free rein to do anything. As I pointed out earlier if you
> allow money to be the only value then other important values are given
> short shrift. Take this soccer mom bumper stick example: "Wouldn't it be a
> great day if the schools had all the money they needed and the Pentagon had
> to hold a bake sale to build a bomber?"
You seem to suggest schools don't have enough money. I think they have
more than enough. As for the Pentagon, if you don't want to defend this
country against its enemies, just say so. Not that there isn't a lot of
waste in the Pentagon, just as in public schools and all monopoly sectors
of government.
> >> [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.
> >
> > I don't know how you define "pretty well." In most socialistic European
> > countries, unemployment is in the double digits. Germany presently can't
> > even form a government.
>
> [Case]
> When you say a parliamentary system can not form a government what that
> means is no party has a majority. Most parliamentary govenments have more
> than two parties. The red scare of the first half of the last century
> resulted in laws restricting political activity in such a way that it is
> unlikely we will ever have to deal with that in the US. The West Germans
> with all of their socialistic leaning were able to absorb the East Germans
> with relatively few problems. The French are working 35 hour work weeks
> with 11 holidays and 5 weeks of paid vacation. The Canadian health care
> system was being trash mouthed by conservatives until we found out it was
> cheaper to buy our own drugs back from them. What is not to like about
> that?
France is a mess economically, and who wants to wait weeks to get needed
hospital care or even see a doctor?
Platt
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 : Tue Sep 20 2005 - 23:49:56 BST