From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Thu Jul 15 2004 - 15:41:04 BST
Platt,
> > Well, this is a little reductionistic. I could easily say "Freedom" =
> > "education", and support this by saying that "slaves were not allowed to
> > attend school". Right?
>
> You could say it but you wouldn't be right, unless you believe education
> is a human right.
>
Money, though, *is* a human right?
> > I thought I made the positive role of money clear when I mentioned buying a
> > Harley? Here I think you are confusing social wealth and personal wealth.
>
> Social wealth? Where did that idea come from? Does it mean that part of
> everything you earn and own belongs to others? Are "free roads" and "free
> college educations" human rights?
>
I'd say they are Intellectual level "values". "Accumulating wealth" is a social
level "value".
> If it makes you feel good to help others, fine. What I object to is
> someone pointing a gun to my head and telling me I must or else. On
> balance, welfare has done more harm than good by creating an entire class
> of dependent people whose motive to become self-sufficient has been
> squelched.
>
(Probably just as much as I despise being told I have to pay for an idiotic,
misguided and immoral war.)
I agree that welfare needs to be restructured. I do not agree that it should be
abolished.
Oddly, Platt, some welfare (not all) could be ended if neighbors would start
taking care of their neighbors. If you could convince a lot of other people to
think about "community", then you wouldn't have to lose your personal wealth
and be bothered being forced to help those less fortunate than yourself.
> > "Inequities" existing can not be used for justification that severe
> > inequity can or should be tolerated. People will likely always commit
> > murder, but that does not mean we should blindly accept murders and "live
> > and let live".
>
> What's your point? Is there such a thing as non-severe murder?
>
That we should not be complacent with a system that is obviously flawed.
(Non-severe murder, no, but I'd assault is a "lesser" degree of physical
agression that we still prohibit)
> > Are you advancing the notion that if UC went out of business because it had
> > to abide by "stifling social codes", that people everywhere would be worse
> > off, would not be able to find new or better employment, and would thus
> > cease being "free"?
>
> If Union Carbide when out of business prices for a lot of goods would
> skyrocket, making a lot of people worse off.
>
So, basically, they can do whatever they want, so long as the prices of good in
the marketplace stay cheap?
Do you not think it would be really easy for the ex-UC employees to just find
another job? If so, then why should it matter if UC goes under? If not, then
what is this saying about (1) the economny and (2) the need for welfare.
> > The regulations against monopolies are regulations promoting a "level
> > playing field". Would you abolish them?
>
> I would abolish laws that give government a monopoly of doing anything
> except run the the military, the police, and the courts . . .especially
> its monopoly on public education which is, on balance, an unmitigated
> disaster.
>
You avoided the question. I'll reask.
Are you against laws prohibitng "businesses" from forming monopolies?
Also, since you blame American education shortcomings (I though we were the best
in the world?) on it being "public", where did you find information
demonstrating the failure of public education system in Canada, Britain,
Germany, Denmark... Certainly if it being "public" is the root problem, then
you have information demonstrating how all these systems are failing too? And,
to make a specific point, Japan, which we are told leads us in education in
many, many fields, has a "public" system (less than 5% of Japanese schools are
privately owned and run).
How do you place the blame on "public"? Seems more like a political agenda than
a well-thought out criticism?
>
> I don't accept your premise that maximizing wealth necessarily "tramples"
> anyone. That's a reflection of belief that there's only such much of the
> pie to go around. What capitalism does is create an ever larger pie.
>
And what "modern capitalism" is doing is tossing the crusts to the majority of
people in this country. Maybe you should come and talk to all the families in
my hometown who are losing their jobs, causing the local economy to pretty much
collapse, where the only "new" jobs are low-wage retail and local stores are
going under, and explain to them how they are getting "more pie".
> Believe what you wish. Speak out against what you deem evil. You're free
> to do so unless intimidated by political correctness designed to smother
> "degenerate" views.
>
> Maybe we can agree that freedom of speech is the most precious freedom of
> all, one that's worth dying for.
Absolutely. Hence we are able to have this coversation. :-) (It's too early in
the day for some Tres Pistoles, but I'll earmark a bottle for tonight!)
By the way, the "left" (assuming that's who you mean) is not the only side
demanding a "politically correct" way of speaking.
Arlo
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 : Thu Jul 15 2004 - 15:43:30 BST