Hi Steve, > >>>> Platt said: > >>>>>> Is it moral for politicians to promise benefits using other > >>>>>> people's > >>>>>> money? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Seem to me that's a social pattern attempting to devour an > >>>>>> intellectual > >>>>>> pattern and thus immoral. > >> > >> Platt: > >>> The intellectual pattern values our personal freedom from social > >>> value coercion > >>> as exemplified by Pirsig's citing intellect as the moral basis > >>> for the values > >> of > >>> free speech, freedom of the press and trial by jury. (Lila, 13) > >> > >> Steve: > >> What is the intellectual pattern that is being > >> devoured by what social pattern? > > > > Platt: > > The freedom to enjoy the fruits of your own labor being devoured by a law > > requiring you to pay for benefits to others to whom you owe no duty.
> Steve: > I'm still finding it hard to figure out what intellectual pattern of > value you are talking about. The intellectual pattern is individual liberty, expressed as pointed out above in intellect's insistence on free speech, freedom of the press, trial by jury, etc. as against the social value of conformity to authority and/or tradition. > In Lila Pirsig said, "It is immoral for truth to be subordinated to > social values since that is a lower form of evolution devouring a > higher one." I don't see that as an issue with politicians proposing > social programs. The truth is politicians propose social programs using other people's money coerced from the people, not offered voluntarily, resulting in a loss of individual liberty. That's the moral issue. > If the fruits of labor represents money, we are talking about a > social pattern of value, aren't we? Give to Caesar what is Caesar's > then. Property is the fruit of labor. Money is merely a symbol of property, useful in exchanges in a free market. The moral question is, "What is Caesar's?" > I don't know if you are still pushing the fourth level as an > individual level. Maybe you are saying it is the individual as an > intellectual pattern being put in service of society through > taxation, a social pattern of value. Is that it? I'm reflecting what I consider to be moral as presented in the structure of MOQ where a hierarchy of morality is presented. > It seems to me that this individual who is required by his government to > pay taxes is as subject to social laws as she is to biological laws or to > the law of gravity. I don't see anything immoral about it through > comparison of types of patterns of value. The morality of it would be > concerned with whether such taxation to pay for social programs really does > improve society. If however, the government attempted to suppress his ideas > it would be immoral in the "lower level attempting to devour a high level" > sense that Pirsig discussed. According to the MOQ just as it is moral for life to fight against the law gravity, it is moral for individuals to fight against the laws of society that inhibit liberty. This moral principle was eloquently supported by Martin Luther King not to mention the Founding Fathers and many others. > There is also the premise in your argument that individuals in a > society have no duty to other individuals that I disagree with. > According to the MOQ, there is no individual without society. And there is no society without individuals. Recall that the Giant (Pirsig's symbol of society) uses individuals to suit its own purposes and disposes of them when they are no longer useful. (Remind you of any recent dictatorships?) As Pirsig explains, society is needed to defend individuals from being devoured by biological forces. That is the primary purpose and moral sanction for the law, the military and the police. What other specific duties to other individuals do you find in the moral structure set forth in the MOQ? Regards, Platt Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
