[Krimel] While the US certainly produces a vast quantity of writing, is the quality of this writing better than literature elsewhere in space or time? Which is 'better' quantity or quality?
[Arlo] This question points to another topic, a valuable one, but I want to hold here and reassert the initial question, then give my own answer. The origin here is two-fold, first coming from the insinuation that "social/collectivist" programs are "bad", and "free market" ones are "good". This moves Ham to imply that these programs make men "not free". Platt responded about how the poor are better served by a "free market" than "socialism". Public libraries and socialized police are good examples, I feel, but is ones they hate since it exposes the ridiculous "either-or" rhetoric that those who can only bleat one-liners stand on. The options are to make indefensible statements about how while giving medical aid to the poor via taxation is "socialist", giving them access to books is not, or about how his local municipality's police force is "privatized". Or to do what Platt always does, toss out evasion and distortion in the hopes that the questions will disappear or be ignored. What's ironic is that there is an answer to this question, "would the poor be better off if we replaced socialized, collectivist public libraries with free-market solutions like bookstores?". And that answer is to point out the converse, "would people be better off if we replaced free-market enterprises like B&N with public libraries?". The solution is glaringly obvious. The best answer is to balance a mix of free-marketry (B&N) with collectivist programs (public libraries) because this balance servers everyone best. Platt can still go to B&N and buy Ann Coulter's books. Others can go to their public library to read books they would not have the means to purchase. We can step back and in the same light ask about "public lands". Would we be better served by abolishing public lands and privatizing them? Would we be better served by abolishing private property and publicly managing all lands? Or is the best solution achieving balance, where private citizens can own land, but large reserves of public forests, parks, lakes, etc are maintained for everyone to enjoy. We can ask the same question about roadways and waterways. Publicly fund them all? Privately toll them all? Or find the right balance between public funding and toll-usage that makes sense in that area. And, finally, we can look back at the late 1800s of "pre-socialist" America and see that both "it" and a "too-socialized" America are both dangerous and harmful, and that the best of both worlds, balancing free-marketry with social-collectivist labor protections, have given us the world we enjoy today. Interestingly, Craig had already pointed to this. "Although I found it vague, it did raise the issue of the balance between freedom & security & whether this is a moral or a practical question." It is both. What is best is achieved by this balance. It is not achieved by promoting a rhetorical "war" of one side over the other. These are not the forces of "good and evil". They are the Yin-Yang from whose harmony comes the best music. 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/
