Chris: Since you appear to have an animus toward America in general and me in particular there's no point in continuing this conversation.
Regards, Platt > >> >> Platt: > > >> >> > I think the rights spawned during enlightenment and the American > >> >> > revolution were rooted in a historical moment when meta-intellect, > >> >> > which also spawned the MOQ, burst through the darkness into the > >> >> > light of day. It's moment in the sun was all too brief, to be > >> >> > smothered by the SOM scientific mind-blanket. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Fact square: The ideas that the break away colonists of the USA based > >> >> their nation on was of course a product of the enlightenment. More > >> >> accurately the constitution is a direct implementation of Montesquieu > >> >> 's "De l'esprit des lois" from 1748 - something that has in practice > >> >> not been updated since. Now, the ideas of Montesquieu was indeed an > >> >> expression of a time when new ideas flourished - ideas of how to > >> >> govern a state was constructed with the utmost vigour and in a true > >> >> spirit of experiment. On the writing table that is. Montesquieu also > >> >> proposed that people should be governed differently according to the > >> >> climate, and ideas of radical redistribution governments and > >> >> anarchy-like government flourished and were apprised alike - it was in > >> >> the spirit of experiment. On the writing table. This said - this > >> >> wasn't as Platt implies a time when freedom ideas were at their peak - > >> >> it was a time when ALL KINDS of (crazy) ideas were at their peak. The > >> >> ideas were so unbalanced and out there because they were new, > >> >> revolutionary, and the absolutistic government of the time that was > >> >> the only thing anybody knew of made it possible to build all kinds of > >> >> thought models - because they had never been implemented, so there was > >> >> nothing to judge it against. > >> > > >> > You left out a few people like John Locke, Adam Smith, Edmund Burke and > >> > Thomas Jefferson. As for being on the "writing table," the U.S. > >> > Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights > >> > (referred to by Pirsig) were all inscribed on the writing table -- to > >> > the enduring thanks from all who place the highest value on liberty, > >> > even higher than life itself. > >> > > >> > Regards, > >> > Platt > >> > >> What you just wrote = nothing. It isn't an answer, and it isn't an > >> analysis. > >> it is repeating indoctrination. Perhaps that's your only intent. > > > > It isn't an answer. What was the question? It isn't an analysis. What's to > > analyze? > > Your goal here is to show the Gloriousness of Gods Beloved America, I get > that, no problem. When you imply that the USA was founded by Glorious New > Dynamic Ideas that leter was dragged down (by some evilness, perhaps commies > or something) - then I point out that at the time when the USA was founded, > there were tons of wild theories about economy and government flourishing, > and that is was in no way a time when Glorious Thoughts of Freedom Loved By > God was finally realized as it was always intended. There where thousands of > different theories, the only thing special about America is that there some > of them were tried, because an opportunity opened up for the Guys that had > been sitting on cafes in Paris discussion how they could create the perfect > society of only they got the chance - they got the chance and they tried > their ideas. Some of them. You namedrop John Locke, Adam Smith, Edmund > Burke. Why? A lot can be said of all of them, but let's for instance focus > on Mr Smith. His economic ideas are praised by so-called liberals all over > the world as the perfect ideas for a free market. Free markets didn't exist > when Adams sat at his writing table and drew up his wild plans for how > economy should work - a thought experiment. Because the British Empire > realized that they were superior in production they soon started propagating > for "free trade" - because it was a cheaper way of knocking out other > countries production then destroying them with military force. Simple. So > some of Smiths theories were tested, but after a while it was realized that > there were some huge gaps in it - namely the humanitarian side to it. It > turned out that by following Smiths drawn up lines the conditions for the > people in the production system became steadily more dreadful. Even at that > time - a time when humanitarian thoughts wasn't exactly in fashion - even > then the conditions that this kind of unchecked economy produced shocked > people. The industrialized areas in England was described as "Hell on > earth". So, things needed to be changed, to count in that small variable > called "man". - This is all common knowledge, and perhaps there isn't much > to say about this, but with this in mind: what is your motivation of > namedropping Adam Smith? How does this prove the Glorious Supremacy of > Thoughts of Freedom Loved By God? > > Regards > > chris 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/
