> Hi Chris, > > (skip) > > [Chris] >> >> You see the social level as a necessary evil and something that we >> >> should >> >> have as little of as possible. I am saying that it has been shown that >> >> social level can be made to work under guiding intellectual principles >> >> that does not prohibit Dynamic Development of the intellectual level, >> >> but >> >> rather helps this development. > > [Platt] >> > I agree that the social level can be directed by the intellectual level >> > to >> > encourage intellectual development. The first step towards that goal is >> > to >> > prevent the social level from imposing conformity on the intellectual >> > level. That's why Pirsig cited free speech and other laws protecting >> > the >> > individual as intellect vs. social patterns. > > [Chris] >> Indeed we may see free speech and such laws to be essential to the >> development of the intellectual level etc, that I agree with. But things >> are >> never black and white. For example free speech may be restricted so that >> racist propaganda isn't allowed to hurt people. This is an example where >> the >> social level is made to work on behalf of the intellectual level > > Restricting free speech some may find offensive inevitably leads to > restricting all speech. As the great hero of the radical left, Noam > Chomsky, said: "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we > despise, we don't believe in it at all." Political correctness is a > double > edged sword as the socialist-leaning Democratic party in the U.S. is > finding out during the current nominating process with charges and counter > charges of racism tearing the party apart. The politically correct > chickens > have come home to roost. > >> Another >> example is good public schools, funded by taxes from all people living >> within a certain area - if the general education level is heightened that >> is >> certainly beneficial for the development of both that region and on a >> greater plane, the intellectual level. > > I'm glad you said "good" public schools. Unfortunately, in the U.S. there > are very few good government schools. There are many reason why this > is so, not the least being a national teacher's union that prevents local > school boards from firing bad teachers and making other desired changes in > the curriculum.
And it has nothing to do with funding? That public schools doesn't work very good in a state that doesn't believe in public-schools isn't very hard to understand in my book. >> The welfare state is not an example >> of social patterns subduing intellectual, it is an example of how >> intellectual pattern are creating what social patterns seem fitting. The >> reasoning is simple: building a welfare-state we gain the advantage of >> security in our everyday lives - we know that since we have constructed >> society so, we will not end up with nothing in the gutter should we fail >> in >> for example our economic endeavours. We know that everyone has the >> possibility to go to school, on equal footing, and follow up on their >> studies, even if someone comes from poor circumstances. Surely you see >> the >> benefit to the intellectual level here if we build a broader base. >> Certainly >> it must bee seen to that education and such is not subjugated to >> political >> or religious agendas, but that immune-system is something that is built >> into >> this system. >> >> Do you see my point? > > Yes. I see your point (except for an immune system of political or > religious agendas being built into the system). But consider the other > side > of the coin: > > "The democratic welfare state is always temporary in nature. It simply > cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It will continue to exist > up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves > generous benefits from the public treasury. From that moment on, the > majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits > from > the public treasury, with the result that every democratic welfare state > will finally collapse due to the loose fiscal policies, which is always > followed by a dictatorship. > > "The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning > of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, the nations > always progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to > spiritual > faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; > from > liberty to abundance; from abundance to complacency; from complacency to > apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back to bondage." --- > Attributed to Alexander Fraser Tyler, a Scottish professor, 1714 -- 1778. > > Or to put it more simply, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to > purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor > Safety." -- > Benjamin Franklin What the hell is this? This throwing around mindless quotes might work with someone who doesn't actually study history and knows nothing about it (200 years, now where did THAT rabbit come from?). I mean, I see your point, but you have no real arguments, you just have random quotes that doesn't add up. Have a look at this one for example: > Ben Franklin also said: "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, > is > not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." Well, what happened was that the poor, the workers, the farmers etc took the initiative to create a political movement to create a more humane and safer society for themselves. This was pretty much achieved as soon as everybody gained the right to vote (something they didn't do by doing nothing I'll tell you). This is the beginning of the Scandinavian model, the success of which is undisputed. So then you have a system where people can get cheap, good healthcare, good education, and that, because there is a social safety net, reduces crime far better then in those countries that haven't. What happens is that overall one get's a more stable base to build upon. And I am sorry to disappoint you, but within this model there is no repression of the mind or body, and yes, there is a free market and all that - it works fine as long as one realizes that everything isn't black and white. I might also add that at the moment (since 2006) we have a right-wing government (you would probably call them liberals anyway) but not even they want to remove the system, only modify it. No one wants to remove the system, and the worst thing anyone can be accused of in a political debate is to what to have it the way it is in the US (now that the Soviet is gone). I'm just saying, things aren't black and white, either or. The middle way is almost always the best. 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/
