Quoting Heather Perella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Again, what is robbing? Taking something of > somebodies elses, right? Without their permission, > right? Cultural bounds of property rights, right? > What of a flower a bee uses for honey? Are we bound > to respect this flower as the bees property? How > about in the case of humans? Is all war theft and > robbery? We may need to admit that cases of > intellectuality may allow for robbery and/or theft. > As David M. pointed out, what of Robin Hood? Do we > need to weigh out who is more corrupt from the other, > before we take from them, such as land (Amerindians, > etc...)? Are we obligated to give back what was > stolen? What of ideas? Some fight that music is not > to be burned on CD's from computer programming, and > yet, township (public) libraries hand out free books > and videos - our taxes and gifts support such free > hand out's. Should authors and movie producers go > after these places? The line is not so rigid, as > usual. > By the way, the above quote does not say include > the word robbery. That's why I said it generalizes. As I said, if you will check the context you will understand that Pirsig calls robbery a biological pattern. Robbing is the act of taking what belongs to another by force. Any time force or deception is initiated, biological values are involved. > [Platt quotes] > > Example: > > > > "Second, there were moral codes that established the > > supremacy of the social order > > over biological life conventional morals > > proscriptions against drugs, murder, > > adultery, theft and the like." (Lila, 13) > > > Sure, and this was my original point. We, this > social order, have declared what is theft. The court > system and legislation system and at times the > executive branch is involved in deciding any new > issues that may arise. For one, theft and killing is > illegal, but war is not. Christianity says turn the > other cheek, but at times finds war justifiable. I'm > not saying these are clear-cut wrong and/or right, > just the opposite, I'm saying we get these ideas and a > society of people, especially in a republic such as > the U.S., gets together somewhere and decides upon > these matters according to their own interests. Do you think a society would last long if robbery was permitted? > To > the other tribes the Navajo were probably rude and > bad, to the Navajo they themselves did a good serve > for their own people. The U.S. not only raided these > tribes, but they cut their hairs and said talk > English. Now-a-days we recognize what the U.S. did > was bad, right? But during those times, the > persuasive people said 'a good indian is a dead > indian'. As I said, Star Trek might be a brujo saying > we don't need $, yet, now-a-days $ seems to be the > best option in handing out the spoils or are spoils > called goods or rights of a hard working business suit > character - in another country, New Guinea, if you > have a lot of pigs in your care, well, your the Big > Man. Hey, if we all turn in our paper and get pigs we > could be Big Men. > So, who's the bad guy? Who's the right guy? > What's the right way? I think it has something to do > with the question mark. Pirisg wrote the MOQ to help us decide who's the right guy and what's the right way. Follow the MOQ and your questions will be answered. ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ 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/
