> -----Keith Gillette, Sun 2007-07-08 13:15---- > ... see the blurring of church & state that is Faith Based Initiatives now > defended by the conservative Supreme Court), > > -----Platt, Sunday, July 08, 2007 16:44----- > How does this prevent you from exercising your freedom of religion? How > does this "establish" a religion? ----- > > Thankfully, it doesn't keep me from exercising my freedom of religion. > Watchdog groups like Freedom From Religion do believe that it takes steps > toward establishment. At the very least, it dismantles the firewall between > church and state. Personally, I think it's dangerous and intrusive > government meddling.
I'm also against dangerous and intrusive government meddling. So I agree on that basis rather than fear of losing freedom of religion protections. > -----Keith Gillette, Sun 2007-07-08 13:15---- > trial by jury (suspension of habeas corpus, anyone?), > > -----Platt, Sunday, July 08, 2007 16:44----- > You mean for terrorist prisoners who are non-citizens? > ----- > > For non-citizen prisoners who may or may not be terrorists. While the > Constitution is written to protect the citizens of the U.S., I believe in > the universalization of human rights, in keeping with Jefferson: "We hold > these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they > are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." That would > be basic rights of due process for all humans, regardless of whether they > happen to have been a citizen of a particular country. I share your goal, but don't think due process rights accrue to those who deny rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. > -----Platt, Sunday, July 08, 2007 16:44----- > What law abridges your free speech? > ----- > > Few, thankfully. However, we just saw a thread about the "conservative" > Supreme Court's restrictive decision on free speech in schools. The > "conservative" George Bush in 2001 effectively abridged the speech of > medical professionals receiving federal funds from discussing abortion. The > "conservative" Republican Congress in 1996 passed a law providing federal > funding only for abstinence-only sex education. Laws involving children are different than those for adults as is proper. I'm not aware of the prohibition on doctors and nurses from discussing abortion. I think such communications are privileged, that is, they are private by law. As for sex education, I consider any federal funding intrusive meddling. > My point was that you can't claim this is a "conservative" cause. "Liberal" > groups like the ACLU argue for free speech protections consistently. > > -----Platt, Sunday, July 08, 2007 16:44----- > Do you think the liberal's call to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine an > example of defending free speech? Conservatives supporting Pirsig's > intellectual values include the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist > Society. ----- > > What "liberals", specifically? Senators Clinton, Feinstein, Kerry to be specific. > I'll take your word for it that the Heritage > Foundation & Federalist Society do support free speech. So does the ACLU. > So does the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Does that make them > "conservative"? If so, great. The ACLU promotes many liberal causes such as affirmative action. Not familiar with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, but if they favor free exchange of information on the internet, I support it. > -----Keith Gillette, Sun 2007-07-08 13:15---- > Really, though, this conservative/liberal dichotomy is all but useless to > have a meaningful conversation. Let's talk some specifics. > > -----Platt, Sunday, July 08, 2007 16:44----- > Questions above are specific and relate to the liberal/conservative > outlooks. > ----- > > Your "conservative" examples may self-identify in some way as > "conservative", but other "conservatives" (specifically, social > conservatives) do not hew to the same beliefs, as my examples show. Granted. > My point is that this conservative/liberal dualism is so broad as to be > nearly useless. Using it creates platypi. Like all abstractions, it has it uses and its shortcomings. Generally it points to the distinction between those who look to the government to solve problems and those who prefer the dynamism of the free market. > -----Keith Gillette, Sun 2007-07-08 13:15---- > The majority of the Republicans in power appear to be Christian social > conservatives who seek to legislate their religious values and thereby > shred those Constitutional freedoms. > > -----Platt, Sunday, July 08, 2007 16:44----- > Can you cite specific legislation offered by Christian social > conservatives that shreds Constitutional freedoms? > ----- > > Thankfully, nothing shredding Constitutional freedoms has passed. However, > I'll point out that it's not the "liberal" Democrats who keep offering > flag-burning amendments. I'm not a free speech scholar but I think there's a restriction on speech that incites violence. Flag-burning may come under such a caveat. > Christian social conservatives also keep trying to > overturn Roe v. Wade and recently had success in banning by law "intact > dilation and extraction" abortions, which may not violate the Constitution, > but certainly represents a restriction of freedom. Pirsig had something to say about the abortion issue it but I can't find the reference at the moment. If someone can put their hands on it, perhaps it will show up in this thread. In the meantime, I'll keep looking. > -----Platt, Sunday, July 08, 2007 16:44----- > Yes, examples of socialist programs -- defined as government interference > in the private sector -- intended of course for the "public good." > Medicare is rapidly going broke to be followed by Social Security, a Ponzi > scheme. ----- > > No argument. > > -----Keith Gillette, Sun 2007-07-08 13:15---- > The number of communists in the U.S. must be vanishingly small, however, as > I don't hear anyone talking about turning over the means of production to > the state. > > -----Platt, Sunday, July 08, 2007 16:44----- > Not directly. But imposing regulations on business amounts to the same > thing and is socialistic in nature. Example: recent proposed legislation > requiring auto companies to manufacturer 35 mpg auto engines by 2018. ----- > > No, it doesn't amount to the same thing. Communism = state ownership of the > means of production. Socialism is a mixed bag, as there are many varieties > on a spectrum from communism to regulated capitalism. Just as you have pointed out certain threats to liberty by those on the right, I point out threats to free enterprise by those on the left. I think your definition of communism needs correction. Communism = state ownership of all property. Socialism = state ownership of the means of production. Mixed economy = socialized capitalism. >I love markets, but in order for them to work, they must be regulated. > There has to be a social contract in place to ensure fair-play and there > must be a way for the commons to be protected, as markets by themselves can > do neither. I agree there needs to be laws enforce contracts, protect against fraud and provide recourse for damages to one's self and property. But that's about as far as it needs to go. > I'm not a fan of the CAFE standards, either. I think they're heavy-handed. > What we really need is a cap on CO2 emissions & a market in emissions > credits like we do for SO2 already. That would protect the commons of the > atmosphere with minimal government intervention. The upshot would be more > cars with higher MPG or alternative energy sources. The market would > decide, not the government. That would be great. But government still has > to be there to protect the commons and to enforce the social contract. I disagree that CO2 emissions are a problem or that global warming is a crisis like Al Gore and other fear-mongers make it out to be. But that's neither here nor there. Generally, we agree on the approach you outline. > -----Platt, Sunday, July 08, 2007 16:44----- > The one freedom not mentioned by Pirsig and overlooked by the Founding > Fathers was the freedom to spend your own money as you see fit. ----- > > Like being able to say "no" as a tax-payer to the funneling of money to > religious organizations, perhaps? Right. But by eliminating income tax, you eliminate the option. > However, that freedom would amount to anarchy, which would return us to the > tyranny of the biological code of the "law of the jungle". Don't think so. The Fair Tax is a reasonable way to fund the courts, police and military to prevent anarchy. As for a return to the biological code we see that happening now in pop culture. I think we basically agree that the intellectual rights outlined by Pirsig must be defended at all costs. Would that all could be convinced likewise. 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/
