Platt, It seems we have significant areas of agreement. Your positions sound much more specifically libertarian to me than just "conservative".
Just as you seem to hear 'communist' when the word "liberal" is used, I hear 'religious social conservative' when I hear the word "conservative". That's why I don't think those labels are terribly useful to productive dialog. -----Platt, Mon 2007-07-09 10:02----- 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. ----- But these "enemy combatants" have not been shown to actually be terrorists by any competent court. That's why they need minimal protections of due process. If they are terrorists, they should be punished according to the relevant laws. However, that guilt must be shown first. The GTO scandals demonstrate the flaws in the current approach. -----Platt, Mon 2007-07-09 10:02----- The ACLU promotes many liberal causes such as affirmative action. ----- Precisely my point. Here's a "liberal" group that also consistently defends Constitutional freedoms, such as the First Amendment. -----Platt, Mon 2007-07-09 10:02----- 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. ------ Perhaps a valid generalization, but that certainly doesn't make the case that "liberals" don't defend freedoms. -----Platt, Mon 2007-07-09 10:02----- 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. ------ The proponents of flag burning/desecration amendments seek to eliminate the practice because it's offensive. I see this as overreaching government meddling. An individual can certainly control him/herself if another is demonstrating by burning a flag or a Bible or a Koran, even if those are cherished symbols. That's very different from spuriously yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, causing panic and harm. -----Platt, Mon 2007-07-09 10:02----- 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. ----- Point taken; Thank you. However, this definition makes your assertion that liberalism == communism even more scurrilous. I'll admit to plenty of socialized capitalism tendencies in liberal thinking, even some socialism on the extreme left in the U.S. I see no evidence of liberals seeking to make all property communal. -----Platt, Mon 2007-07-09 10:02----- 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 argue it needs to go one step further: There are such things as commons that don't fare well under a pure market system. Government is needed to make externalities part of the economic equation, which requires targeted taxation and/or regulation: <http://www.gametheory.net/News/Items/073.html> -----Platt, Mon 2007-07-09 10:02----- 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. ----- I don't have time to argue for the reality of anthropogenic global warming or its potential consequences, but the case is accepted by the scientific community. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal." "World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 °C (2.0 and 11.5 °F) during the 21st century." " Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 cm (7.08 to 23.22 in)." "There is a confidence level >90% that there will be more frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall. "There is a confidence level >66% that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides." <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#IPCC _Fourth_Assessment_Report:_Climate_Change_2007> Take a look at the relevant and troubling worldwide environmental indicators on the Earth Policy Institute Eco-Economy Updates site: <http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/index.htm> -----Platt, Mon 2007-07-09 10:02----- 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'm not familiar with "The Fair Tax". (I hope it's not a euphemism for a flat tax.) -----Platt, Mon 2007-07-09 10:02----- 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. ----- Agreed, though I would hesitate to endorse "all costs", as I don't think the Good is served by protecting these rights by sacrificing our own essential liberties or violating our own highest moral codes. 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/
