Keith, > -----Platt, Tuesday, July 10, 2007 08:34---- > "Productive dialog" always depends on defining one's terms. Most arguments > are about such definitions, as for example the meaning of "global warming" > and the "war on terror." ----- > > Surely true, which I think reinforces my point that the labels "liberal" > and "conservative", as commonly taken in this country, are too broad for > much constructive dialog. If you want to redefine those terms to mean > "communist" and "libertarian" when you use them, that's your prerogative, > but I think that just using those more specific terms would be more useful.
I agree that in dialogue such as we are having in this exchange, the more we define our terms when asked to, the greater the chances for mutual understanding. > -----Platt, Tuesday, July 10, 2007 08:34---- > Using government power other than to defend intellectual freedoms usually > involves a loss of freedom. Liberals are more inclined than conservatives > to use government to attain their social ends, such income redistribution. > Most "liberals" AND "conservatives" seek to use government to attain their > social ends. Yes, many liberal Democrats tend to seek income redistribution > in order to provide a safety net for the poor. However, many religious > social conservatives seek to use government to enforce their social values, > such as preventing homosexuals from being recognized in the same ways as > heterosexuals, teaching "Creation Science" or its latest incarnation, > "Intelligent Design", in schools, rolling back abortion rights, etc. Another way to look at your examples: using government to enforce a social contract between a man and a woman, ensure the freedom of elected local school officials to decide on their school's curriculum, and protect the lives of the unborn. As I noted previously, I consider these legitimate uses of government power -- protecting lives, ensuring individual freedoms, and enforcing contracts. I guess whether this view is libertarian or religious social conservative is up to you to decide. > -----Platt, Tuesday, July 10, 2007 08:34---- > Would you apply the same standard to a burning a cross on the front lawn > of a black family's home? ----- > > A provocative question that made me think. I support the Supreme Court's > ruling in Virginia v Black, which protects cross burning prima facia, but > makes it criminal if intimidation is proven. > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._Black> > > -----Platt, Tuesday, July 10, 2007 08:34---- > Every imposition of a tax is a move towards making property communal. > Liberals always seek higher taxes, and aim to redistribute income in the > name of "equality," a communist goal. I put communism and socialism under > the same umbrella as Pirsig -- attempts at intellectual control of society. > ----- > > Then shouldn't you support communism & socialism? As "Pirsigians", aren't > we FOR intellectual control of society? Yes, but current intellect is devoid of values and thus incapable of proper control. "But having said this, the Metaphysics of Quality goes on to say that science, the intellectual pattern that bas been appointed to take over society, has a defect in it. The defect is that subject-object science has no provision for morals." (Lila, 22) This is an important conclusion of the MOQ that I don't think too many here are ready to accept. Nor in the ten years this site has been open do I recall it being thoroughly discussed. I get the distinct impression that most contributors here believe that if only we could rid the world of the supposed "who-whom" game of oppressors and oppressed we could attain Utopia, appealing to the authority of historical figures like Marx, Jesus, and the Buddha for moral guidance rather than the more realistic rational morality proposed by Pirsig. > Personally, I'm not for economic equality, I'm for economy opportunity. I > am against letting people suffer & die due to lack thereof, however. I > think a social safety net is a necessary social good that's been > implemented in too heavy-handed a fashion. > > I don't understand your assertion that taxation = communal property. Paying > a sales tax on my bicycle doesn't make my bicycle part yours or > state-owned. You paid the sales tax with your previously owned money (property) which becomes the communal property of the state. > -----Platt, Tuesday, July 10, 2007 08:34---- > Shall we begin a battle of articles supporting our views? > ----- > > I have no wish to "battle" with our without supporting articles. I provide > links to relevant references in an attempt to substantiate and support my > arguments, rather than making proclamations without adequate evidence or > reasoning. You may choose to read them or not, but I offer them as a window > to understanding the positions I advance. I unfortunately don't have the > time to recapitulate lines of reasoning and supporting evidence that others > have already stated far better than I could. By "battle of articles" I meant I could respond by reference to an article supporting my arguments, you then respond by offering another article supporting yours, etc,. etc. For issues like global warming, immigration, the war against terror, etc. the internet provides a rich source of supporting arguments on all sides. I presume you know most of the opposing arguments to your views on these general subjects just as I know most of the arguments opposing mine. I agree with your last sentence above. > -----Platt, Tuesday, July 10, 2007 08:34---- > It's basically a sales tax with some interesting innovations. > ----- > > I'm skeptical because I support progressive taxation (to prevent the > concentration of power in the hands of the few, among other reasons), but > I'd be interested to learn more about the "interesting innovations". Do you > have any references I could review? Since you asked: http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer > -----Platt, Tuesday, July 10, 2007 08:34---- > If you defend freedom by joining the armed forces, you temporarily > "sacrifice" a number of essential liberties in order to meet the enemy on > his own terms. Also during war, the civilian population is sometimes of > necessity called upon to sacrifice some essential liberties. For example, > during WW II, free speech was curtailed -- "Loose lips sink ships." We see > in England the use of cameras that some call an invasion of privacy but > necessary to deter terrorism. Finally, did you have in mind other "high > moral codes" besides those intellectual codes we've been talking about? > ----- > > Those very intellectually freedoms, yes, and those yet undefined moral > imperatives given Dynamically. > > I am agreed that many sacrifices are necessary during a war. I don't buy > the "war" on terror, though. If we were battling a state, then those > essential liberties would be logically reinstated when the enemy state was > defeated and the war ended. In a "war" against terrorism, the threat is > diffuse & never-ending. When will essential liberties sacrificed in this > "war" be re-instated? I fear an Orwellian government taking away liberties > in the name of protecting its citizens, but, in a state of constant war, > never actually giving them back. A fear well-founded. I agree. > That said, I recognize the need for some concessions of privacy to improve > security in an age of terrorism. The loss of privacy entailed by > surveillance cameras and telecommunications monitoring only bothers me when > the power of surveillance goes unchecked. I believe that Big Brother > initiatives such as Homeland Security's Total Information Awareness and the > NSA's warrantless wiretapping program represent dangerous concentration of > power. I agree with David Brin's analysis in *The Transparent Society* that > any loss of liberty in this sense must be countered by reciprocal > transparency in order to prevent government abuse. > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society> Generally agree. It's difficult to be "transparent" about some operations against terrorism without revealing techniques that if exposed would kill the operation. A difficult balancing act to be sure. 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/
