RE: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Wim and all, Wim wrote: Do I understand rightly (from your 2/7 9:48 -0700 post to Marco) that your real libertarianism implies that the US should not deploy its army outside its own borders at all and that a really libertarian population would boycott US arms manufacturers when they export arms to anyone using them for the wrong cause? Yes and No. The Libertarian position is to not deploy the armed forces of the state outisde the state. No Kuwait, no Bosnia, no Vietnam. However a American Libertarian population would probably have some of the population on both sides of the boycott. Some for, some against. Wim wrote: You think that bad-mouthing your country is enough to keep your government from unashamedly supporting the economic interests of Americans who already consume far more than their fair share of earth's resources? Hmmm... Fair share? Who should determine waht is fair? That's a loaded question and one that I can't answer. I think bad-mouthing my is better than not bad-mouthing them and better than an armed uprising. Wim wrote: I am curious how your story went on. Did those officers grant you your freedom? Did you go on testing your freedom of opinion, for instance by setting fire to one of those stars-and-stripes flags whose provocative presence irritates so many people all over the world or to a copy of the Declaration of Independence? No they did not. I was forced to take the soviet flag down so I put an American flag with Jim Morrison's face on it wearing a crown of thorns which they grumbled a lot about but did not make me remove. I would not burn a US flag and certainly not a copy of the Declaration of Independence. Then again I wouldn't burn a Soviet flag either. Provocative presence? Irrates? Yeah I know the world hates the US so much that much of it feels compelled to move here and hate us in house. Wim wrote: We also agree on the basic right and duty of self preservation. We disagree on the translation of that right into an individual right to possess and use arms. Only when you identify solely with a biological pattern of value (your living body) self preservation translates directly into defending your self with arms (when other means of defence are exhausted). To the extent that you identify with a social pattern of value (a society) averting your death isn't necessary for self preservation. No single human being is essential for social and intellectual evolution. The harm done to a society's or a system-of-ideas' ability to grow and change by killing a single human is infinitesimal compared to the static social or intellectual quality of the whole (as is the potential harm done by letting him live, for that matter). I have no idea where you are going with all this. You sound to me to be arguing for the right of societies to kill members as you don't seem to think this causes no lasting ill effects, while renoucing violence as a means to defend oneself in all but... What circumstances? I confess I have no idea when you would consider violence justified. Wim wrote: My most compelling reason for renouncing capital punishment and the right to kill in self-defence is that it bars me from experiencing Dynamic Quality. ? Wim wrote: However infinitesimally small my individual contribution to the migration of static patterns of value towards Dynamic Quality may be by renouncing capital punishment and the right to kill in self defence, contributing to the Cause of DQ is in the end the only way to give Meaning to my life. I have to do what I can and accept it's only a drop in the ocean. I am completely lost. What does DQ have to do with non-violence? Sorry I don't follow your line of reasoning. Wim wrote: I fully agree with you that peace and order exist in society not primarily because of laws but because most people agree on how to behave. and I have no idea what gives you the impression that I am labouring under the illusion that actions of the state are always a step forward in social patterns of evolution. I happen to consider societies dominated by government to be only on the second tier of four in social development. (I will elaborate on this in a later post.) I would be curious to hear this elaboration. Wim wrote: Indeed if you're not willing to stand up for your rights, then it's certain that after a while you won't have any, but people like M.K. Gandhi proved that there are better ways of standing up for your rights than armed violence, even if they still may have to be adapted for use against more totalitarian and dictatorial regimes than British colonial rule. Adapted? Buried in mass graves is perhaps an 'adaptation'. Wim wrote: I still hold that whether non-violence would succeed against totalitarian dictators is not a valid argument for your right to individually possess and use arms. You think US government could change overnight into a totalitarian dictatorship? Seems hardly likely to
Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Glen, (and a p.s. to Wim, Lawrence and Gerhard) Few simple questions. Isn't it normal to have a permission in order to drive a car in Vermont? Yes, I guess. And rightly, as driving a car can be very dangerous, to yourself, and that's more important, to the others. And don't they retire your driving license if they catch you driving drunk or doped? Of course, as it is very dangerous to drive a car if you are addicted to alcohol. And aren't there number plates on your Vermont cars, so you can't do what you want when you are on the public street? And isn't it illegal to give a child your car, as he can't drive it? So, let me know why it is so wrong in Vermont or wherever else the idea to register the guns you own. Or the idea to put into every gun a sort of electronic password so that only the legitimate owner will be able to use it. As you probably know, guns firms oppose these and other suggestions, as they are afraid to lose their rich market. In few words, IMO they fill your head of pseudo libertarian messages, just to save their business. Luckily, there were no cars at the time of the Fathers, so they had no way to make laws about the freedom to drive a car 200 mph fast on a dead end way. The only idea that something is good as the Founding Fathers said that does not sounds very Dynamic to my hears. In the end people kill people not guns. By means of what? Marco p.s. 1 Gerhard: It the moment I'm not certain that MoQ are defining my goal, as I am more confused now on the deductions from MoQ than I was when I joined this list. I was used to having the goals defined by humanitarianism and utilitarianism, but lacked a foundation for these arguments. Some years ago, I thought I found this foundation when reading Lila, and I call tell you that I was pleased. Now, after being a member of this discussion group for a half year, I've learned that it is possible to be pro and con death penalty, it is possible to be humanitarian and non-humanitarian, it is possible to defend egoism and utilitarianism, etc. etc., all based on the MoQ. Well, they destroyed entire populations in the name of Jesus Christ, and his Verb Don't give up! 30 degrees? In Norway? well, they are really destroying the climate on this planet :-) p.s. 2 Lawrence: that slogan -- Be all you can be -- was quite consciously developed for the US army by a group of people who were quite familiar with Pirsig (and Korzybski). Familiar with Pirsig? Interesting... what group? p.s. 3 (last but not least) Wim I've read several times your long message (by the way, IMO it's more easy to read in plain text) What to say? THANKS... no, better... MANY THANKS FOR YOUR WORDS MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
RE: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Glen, Just to clarify my point of view on a few things (if they was unclear). Glen wrote: I think you are being ridiculous and no doubt you think I am a barbarian. Your points are articulately put and I can understand your line of reasoning even if I disagree with it, as I hope you can understand mine. Gerhard: I can understand how you and others are reasoning when ending up supporting death penalty, but I can not understand how you can do this reasoning based on MoQ. Glen wrote: The point of the thought experiment was to describe the most extreme conditions to see if Gerhard would ever support capital punishment. Perhaps a Nazi scenario would have been more effective. I think there is a time and place for capital punishment although it is infrequent. Gerhard: I do not support capital punishment by death sentences in any situation. I do think that self-defence is morally allowable, also under MoQ, at a biological level (individuals). This should probably also be applicable at a society level, giving the society the right to murder in self-defence when attacked by another society, if death is the only solution, but I think this will only apply for an invation force or a armed military group within the society trying to take over power. In all cases the one that have a choice (kill or not to kill, attack or not to attack) are breaking the moral code, but not the one defending himself/herself/itself (kill or be killed). I am much to young to have experienced the German occupation of Norway during the WWII. I do not regard this situation as being something where other moral codes should apply, but I'm aware of the fact that the people that experienced this war feels so when dealing with people that had betrayed their country. I do not agree with them or support the action, but I understand. Your answer to Rasheed clearly states the difference in our opinion: Sure I would shoot him. It would not be good to kill that person but it would be good to successfully defend my person. I can only say: YES, I think you are a barbarian. Gerhard MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
RE: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Hi Glen and All On 3 Jul 2001, at 9:43, N. Glen Dickey wrote: The purpose of the Thought Experiment was to see if there were any conditions in which capital punishment would be justified. It seems like you are saying there would be, which while we might differ on the circumstances we seem to agree that these conditions do exist. That's reasonable, good. I thought that it was obvious from the context of Pirsigs statement that if there is an immediate and overwhelming threat to a society then it is justified in killing to protect itself. This does not mean that any half-assed excuse that a representative of a lazy and degenerate society wheels out is, of itself, sufficient reason. The circumstances have to be exceptional and no alternative is possible. But it is capital punishment we are talking about, which is the sentence that a LEGITIMATE state passes in response to a FAIR TRIAL (at which the accused MUST be present) at which point the guilty party is contained and in almost every conceivable situation thereafter unable to threaten that society further. As a consequence this effectively rules out capital punishment. Horse wrote: I would say that the MOQ does support cryogenic preservation for seriously criminal behaviour - it is just one more form of containment. But why never to be re-awakened? When we reach the point where we can comprehensibly remove anti-social behaviour by some form of reconditioning why not revive the criminal. A chilling thought. I hope that any society that can do this is morally beyond reproach. Glen Replied: Better yet why waste the time on fixing the criminal at all? Is anybody really going to vote for a tax to awaken homcidal maniacs only to perform a complicated medical procedure so they can be retrained to live in a society that that have little connection to? Probably not, in which the criminals have for all intents and purposes been put to death. I don't know if that's completely bad though, and at least the social pattern has the option of reawakening them. Certain types of 'aberrant' behaviour have been shown to be attributable to hormonal and chemical imbalances which when removed corrected the behaviour. This may be the case with certain homicidal tendencies etc. Also, as psychiatric methods and various forms of holistic non-drug related therapies and treatments are refined these can be utilised. In a civilised society with civilised members there will be a move towards civilised treatments for sick members - that is unless we cling to these medieval beliefs that these people are just born evil and/or possessed by the devil. Or alternatively we can continue to accept the argument that people are of less value than money. Horse wrote: Justice and the law are STATIC value patterns. Justice IS law. If you want to improve justice then improve the law! Glen Replied: While I certainly agree that law does represent a static pattern of social quality the law is not justice, no not at all. Justice is an intellectual pattern that pertains to the balance of good vs. evil. Go check your C.O.D. for justice. Concise Oxford Dictionary justice // n. 1 just conduct. 2 fairness. 3 the exercise of authority in the maintenance of right. 4 judicial proceedings (was duly brought to justice; the Court of Justice). 5 a a magistrate. b a judge, esp. (in England) of the Supreme Court of Judicature or (in the US) of the US Supreme Court or a state Supreme Court. I don't see good or evil mentioned - fairness and right do get a mention though! Glen continues The laws may implement justice but they are do not contain it. LAWS may be JUST but JUSTICE is not solely the province of the LAW. The state may not convict someone under the law but that does not mean that society (the population) should treat them as if they never did anyone wrong. Why would I volutarily have commerce with a murderer? True the state may have aquited the murderer but it would be unjust of me to pretend that they did not violate the social pattern. Confusing Justice with the Law is like confusing Social Patterns of Quality with the State. The second item is a sub set of the first, not equal to. Some of the Social Patterns of Quality are represented by the State but not all. Justice may be Intellectual patterns of Value but what do these patterns create? They create laws which create justice which creates laws which.. It is an interactive process guided by DQ: Justice and law are identical. Static morality is full of heroes and villains, loves and hatreds, carrots and sticks. Its values dont change by themselves. Unless they are altered by Dynamic Quality they say the same thing year after year. LILA Chapter 9 These patterns cant by themselves perceive or adjust to Dynamic Quality. Only a living being can do that. LILA Chapter 13 History is also full of people who disagree with the law, believe
RE: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Rasheed and all, Rasheed wrote: If this person that you killed was only trying to take your wallet, would it still be 'good' to kill him? I'd need more specifics to really analyze this correctly. If someone pulls a lethal weapon and threatens to destroy me unless I comply with their demands, then they have invoked my duty of self preservation. I knew a guy whose best friend bought a gun in a similar situation and then shot himself. I know that there are many responsible gun users, but there are also many psycho bastards out there who, thanks to lax gun control laws, can obtain firearms quickly and easily. IMO gun control laws are about control period. If your friend drank drano would you ban that? What about all the people who successfully defend themselves and their families with their firearms. What about Vermont? To do honest your story doesn't sound believeable. What's the persons name and where did this occur? Sincerely, AreteLaugh MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
RE: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Horse and all, Thought Experiment #2 is posted further down for anyone interested. Glen wrote: Thought Experiment: Say you are the citizen of an inhabitated island in the south pacific that is a sovereign nation with a population of ten citizens. A serial killer kills seven of the citizens. You, a friend and the serial killer are the only people left on the island. You and your friend could undertake the long voyage off the island or you could kill the serial killer. What do you do? Glen wrote: What he (RMP) doesn't say is the reason capital punishment should never be allowed is. While I do not think that MoQ would support death for most crimes is does not rule out the death penalty for all crimes. Would you sincerely argue that the serial killer on our hypothetical island represents a potential dynamic force for the evolution of our social pattern? Horse wrote: Of course not! Furthermore Pirsig doesn't say that every stroppy idiot that doesn't conform is the equivalent of the Zuni brujo (a point some members would do well to remember). This is an argument against the death penalty and in favour of tolerance. Jefferson, Trotsky, Stalin, Collins, De Valera, Castro, Guevara etc. were all revolutionaries and, dependent upon your point of view, bad guys, but they were the instigators of social change IN RETROSPECT and thus REAL dynamic forces - and an irrepressible force for social change. The concept of RETROSPECTIVE evaluation is a major point to remember. The purpose of the Thought Experiment was to see if there were any conditions in which capital punishment would be justified. It seems like you are saying there would be, which while we might differ on the circumstances we seem to agree that these conditions do exist. That's reasonable, good. Horse wrote: Alternatively, as with the Merchant of Venice, can you offer me a means of physically destroying a Biological pattern without harming Intellectual patterns (a pound of flesh without spilling a drop of blood)? Glen wrote: No I cannot and do not expect to be able to do so in the near term. What about cyrogenic preservation though? Do you think that the MoQ supports placing our serial killer in a state of suspended animation never to be reawakened? Horse wrote: I would say that the MOQ does support cryogenic preservation for seriously criminal behaviour - it is just one more form of containment. But why never to be re-awakened? When we reach the point where we can comprehensibly remove anti-social behaviour by some form of reconditioning why not revive the criminal. A chilling thought. I hope that any society that can do this is morally beyond reproach. Better yet why waste the time on fixing the criminal at all? Is anybody really going to vote for a tax to awaken homcidal maniacs only to perform a complicated medical procedure so they can be retrained to live in a society that that have little connection to? Probably not, in which the criminals have for all intents and purposes been put to death. I don't know if that's completely bad though, and at least the social pattern has the option of reawakening them. Horse wrote: This is a gross distortion of the MoQ. Glen wrote: Wow that's a pretty big pedestal you got yourself. My views are not unreasoned, nor are they unarticulately presented. Horse wrote: I completely agree - please don't take offense if I sometimes seem to be a touch pompous - I am, after all, English :) None taken. Glen wrote: So if we know somebody committed murder but they get off on a technicallity we throw up our hands and declare justice is served? Faugh! Horse wrote: We may say that it is not good but recap Pirsig: Static quality, the moral force of the priests, emerges in the wake of Dynamic Quality. It is old and complex. It always contains a component of memory. Good is conformity to an established pattern of fixed values and value objects. Justice and law are identical. Static morality is full of heroes and villains, loves and hatreds, carrots and sticks. Its values dont change by themselves. Unless they are altered by Dynamic Quality they say the same thing year after year. Sometimes they say it more loudly, sometimes more softly, but the message is always the same. LILA Chapter 9 Horse wrote: Justice and the law are STATIC value patterns. Justice IS law. If you want to improve justice then improve the law! While I certainly agree that law does represent a static pattern of social quality the law is not justice, no not at all. Justice is an intellectual pattern that pertains to the balance of good vs. evil. Go check your C.O.D. for justice. The laws may implement justice but they are do not contain it. LAWS may be JUST but JUSTICE is not solely the province of the LAW. The state may not convict someone under the law but that does not mean that society (the population) should treat them as if they never did anyone wrong. Why would I volutarily have
Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Wim, Sorry about that, it was just a little sarcasm (Americans have mastered that art), and i can understand how it could be difficult to pick that up, especially when it's typed instead of spoken. Basically, im just pointing out the irony of punishing someone who killed someone by killing that person. 'An eye for an eye leaves the world blind'--- Gandhi. rasheed MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Glen, I guess you would need more specifics to properly analyze my example. Let's say that this guy pulls a gun on you in a dark alley and says, 'give me your wallet or i'll kill you.' Let's say you have a gun he doesnt see, and you can either give him the wallet and be on your way, or kill him and keep your wallet. Would it be 'good' to kill that person? I thought gun control laws also involved a background check, which i think is very important. I think that in order to purchase a firearm one should have to offer proof that he needs it and proof that he is competent enough to use it properly and keep it away from children and such. How many stories have you heard about morons who dont hide their guns properly from kids? i remember last year reading about a first grader who murdered a classmate of his with a gun that was kept in his house. I dont know a damn thing about Vermont other than the fact that you keep mentioning it as defense for your position. What are any significant statistics you have about Vermont? Id like to know. About the story, i dont know the name of the guy who killed himself. A singer from a punk band called 'Tuesday' told the story at a show. Whether or not he made it up or not, i dont know, but i dont see why he would, so i believed it. Anyway, you can look at the suicide and say, 'this guy was crazy, if he didn't shoot himself he would have killed himself another way.' But you can also say that with this guy's background, he could have killed other people with his gun as well. I dont have a problem with people who use their guns responsibly, but there are too many who dont. If you strengthened gun control laws, it would be more of an inconvenience im sure for the responsible ones to get guns, but it would prevent a lot of psychos from getting guns in the first place, which is well worth it in my eyes. Rasheed MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
RE: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Rasheed, I guess you would need more specifics to properly analyze my example. Let's say that this guy pulls a gun on you in a dark alley and says, 'give me your wallet or i'll kill you.' Let's say you have a gun he doesnt see, and you can either give him the wallet and be on your way, or kill him and keep your wallet. Would it be 'good' to kill that person? Sure I would shoot him. It would not be good to kill that person but it would be good to successfully defend my person. He might decide to shoot me anyway and is certainly threating to. I think that in order to purchase a firearm one should have to offer proof that he needs it and proof that he is competent enough to use it properly and keep it away from children and such. Needs a firearm for what? While the MoQ may not say much about Gun Control the US founding fathers did. Do you realize that the founding fathers expressly stated the citizenry should be allowed to own the same kind of firearms the the Army was equiped with? Their reasoning was that if the Army ever tried to over throw the State or if the State became a tryanny that ordinary citizens would out number the government forces by twenty to one. They said this explicitly. I'm sure you've heard all kinds of stories about the horrors of gun owership and you will never hear anything but from the main stream media. It's not that other stories aren't out there but that they don't report. Don't take my word for it, do your own research. Independent researchers have shown that stories of people defending themselves with firearms are not reported and stories (like your firends) of the dangers of firearms are. You know how many gun laws there are in Vermont? Zero. None. Empty set. If your reasoning is correct why don't we hear horror stories about people dying all the time in Vermont? Because people kill people not guns. I think the same is true in Alaska. Yet hear in the SF Bay Area of California there are parts of Oakland that I won't stop in while driving and we have gun control up the wazoo! The crimninals still have guns and will continue to have them because of supply and demand. Yet I as a representitive of the law abiding (well for the most part anyway ) community am seen as a threat to the State because I like to go shoot my AR-15 at the range once in a while? Yeah sure. Up until the fifties it was legal to buy 20mm Anti-Tank rifles (Solothurn) and people did! How come we didn't have all kinds of wacko crimes then? This is a weapon that could shoot through light armored vehicles! Maybe guns and wackos killing people are only distantly related. At any rate you seem confused over the difference between a right and a priveledge. Ask the government permission for owning a firearm? Governments are instituted by men (and women) and derive their powers from the consent of the governed not the other way round. I fear the government that fears my gun. Glen MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Glen, Interesting post. I never realized that about Vermont. But, you also have to realize that the SF Bay area is much more populated than Alaska or Vermont, inevitably creating more crime. People in big cities can buy guns from arms dealers fairly easily (i think), so maybe gun control laws wont do a whole lot in that respect. The founding fathers existed 200 years ago, it's a different country now. Do you honestly believe the military is going to turn against the people of this country and the only defenders will be gun owners? Well, in any case, i dont think they'll invade Danville, Illinois, so i should be safe. In the fifties and before, things were much more stable in general than they are now. There were less people, for starters. The perecentage of people who loved and respected the country was no doubt much higher than now. There are people within our borders who hate our government and see terrorism as a way of life. Also, shooting up an office or school wasnt a guarantee of celebrity status, like it is now. Lastly, if you know of any websites for or against gun control with statistics on all this stuff, that would be helpful. Not that i even care much about statistics, i just need a little bit of concreteness for this argument. rasheed PS there was a great Simpsons episode about gun control, i dont know if youve seen it, where Homer says, 'Lisa, if i didn't have a gun the King of England could just come in here and start pushing you around. Do you want that? Do you?' and more about how 'the constitution states that everyone must own a gun.' MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
RE: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Rasheed, Try http://www.reason.com/bi/guns.html or perhaps http://www.jpfo.org/ . Reason is also a great site on a plethora of issues. Well if you disarm the the population and the military decides to take over and it comes down to an armed revolution your pretty screwed. Why are the federal firearms laws based on the german laws from the 1930's? You think i'm kidding don't you? Check it out. Glen MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
To: Platt Glen Platt, you will agree that giving up your own life (which has its value, its duties, its responsibilities, and its unique and valuable path to go) to go distribute condoms in South Africa is not an easy thing even if you think it's worthy. None of us has infinite time and infinite resources to do everything s/he thinks would be good. If you are willing to let me know that I'm not doing what I should, thanks for your suggestion, but it's not that easy. In a way, I am pretty sure that my humanitarianism *is* hollow, like any belief on earth is (yours included). We are all talking about things that we never experienced; I don't think you spent much time in South Africa handing out condoms, or that Glen has ever fought in a civil war against an african dictatorship. St. Francis, Christ, Buddha, ... these are people whose humaniatarianism was less hollow, in fact (although their views were hollow in a way, too, since they were humans). So your point seems to be that either you are St. Francis, and willing to give your life to the poor, or you should be a cynical (i.e., should not believe human life is sacred to you). So, only cynicals have the right to live a life of their own... should I become a cynical... no wait... even mock humanitarians have a life of their own! Well, then I will be a mock humanitarian... I personally would prefer living in a world of humanitarians whose views are too hollow to sacrifice their own lives for an altruistic mission, but will nevertheless *try* to live their common lives consistently with humanitarians ideals, than to live in a world of deep-thinking cynicals. Glen, your attitude towards civil war is quite interesting for a MOQ follower. What you maybe do not consider is that deciding when the conditions hold that make civil war (or just war) moral is not clear cut, as this is always judged from a particular point of view that may well differ from yours. In particular, if people in the third world got aware that they are oppressed by the west (be it true or not), you are saying: embrace your guns and kill us. You should also be supporting terrorism, which is what you can do if you want to fight an overly stronger enemy: or are you suggesting that, if Nigerians thought Americans are helping in their oppression, they should fight them face to face in a honorable military war (i.e., do mass suicide)? So terrorists would probably feel very comfortable in your framework. But those who would feel more comfortable with such a framework are the oppressors, freed from all of their responsibilities. I do *agree* that it would be moral for Nigerians to fight for their rights (and even more so to find a way to fight peacefully) but this doesn't make it any more moral for someone to put them in the condition to *have* to fight for their rights. I hope the MOQ *cannot* be twisted to social darwinism; I hope the MOQ is *not* thin air. Pirsig has every right to condemn self-proclaimed humanitarians on the basis that they are mock humanitarians, albeit it still seems an extreme generalizations to say that no one is a real humanitarian with the exceptions mentioned above (Christ, etc.). The opposite of being a mock humanitarian is not criticizing those who take the oppressed' side (even in an electronic discussion), not to support war and violence as a means of solving problems, and declaring that those who do not turn to violence are the cause of their own problems. A P.S.: As usual, I also agree with Marco. There was no need to repeat his arguments, but they would be in my post if they weren't in his. Platt Holden ha scritto: Hi Andrea: What I meant was that you should go to Africa to distribute condoms to prevent AIDS and the subsequent deaths from that behaviorial disease, not to prevent children from being born into misery. Since you value human life above all else, it seems you should be doing that or something llike that. Otherwise, your words seem hollow to me. Most humantarians talk a good game, but rarely practice what they preach. Pirsig railed against Rigel in Chapter 7 of LIla: The ones who go posing as moralists are the worst. Cost-free morals. Full of great ways for others to improve without any expense to themselves. There's an ego thing in there, too.They use the morals to make someone else look inferior and that way look better themselves. Maybe I've misinterpreted your meaning, or taken it out of context. But when someone says I value human life above all else, or Life is sacred, I usually find that they don't back up their words with corresponding action. That's what Pirsig meant by cost-free morals. Platt MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html -- Andrea Sosio RIM/PSPM/PPITMN Tel. (8)9006 mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MOQ.ORG -
RE: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Gerhard, Marco, Andrea and all, Just to be clear, I do not think the US is a country that is currently following a Libertarian path especialily in the area of foreign policy. While I wish this to be the case, it simply isn't. While the US might be more Libertarian compared to other countries, I know of no country that could be described as following REAL Libertarian principles. I am actively pursuing a policy of educating of my countrymen (via Television) in the hopes of making the US more Libertarian. Glen wrote: Thought Experiment: Say you are the citizen of an inhabitated island in the south pacific that is a sovereign nation with a population of ten citizens. A serial killer kills seven of the citizens. You, a friend and the serial killer are the only people left on the island. You and your friend could undertake the long voyage off the island or you could kill the serial killer. What do you do? Would you sincerely argue that the serial killer on our hypothetical island represents a potential dynamic force for the evolution of our social pattern? Gerhard wrote: This is purely rhetorically, but I can't see any reason that she's not. What to say? I think you are being ridiculous and no doubt you think I am a barbarian. Your points are articulately put and I can understand your line of reasoning even if I disagree with it, as I hope you can understand mine. Marco wrote: given that your example has no sense about McVeigh, as he did not kill the 70% of the USA population and he was already in a jail when he has been executed... Oh no we're in agreement! My argument was not supposed to make sense about McVeigh. I would not have executed McVeigh, but I do not represent the government of the US. The point of the thought experiment was to describe the most extreme conditions to see if Gerhard would ever support capital punishment. Perhaps a Nazi scenario would have been more effective. I think there is a time and place for capital punishment although it is infrequent. Marco wrote: I'm not the only one stating that the intellectual era has not been still established in the great part of the world. Yet another point of agreement! I don't see how this effects my agruments in regards Nigerians. They are still evolving as are we and a war of knives against bazookas is still be preferable to slavery. Marco wrote: I'm just making the least I can to inform western public opinion! And I! While a Libertarian government would not intervein in Nigeria, a Libertarian population would think these corporations actions an outrage against the Liberty of their fellow human beings! What do the corporations have to protect? Their markets! Marco wrote: Were mainly to say that the purpose of the market (money, the social blood) is blind to the individual intellectual rights. So an unruled market creates or supports often injustices, especially towards those *intellectually weak* populations. Hmmm... I think a policy of state non-intervetion in other countries is best. If your population is moral then citizens of like mind will and should band together and oppose oppression without the complusion of government force. The market will always be blind and nothing will change that, only individuals can be moral. Andrea wrote: In particular, if people in the third world got aware that they are oppressed by the west (be it true or not), you are saying: embrace your guns and kill us. And your point is? I do wonder at your use of us. If i'm oppressing people then what's wrong with them making me stop? This seems pretty normal MoQ thought to me. Andrea wrote: You should also be supporting terrorism, which is what you can do if you want to fight an overly stronger enemy: or are you suggesting that, if Nigerians thought Americans are helping in their oppression, they should fight them face to face in a honorable military war (i.e., do mass suicide)? So terrorists would probably feel very comfortable in your framework. Really? Our ideas about how to implement a successful rebellion are very different (see some of my eariler posts). I suspect that you would not make a very good tactican for the Nigerians. I don't think I would support random terrorist acts under any circumstances nor would I participate in a frontal assualt against a superior foe. Both are madness. Andrea wrote: Pirsig has every right to condemn self-proclaimed humanitarians on the basis that they are mock humanitarians, albeit it still seems an extreme generalizations to say that no one is a real humanitarian with the exceptions mentioned above (Christ, etc.). The opposite of being a mock humanitarian is not criticizing those who take the oppressed' side (even in an electronic discussion), not to support war and violence as a means of solving problems, and declaring that those who do not turn to violence are the cause of their own problems. I have no idea where you are going here. In particular I
Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Blade and David, We've been over the death penalty topic about a month ago, what i concluded from it was that it is in fact immoral to kill a person, unless that person is a threat to society UNLESS you kill him (ie, crimes such as treason). This doesnt apply very much in modern times. Do you honestly think that the OKlahoma City bomber (please dont use his name) was still a threat once he was arrested and put in a maximum security prison? rasheed MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
In a message dated 6/28/2001 10:52:26 AM Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I see no contradiction between guns and the passage in Lila. If a social pattern kills an individual for violating social prohibitions (mal prohibum) then yes that's bad but if I kill someone intent on doing me bodily harm then that's good! I am simply choosing my intellectual pattern over someone elses additionally the other person is acting as the initiator of force not me. Arete, If this person that you killed was only trying to take your wallet, would it still be 'good' to kill him? How do you know what that person's intentions are at all? As for your staunch opposition of gun control laws, what about the fact that people can buy guns at wal-marts where no background checks are done? I knew a guy whose best friend bought a gun in a similar situation and then shot himself. I know that there are many responsible gun users, but there are also many psycho bastards out there who, thanks to lax gun control laws, can obtain firearms quickly and easily. rasheed MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Wim, You're right. That'll teach those criminals not to kill people. rasheed MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Glen, As ive said before in an earlier post, you can't expect Nigerians to be as well-informed about events as we are in the US. And in many 3rd world countries, starting a revolutiong isnt as easy as you seem to believe. People can be arrested just for printing anti-government sentiments (many of the people arrested simply 'disappear.') So how do you expect people not to say that their government works? HOw do you expect to just take care of it themselves? To even think of taking arms against their government scares them. We talked a lot about this in Amnesty International last year. Tell me, if you lived in the 3rd world and knew that if you fought a war against your oppressive government, they would torture your family, would you do it? I doubt it. As for you calling Andrea a racist, i think your definition of the word is much more inclusive than his (or mine). the dictionary on my lap says, 'one who believes in the superiority of one race over another, seeking to maintain the supposed purity of a certain race.' Further, making a racist comment or thinking a racist thought in the past doesnt automatically qualify anyone as a racist. These judgments can come from society as acquired conditioning, but are destroyed with time and thought. Rasheed MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Platt, Marco Anyway Platt, as I wrote once, here in Italy even the atheists are catholic. When we say that we put human life above everything we are probably meaning something a guy called Jesus used to say many years ago. I'm not very religious, but I've always read in the MOQ a metaphysical explanation that human life, that is source of intellect, is above everything. Platt No, not when a free society is threatened. Reread Chap. 13 of Lila for occasions when war (the sacrifice of human life) is justified. Also note the following quote from Chap. 3: Of all the contributions America has made to the history of the world, the idea of freedom from a social hierarchy has been the greatest. It was fought for in the American Revolution and confirmed in the Civil War. Let us not forget that many Americans and Italians gave their lives for freedom that the MOQ calls the highest good. Of course. You are pretty right. A free society. But when we say that life is above everything, I think we are just evaluating those sacrifices as the biggest thing. While IMO it is wrong to give your own life for a social purpose (i.e. the honor of the family), it is the biggest thing to give your life in order to save the future right for other human beings to be source of thoughts. That's why, even if I respect the pain of the relatives of both the young fascists and the young anti-fascist dead in the Italian civil war (during the WW II ), I evaluate their sacrifice diversely. Many of those fascists boys were just boys, of course. That has been the biggest blame: to convince so many young minds that it was right to sacrifice their life for the health of a dictatorship. Why many Europeans do not hold freedom above security is a mystery, especially after suffering for so many centuries under totalitarian regimes of religious zealots, corrupt kings and ruthless dictators. Maybe 'cause NOW we are not under totalitarian regimes of religious zealots, corrupt kings and ruthless dictators! And 'cause we don't feel security as the opposite of freedom. Anyway, if you reread my 13 June post on this thread, I agree that we just have to be a little more watchful about our governments. But, I digress. As a humanitarian, what have you done (voluntarily) to alleviate the suffering of the Nigerians? Or even the Serbs next door? Italy has cancelled the great part of the third world countries foreign debt. Italy has been the basis for all the air force missions to the Balkans, and, as I'm not able to be happy for that, I just hope it's the last time. Italy has always been the most *pro-union* country in Europe, and I'm convinced that the European Union will help to solve definitely the millenarian conflicts between Germans and French, Italians and Greeks, Austrians and Italians.. for our stupid borderlines. We have suffered terrorism and mafia, but no criminal has been executed, and I'm proud. Italy is one of the front line countries in the fight for the abolition of capital punishment. Of course, we also have our guilt. Especially fascism, that's clear. And, more lately, corruption. But in the last 50 years we have done good things. Could be it's not enough, hope we will be able to get better, with the help of everyone. So, what do I do? On the public level, I pay taxes. And claim a fair government. On a personal level, it's my own business. Ciao Marco MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Glen: Oh no we're in agreement! My argument was not supposed to make sense about McVeigh. I would not have executed McVeigh, but I do not represent the government of the US. The point of the thought experiment was to describe the most extreme conditions to see if Gerhard would ever support capital punishment. Perhaps a Nazi scenario would have been more effective. I think there is a time and place for capital punishment although it is infrequent. Marco: I think that if capital punishment is wrong in McVeigh's case, well, it's always wrong. In *extreme conditions* I don't deny the right to self defense, as well as the social duty to defend the citizen actively by means of an armed police. I hate violence, albeit I agree with Asimov's mot: Violence is the last shelter of the unable (retranslated from Italian to English). If we are not able to prevent a crime, violence could be the last shelter. But we must be not very proud for that. Glen: While a Libertarian government would not intervein in Nigeria, a Libertarian population would think these corporations actions an outrage against the Liberty of their fellow human beings! What do the corporations have to protect? Their markets! So you agree that market can't solve those problems. Good. Just I don't agree that a democratic nation should not intervein. Market comes from western nations, and IMO western governments should balance the (often unfair) market intervention. Glen: Hmmm... I think a policy of state non-intervetion in other countries is best. If your population is moral then citizens of like mind will and should band together and oppose oppression without the complusion of government force. The market will always be blind and nothing will change that, only individuals can be moral. But individuals can't stop Nike, Chevron or McDonald's so, what's the solution? A Cuban-like revolution? Not enough. No, I can't stop Nike, but a democratic nation can. And should. Ciao Marco MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
RE: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Hi Glen and All Sorry for the delay in responding - t'ings ta do, ya know. On 30 Jun 2001, at 10:36, N. Glen Dickey wrote: Horse and all, I know this passage well and you raise some very good points here. And YES this passage does give me considerable hesitation in putting forward my previous arguments, yet let us try a thought experiment and reason together. Thought Experiment: Say you are the citizen of an inhabitated island in the south pacific that is a sovereign nation with a population of ten citizens. A serial killer kills seven of the citizens. You, a friend and the serial killer are the only people left on the island. You and your friend could undertake the long voyage off the island or you could kill the serial killer. What do you do? Pirsig states: In the case of treason or insurrection or war a criminals threat to a society can be very real. But if an established social structure is not seriously threatened by a criminal, then an evolutionary morality would argue that there is no moral justification for killing him. Is the serial killer on our island guilty of treason or insurection? How do we differentiate a serious from a non-serious threat to our society? I think in the thought experiment above there is every reason to think that the MoQ would support destroying the serial killer. Admittedly this is an extreme example which is exactly why I choose it because it underlines the problem so well. An interesting example Glen but not a difficult one and for the sake of argument I'll assume that the sovereign state has been established on principles supplied by the MoQ. As has already been asked, how do we know for sure that the killer is not your friend? In order to ascertain this some for of formal trial is necessary and for that there must be a set of formal procedures etc. - you've already stated it's a sovereign nation which is a formal and legal term if it is recognised by other nation bodies. Assuming we have established formally that the accused is the murderer - a common murderer in this case (is there any particular reason he should have been a serial killer?) we can then decide if he is guilty of either treason or insurrection so a couple of definitions are needed. I took these from the ninth edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary: TREASON: Violation by a subject of allegiance to the sovereign or to the State, esp. by attempting to kill or overthrow the sovereign or to overthrow the government INSURRECTION A rising in open resistance to established authority; a rebellion so as the guilty party is a common murderer (we've already established this) he is not covered by either of the above, but the passage from Lila is: When a society is not itself threatened, as in the execution of individual criminals, the issue becomes more complex. In the case of treason or insurrection or war a criminals threat to a society can be very real. But if an established social structure is not seriously threatened by a criminal, then an evolutionary morality would argue that there is no moral justification for killing him. The 'society' is no longer threatened (there'es only three of us left), there is no question of treason or insurrection, we're not at war and we have the 'evil' bugger in irons (this was necessary for the trial) so accordingly we are not morally justified in killing him. The solution seems to be that we build some form of secure confinement and contain him or request assistance from a friendly neighbouring state to do similar. Do note though that Pirsig does not say that if a person is guilty of treason or insurrection (or in times of war) it is ALWAYS NECESSARY to kill that person - only where there is a clear and identifiable threat to the society. A possible good case to illustrate this was the execution of Caucescu after the uprising in Rumania in 1989. He was a clear threat to the new order and could have commanded further counter-revolution. The revolutionaries tried him and (IMO justifiably) executed him. If he had survived and provided a counter-revolution he would have (justifiably?) executed the earlier insurrectionists (an alternative name for revolutionaries - it depends on which side your allegiances lie : ) ). Additionally would care to define a society? Western civilyzation? A country? a state? a county? a town? your neighborhood? your circle of friends? A Society: From the C.O.D. 1 the sum of human conditions and activity regarded as a whole functioning interdependently. 2 a social community (all societies must have firm laws). 3 a a social mode of life. b the customs and organization of an ordered community. 4 Ecol. a plant or animal community. 5 a the socially advantaged or prominent members of a community (society would not approve). b this, or a part of it, qualified in some way (is not done in polite society). 6 participation in hospitality; other
Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Dear Rasheed, You wrote 2/7 14:52 -0400 in the first response to my borrowed description (29/6 12:01 +0200) of capital punishment as killing people to prove killing people is wrong: You're right. That'll teach those criminals not to kill people. Didn't you get my message, are you just playing a joke at me or are you really meaning That won't teach those criminals not to kill people and forgot to add an :-)? With friendly greetings, Wim Nusselder
Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Glen, given that your example has no sense about McVeigh, as he did not kill the 70% of the USA population and he was already in a jail when he has been executed... Thought Experiment: Say you are the citizen of an inhabitated island in the south pacific that is a sovereign nation with a population of ten citizens. A serial killer kills seven of the citizens. You, a friend and the serial killer are the only people left on the island. You and your friend could undertake the long voyage off the island or you could kill the serial killer. What do you do? Take care, it could be that your friend is the serial killer! Or even you, if they both agree. Marco MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Glen Marco, You seem pretty uptight about this racist thing. You think you've never had a rascist thought or never made a racist statement before? Could be, but I'm pretty sure that my post about Nigeria was completely anti-racist. On the other hand, I think that exploitation of weak populations is nourished by (our) indifference. 1. I agree that a civil war is not always a good option. We both seem to agree that the emargo on Cuba is idiotic and that American implementation and policy in Vietnam was ill conceived. Still in Cuba's case Castro policies are as idiotic as the US's. Oh yeah, we just finished overthrowing a dictator so what kind of government do we want... think hard... hmmm... I know let's have another dictator! The man is a f--king genius. At least one agreement. Even if the Cuba situation has been a little more complicated. Castro in the beginning was not a communist dictator, but the complete aversion Cuba received from the USA triggered their alliance with the Soviet Union. And anyway the ideologic politics of Castro is much better than the corrupted politics of Batista. 2. Here we part company. If the conditions in Nigeria are as you say I don't see how the Nigerian people have any option but civil war. They owe it to themselves. Duty to Self? Arete? (Considering some of your arguments in 4 I think it safe to say they are as advanced as Homeric greeks) I'm not the only one stating that the intellectual era has not been still established in the great part of the world. See the recent Bo's post (12 june) on the Toffler thread: Bo: First of all, my grand sweep which sees the rising change curve as Intellect's evolution, is limited to the western and /western-like democracies*, the greater part of the world is still social-level focussed.** I wonder about your conception of civil war is exactly. A civil war doesn't neccessarily mean that getting your matchette and chopping up your local offical (although it might). If your enemy is a corporation then it has certain vulnerabilities (just like a technologically advanced society does). Acts of sabotage (eg destroy all the power stations) alone can make a corporations existenance in a local unprofitable. Few days ago in Nigeria, about 15 Chevron (?) workers have been kidnapped. There are many sabotages, but it is, as said, a war of knives against bazookas. Above all else to be an effective rebelion you need organization and dedication. Possibly the Nigerian rebels biggest weapon is public opinion in the West where these companies have their markets (which they must defend). I sincerely hope there is rebelion going on in Nigeria and I wish those people well. With any luck they'll get it better next time. So we agree. I'm just making the least I can to inform western public opinion! 3. CNN is about as about as news worthy as Ally McBeal. Another agreement I'm scared! IMHO if your government is a dictatorship you are definitely over due for a revolution anyway. On the other hand if the dictatorship is voluntarily supported by most of the people then what are they complaining about? Don't whine to me about how your government abuses you, if you support it! Work to change it. Well, Hitler was supported by the majority of German population. Usually dictators have the control of the media, so it's not easy to have an informed population. 4. Yes social patterns of value evolve. Yes perhaps the Nigerian social patterns are not yet at a point where they can see the value of a non-dictatorship form of government. Yes they will compete with other social patterns (corporations) and may get taken advantage of. This seems pretty normal. Based on the MoQ what else would one expect? I see evolution as a gritty nasty messy business. If the Nigerian patterns are as devolved as you say then they are not going to last nor should they. Survival of the fitess? Do you expect the west to swoop in and take care of those poor Nigerians? That to me sounds like a racist sentiment. As said, I've not easy solutions. I just try to show that Saddam is worthy to be fought (even if he has probably the support of his population) as we want his oil. In other cases, similar dictatorships are ignored as their oil is in the hand of the Oil Sisters. My posts on this thread were not humanitarian or socialist. Were mainly to say that the purpose of the market (money, the social blood) is blind to the individual intellectual rights. So an unruled market creates or supports often injustices, especially towards those *intellectually weak* populations. Where this *intellectually weak* does not mean stupid. It means that they don't feel the importance of the individual freedom over society... (like many Germans and Italians 60 years ago). Ciao Marco MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe
Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Hi All On 29 Jun 2001, at 15:42, Platt Holden wrote: Of all the contributions America has made to the history of the world, the idea of freedom from a social hierarchy has been the greatest. It was fought for in the American Revolution and confirmed in the Civil War. And then threw it in the bin by allowing a handful of judges to determine the will of the American people. Have you also forgotten the support and assistance that was provided by many Europeans? Platt, some time back you criticized the use of the Ad Hominem argument but now seem to be using it in response to both Andrea and Marco. It seems to me that there is a difference between the hypocrisy of Rigel (which is, after all the point Pirsig was making about cost-free morals) and the beliefs of Marco and Andrea. Does Pirsig eating meat destroy the validity of this: A popular moral issue that parallels the germ-patient issue is vegetarianism. Is it immoral, as the Hindus and Buddhists claim, to eat the flesh of animals? Our current morality would say its immoral only if youre a Hindu or Buddhist. Otherwise its okay, since morality is nothing more than a social convention. An evolutionary morality, on the other hand, would say its scientifically immoral for everyone because animals are at a higher level of evolution, that is, more Dynamic, than are grains and fruits and vegetables. But the moral force of this injunction is not so great because the levels of evolution are closer together than the doctors patient and the germ. It would add, also, that this moral principle holds only where there is an abundance of grains and fruits and vegetables. It would be immoral for Hindus not to eat their cows in a time of famine, since they would then be killing human beings in favor of a lower organism. and hence the evolutionary morality of the MoQ? I think not. Horse MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
RE: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Hi All Lila by RM Pirsig Chapter 13 When a society is not itself threatened, as in the execution of individual criminals, the issue becomes more complex. In the case of treason or insurrection or war a criminals threat to a society can be very real. But if an established social structure is not seriously threatened by a criminal, then an evolutionary morality would argue that there is no moral justification for killing him. What makes killing him immoral is that a criminal is not just a biological organism. He is not even just a defective unit of society. Whenever you kill a human being you are killing a source of thought too. A human being is a collection of ideas, and these ideas take moral precedence over a society. Ideas are patterns of value. They are at a higher level of evolution than social patterns of value. Just as it is more moral for a doctor to kill a germ than a patient, so it is more moral for an idea to kill a society than it is for a society to kill an idea. And beyond that is an even more compelling reason: societies and thoughts and principles themselves are no more than sets of static patterns. These patterns cant by themselves perceive or adjust to Dynamic Quality. Only a living being can do that. The strongest moral argument against capital punishment is that it weakens a societys Dynamic capabilityits capability for change and evolution. Its not the nice guys who bring about real social change. Nice guys look nice because theyre conforming. Its the bad guys, who only look nice a hundred years later, that are the real Dynamic force in social evolution. That was the real moral lesson of the brujo in Zui. If those priests had killed him they would have done great harm to their societys ability to grow and change. Glen: While i'm not keen on social pattern (the state) destroying intellectual patterns (citizens), there are some animals (biological patterns) out there that happen to share a species with you and me. Horse: Several billion I believe - in other words each and every human being without exception. Glen: Look at any case history of a serial killer and it's clear that social patterns must protect themselves from such biological patterns. Horse: Agreed. Now perhaps you could explain this justifies the death penalty? Glen: Based on the MoQ it is immoral for a social pattern to destroy an intellectual pattern but it is not immoral for a social pattern to destroy a biological one. Horse: This is a gross distortion of the MoQ. It is only 'not immoral' when there is a moral conflict between Biology and Society (conflicting moral patterns) and the destruction is in respect of the patterns, not just the form that is created by them. A Social pattern of value can destroy a Biological pattern of value just as easily by reforming and/or containing the Biological pattern of values. Alternatively, as with the Merchant of Venice, can you offer me a means of physically destroying a Biological pattern without harming Intellectual patterns (a pound of flesh without spilling a drop of blood)? Glen: Maybe if we wrote down all the thoughts (if any) of some these sick cookies you would feel better about removing them from the gene pool. Horse: In the sense you mean only if we're as sick as the cookies to which you refer. But as you mention removal from the gene pool then incarceration or sterilisation is just as effective as execution - in fact moreso because it doesn't then cause us to become as sullied by our actions as the murderer has become. Glen: I think the MoQ would support the use of deadly force to protect others from such predators if you caught them in the act, Don't you? Horse: If there is immediate danger to those present then this counts as self defense - but for all your talk of freedom of the individual, which presumably includes the idea that a person is innocent until PROVEN guilty (i.e. in a court) you still seem willing to support the administering of instant 'justice'. The MoQ most certainly does NOT support kangaroo courts any more than it supports lynch mobs. Horse MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Hi Horse: On 29 Jun 2001, at 15:42, Platt Holden wrote: Of all the contributions America has made to the history of the world, the idea of freedom from a social hierarchy has been the greatest. It was fought for in the American Revolution and confirmed in the Civil War. I didn't write this. Pirsig did. And then threw it in the bin by allowing a handful of judges to determine the will of the American people. For another perspective read At Any Cost: How Al Gore Tried to Steal the Election by Bill Sammon. Have you also forgotten the support and assistance that was provided by many Europeans? To Adam Smith and John Locke Americans owe a great deal. But Pirsig attributes much of our belief in the morality of freedom from the heavy hand of government to the American Indian. Platt, some time back you criticized the use of the Ad Hominem argument but now seem to be using it in response to both Andrea and Marco. It seems to me that there is a difference between the hypocrisy of Rigel (which is, after all the point Pirsig was making about cost-free morals) and the beliefs of Marco and Andrea. By connecting my criticism directly to Pirsig's opinion of Rigel I felt justified. If I had just said something like you're stupid or you're hypocritical without any reference to Lila, I would accept your judgment and apologize. Furthermore, if either Andrea or Marco feel I am guilty of an ad hominem attack, I will apologize to each of them personally. But let's keep in mind Pirsig's critique of the humanitarian premise: The ideal of a harmonious society in which everyone wihtout coercion cooperates happily with everyone else for the mutual good of all is a devasting fiction. Does Pirsig eating meat destroy the validity of this: A popular moral issue that parallels the germ-patient issue is vegetarianism. Is it immoral, as the Hindus and Buddhists claim, to eat the flesh of animals? Our current morality would say its immoral only if youre a Hindu or Buddhist. Otherwise its okay, since morality is nothing more than a social convention. An evolutionary morality, on the other hand, would say its scientifically immoral for everyone because animals are at a higher level of evolution, that is, more Dynamic, than are grains and fruits and vegetables. But the moral force of this injunction is not so great because the levels of evolution are closer together than the doctors patient and the germ. It would add, also, that this moral principle holds only where there is an abundance of grains and fruits and vegetables. It would be immoral for Hindus not to eat their cows in a time of famine, since they would then be killing human beings in favor of a lower organism. and hence the evolutionary morality of the MoQ? I think not. What's your point? Pardon my dimness, but I don't see the connection to discussion at hand. Platt MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Hi Platt On 30 Jun 2001, at 10:21, Platt Holden wrote: On 29 Jun 2001, at 15:42, Platt Holden wrote: Of all the contributions America has made to the history of the world, the idea of freedom from a social hierarchy has been the greatest. It was fought for in the American Revolution and confirmed in the Civil War. I didn't write this. Pirsig did. Yeah, I know. I clumsily left out the reference from your previous post. Sorry about that and apologies if I've caused any confusion. And then threw it in the bin by allowing a handful of judges to determine the will of the American people. For another perspective read At Any Cost: How Al Gore Tried to Steal the Election by Bill Sammon. Politicians will try all sorts of tricks in order to get and remain elected but in this case the collusion of the highest(?) legal institution of your country was also involved. Surely the fairest, most reasonable and democratic (in other words the highest Quality) solution in this case would have been to have re-run the electoral process in the affected region (and any other region for that matter). Have you also forgotten the support and assistance that was provided by many Europeans? To Adam Smith and John Locke Americans owe a great deal. But Pirsig attributes much of our belief in the morality of freedom from the heavy hand of government to the American Indian. And he appears to have good grounds to make these assertions, although I'm still not entirely sure of the sources. Modern America owes a huge debt to the American Indian - which is rather ironic considering the light that they have been shown in - savages and killers - and the virtual genocide committed upon them. Far from being savages and killers many of them were knowledgeable and educated. Many had travelled to Europe prior to the landing of the founding fathers and regularly conversed, in English, with them at their settlements providing them with food when their crops failed (I believe this is the source of your Thanksgiving celebrations) and generally helping them establish a colony in the New World away from the vile, evil and vicious (but please note not Socialist) European (OK mainly English) repressors. Platt, some time back you criticized the use of the Ad Hominem argument but now seem to be using it in response to both Andrea and Marco. It seems to me that there is a difference between the hypocrisy of Rigel (which is, after all the point Pirsig was making about cost-free morals) and the beliefs of Marco and Andrea. By connecting my criticism directly to Pirsig's opinion of Rigel I felt justified. If I had just said something like you're stupid or you're hypocritical without any reference to Lila, I would accept your judgment and apologize. Furthermore, if either Andrea or Marco feel I am guilty of an ad hominem attack, I will apologize to each of them personally. Fair enough, I just wanted to make sure that these things are kept in perspective. But let's keep in mind Pirsig's critique of the humanitarian premise: The ideal of a harmonious society in which everyone wihtout coercion cooperates happily with everyone else for the mutual good of all is a devasting fiction. Absolutely - so in order for any society to become civilised and to remain intact an amount of coercion is necessary. This can come in various forms and should not be excessively repressive. Does Pirsig eating meat destroy the validity of this: A popular moral issue that parallels the germ-patient issue is vegetarianism. Is it immoral, as the Hindus and Buddhists claim, to eat the flesh of animals? Our current morality would say its immoral only if youre a Hindu or Buddhist. Otherwise its okay, since morality is nothing more than a social convention. An evolutionary morality, on the other hand, would say its scientifically immoral for everyone because animals are at a higher level of evolution, that is, more Dynamic, than are grains and fruits and vegetables. But the moral force of this injunction is not so great because the levels of evolution are closer together than the doctors patient and the germ. It would add, also, that this moral principle holds only where there is an abundance of grains and fruits and vegetables. It would be immoral for Hindus not to eat their cows in a time of famine, since they would then be killing human beings in favor of a lower organism. and hence the evolutionary morality of the MoQ? I think not. What's your point? Pardon my dimness, but I don't see the connection to discussion at hand. Well, I assume that grain, fruit and vegetables are abundant in the U.S. but in Chapter 14 Lila and Mr P. tuck into a meal of steak and fries. Hence P. is acting immorally. However the actions of the author does nothing to damage the veracity of his metaphysics. In
RE: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Horse and all, I know this passage well and you raise some very good points here. And YES this passage does give me considerable hesitation in putting forward my previous arguments, yet let us try a thought experiment and reason together. Thought Experiment: Say you are the citizen of an inhabitated island in the south pacific that is a sovereign nation with a population of ten citizens. A serial killer kills seven of the citizens. You, a friend and the serial killer are the only people left on the island. You and your friend could undertake the long voyage off the island or you could kill the serial killer. What do you do? Pirsig states: In the case of treason or insurrection or war a criminals threat to a society can be very real. But if an established social structure is not seriously threatened by a criminal, then an evolutionary morality would argue that there is no moral justification for killing him. Is the serial killer on our island guilty of treason or insurection? How do we differentiate a serious from a non-serious threat to our society? I think in the thought experiment above there is every reason to think that the MoQ would support destroying the serial killer. Additionally would care to define a society? Western civilyzation? A country? a state? a county? a town? your neighborhood? your circle of friends? Admittedly this is an extreme example which is exactly why I choose it because it underlines the problem so well. Pirsig states: The strongest moral argument against capital punishment is that it weakens a societys Dynamic capabilityits capability for change and evolution. Its not the nice guys who bring about real social change. Nice guys look nice because theyre conforming. Its the bad guys, who only look nice a hundred years later, that are the real Dynamic force in social evolution. That was the real moral lesson of the brujo in Zuni. If those priests had killed him they would have done great harm to their societys ability to grow and change. What he doesn't say is the reason capital punishment should never be allowed is. While I do not think that MoQ would support death for most crimes is does not rule out the death penalty for all crimes. Would you sincerely argue that the serial killer on our hypothetical island represents a potential dynamic force for the evolution of our social pattern? I see the real problem with the capital punishment as implementation. When the penal system declares a rapist cured after five years of incerceration and release him and he commits the same crime again society is being measurably hurt. On the other hand excuting people for stealing bread is completely unsupported by the MoQ. Glen wrote: While i'm not keen on social pattern (the state) destroying intellectual patterns (citizens), there are some animals (biological patterns) out there that happen to share a species with you and me. Horse wrote: Several billion I believe - in other words each and every human being without exception. Perhaps your just not meeting the right people. Horse wrote: Alternatively, as with the Merchant of Venice, can you offer me a means of physically destroying a Biological pattern without harming Intellectual patterns (a pound of flesh without spilling a drop of blood)? No I cannot and do not expect to be able to do so in the near term. What about cyrogenic preservation though? Do you think that the MoQ supports placing our serial killer in a state of suspended animation never to be reawakened? Horse wrote: This is a gross distortion of the MoQ. Wow that's a pretty big pedestal you got yourself. My views are not unreasoned, nor are they unarticulately presented. Horse wrote: It is only 'not immoral' when there is a moral conflict between Biology and Society (conflicting moral patterns) and the destruction is in respect of the patterns, not just the form that is created by them. A Social pattern of value can destroy a Biological pattern of value just as easily by reforming and/or containing the Biological pattern of values. You present an argument where capital punishment would be impossible given our current level of technology! If this is the case why did RMP just not come right out and say that? Perhaps he didn't say that because he think it was true! Horse wrote: If there is immediate danger to those present then this counts as self defense - but for all your talk of freedom of the individual, which presumably includes the idea that a person is innocent until PROVEN guilty (i.e. in a court) you still seem willing to support the administering of instant 'justice'. The MoQ most certainly does NOT support kangaroo courts any more than it supports lynch mobs. Yeah a lot of people think there is only one form of justice the legalistic form. Poetic justice is given pretty short shrift in the west but it is every bit as valuable to the overall concept of justice as the laws are. You equate social patterns
RE: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Platt, You wrote to Marco: But, I digress. As a humanitarian, what have you done (voluntarily) to alleviate the suffering of the Nigerians? Or even the Serbs next door? I guess you solved the problem of having to deal with humanitarians in a neat way. If anybody have the time to argue with you on the subject of humanitarianism, they are hypocritical and hollow, as they are not out in the field doing humanitarian work. If they were doing something that really count in your mind, they would be unable to argue with you as they will be somewhere in Africa etc. In my mind Marco and Andrea is doing a valuable humanitarian work just provoking the humanitarian idea in this discussion group, Bob Dylan is doing a valuable humanitarian work by his lyrics, the General Director of the Nobel Peace Price Comity is doing a valuable humanitarian work by contributing to a focus on humanitarian work once a year (I hope Marco and Andrea is pleased with the comparison). According to your criteria, I guess all these persons will be hypocritical and hollow. I think there must be something in between fanaticism and hollow hypocrites. Some have to stay home, work, earn money, and finance the humanitarian work. According to Libertarian thinking, this is the way these groups should be financed. A good thing about REAL Libertarianism is that anybody should be free to move from country to country, probably leading to a lot of third world people going to US. When the US don't let people come there, it is a signal that US are not a REAL Libertarian society, but libertarian when that fits the interest best and protective when that fits the US interest best. Finally, The purpose of this discussion is IMO to look at different on different aspects of how MoQ apply to social systems. If MoQ proves (if that should be possible) that a terrible political system is the system with most quality, I will just back off from such a theory. A theory is only valuable as long as it is giving valuable results. I think MoQ is a valuable theory, but during this discussion I've started to have doubts, but I do not think that all these Libertarian ideas are based on MoQ, but often just on personal preferences. This is obviously also valid for my preferences of an other political system than Libertarianism. If we use economical theory to prove what political system that has quality, Libertarianism would probably come out as number one. If you use humanitarian principles or other theories, others might come out as number one. What I have hopes for is that we could throw off all these preferences, and use pure (as good as possible) MoQ and see what come! s out of such an analysis. Friendly Greetings Gerhard (doing some wishful thinking on a Saturday evening) MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
RE: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Dear MoQ'ers, Glen wrote: Thought Experiment: Say you are the citizen of an inhabitated island in the south pacific that is a sovereign nation with a population of ten citizens. A serial killer kills seven of the citizens. You, a friend and the serial killer are the only people left on the island. You and your friend could undertake the long voyage off the island or you could kill the serial killer. What do you do? I would still put her to jail, rather than to kill her. You could also send her off the island. You could make her pregnant, so she had other things to think about. You could give her mental treatment. The two first solutions will always let you and your friend undertake the long voyage off the island, and the rest may work as well. One of my solutions may raise other ethical problems, but that was not your question. Glen refered to RMP: In the case of treason or insurrection or war a criminals threat to a society can be very real. But if an established social structure is not seriously threatened by a criminal, then an evolutionary morality would argue that there is no moral justification for killing him. If any of my solutions works, the society is no longer at threat. Pirsig states: The strongest moral argument against capital punishment is that it weakens a societys Dynamic capabilityits capability for change and evolution. Its not the nice guys who bring about real social change. Nice guys look nice because theyre conforming. Its the bad guys, who only look nice a hundred years later, that are the real Dynamic force in social evolution. That was the real moral lesson of the brujo in Zuni. If those priests had killed him they would have done great harm to their societys ability to grow and change. Glen adds: What he doesn't say is the reason capital punishment should never be allowed is. While I do not think that MoQ would support death for most crimes is does not rule out the death penalty for all crimes. But as there are lots of other solutions, it would be prefered by MoQ to select one that did not kill a source of thought too. Glen finally said the obviously: Would you sincerely argue that the serial killer on our hypothetical island represents a potential dynamic force for the evolution of our social pattern? This is purely rhetorically, but I can't see any reason that she's not. Friendly Greetings Gerhard MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Hi Platt, What I meant is that I regard nothing as more worthy than human life, and this for the many reasons explained elsewhere. I will never feel comfortable with the idea that some men are entitled to decide of another man's life. On the other hand, if human life is so important, in line of principle I could accept the idea of killing to prevent killing, in extreme situations where it is absolutely *sure* that if you don't kill, someone else will be killed (eg, self defense), although this is a mix of rationality and morals proper, and I thus feel less comfortable about it, as I don't trust rationality as a source of morals. But death penalty (ah, are we back to that subject...) is no self-defense. It is based on a *theory* (and one with no evidence) that execution of a criminal will prevent yet-unknown, other criminals-to-be to commit the crime. This theory has many flaws - rivers of ink flew about them. It nevertheless is one of the legs of death penalty, and the best one actually. The other leg is that death penalty allows people to take their vengeance backed up by the state (see Andi's message). They can't have the satisfaction of pulling the trigger themselves, but they can watch and cheer. So you have a crippled theory and blood thirst, not a very nice couple. About the South-Africa-condom point, first off congratulations for choosing such a non-obvious example. You are probably aware of the fact that someone on this planet considers condoms something *against* life, although I personally am not in that camp. Anyway, the odd thing is that, having to choose a sign of respect for life, you mention one way of preventing (miserable?) life - is that all the humanitarian you can get, Platt? If I could follow your line of reasoning to the subsequent statement, and then to the next one, I may perhaps reply precisely, but that is not the case, sorry. But yes, I belong to that share of people that is beginning to feel guilty about the third world, and the fact that I don't know what to do about it (and, I am actually doing, or trying to do, something). Anyway all these topics have been dealt with to death, I think. Who wants to be cynical has the right to be. To all cynicals, anyway: some become cynical because they come to believe into some uneasy truth; others are cynical to start with and later build their system of beliefs around it. You usually recognize the latter kind by the fact that they shoot their cynical statements with little discernment - A Platt Holden ha scritto: Hi Andrea: ANDREA: For someone who values life above everything, an opinion or a guess is not enough to execute a man or a woman. Does this mean YOU value life above everything? Whose life? Humans? Animals? Bugs? Trees? If human life, how come you're not down in South Africa handing out condoms? Any excuse means you value some things (or lives) more than those African lives. I think perhaps your statement is too broad to be meaningful. But, I could be wrong, and stand to be corrected. Platt MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Hi Andrea: What I meant was that you should go to Africa to distribute condoms to prevent AIDS and the subsequent deaths from that behaviorial disease, not to prevent children from being born into misery. Since you value human life above all else, it seems you should be doing that or something llike that. Otherwise, your words seem hollow to me. Most humantarians talk a good game, but rarely practice what they preach. Pirsig railed against Rigel in Chapter 7 of LIla: The ones who go posing as moralists are the worst. Cost-free morals. Full of great ways for others to improve without any expense to themselves. There's an ego thing in there, too.They use the morals to make someone else look inferior and that way look better themselves. Maybe I've misinterpreted your meaning, or taken it out of context. But when someone says I value human life above all else, or Life is sacred, I usually find that they don't back up their words with corresponding action. That's what Pirsig meant by cost-free morals. Platt MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Platt, Andrea, all Most humantarians talk a good game, but rarely practice what they preach. Indeed a good reason to be anti-humanitarian Pirsig railed against Rigel in Chapter 7 of LIla: The ones who go posing as moralists are the worst. Cost-free morals. Full of great ways for others to improve without any expense to themselves. There's an ego thing in there, too.They use the morals to make someone else look inferior and that way look better themselves. So our Leftist Andrea is like the Conservative Rigel ! Maybe I've misinterpreted your meaning, or taken it out of context. But when someone says I value human life above all else, or Life is sacred, I usually find that they don't back up their words with corresponding action. That's what Pirsig meant by cost-free morals. [It's funny that in our Italian version that cost-free becomes tax-free Considering what you have written few weeks ago about taxation! ] Anyway Platt, as I wrote once, here in Italy even the atheists are catholic. When we say that we put human life above everything we are probably meaning something a guy called Jesus used to say many years ago. I'm not very religious, but I've always read in the MOQ a metaphysical explanation that human life, that is source of intellect, is above everything. I'd add another good reason to reject Death Penalty. Killing Mc Veigh you don't kill McVeigh's IDEAS: often those ideas get amplified. The best killer of a wrong idea is its conceiver. So, once the conceiver has been reduced to impotence, the best way to demonstrate his mistakes is to convince him he was wrong. Of course, my words are useless, as I'm pretty sure that the 80% of death penalty supporters are just supporting a stupid vengeance... bye, Marco MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Glen If there's something I can't bear is to be called racist. Call me stupid, arrogant, weak, unfair, ignorant ... and I will smile. But not racist ! 1. I don't think that a civil war is always a good option. During the cold war, both Russians and Americans were well disposed to give help (weapons, money, food) for political reasons. But, even in those times, the cure has been often worse than the illness (Vietnam, for example). Sometimes (Cuba) the result has been good, but not definitive, so, even if that people had an evident progress after the revolution against Batista, they are not still leaving in freedom (even thanks to a stupid embargo, that gives the dictatorship more strength, and the people less food). In few words, the usual outcome of a civil war in the last half century has been nearly a disaster. 2. Anyway, now that the cold war is over, a revolution has really few chances. Especially the peoples oppressed for *market reasons* (like Nigerian peoples) have no alternatives. They can't find the necessary weapons, and they end into a forgotten war of knifes against bazookas. 3. For what I know, in Nigeria, like in almost all African countries, THERE IS a civil war. There are hundreds of forgotten wars, all over the world, but the CNN uses to show only those assuring a good audience. Few years ago the writer Ken Saro Wiwa has been executed by the government after having denounced the abuses over the Ogoni people, guilty only of living over a land that is full of oil. The main problem is that the Nigerian oil is too important for the west, and many western countries used to sell weapons to the Nigerian government. We need oil, so who cares of the Ogoni rights? After the execution of Ken Saro Wiwa, the president of the USA, Bill Clinton, announced the USA would stop the export of weapons to Nigeria. Many interpreted the decision as an admission of guilt. Obviously, the embargo never worked, so the dictatorship (for what I know) is still wealthy. 4. Especially one thing among your words sounds very far from a correct MOQ interpretation. but the way them to stop being victims is for them to stand up and assert their rights. Of course! Like to say, if they are not fighting, it means that everything is alright. No. These rights are not obvious. They don't come out from the air. They came out in a special cultural/social situation. The intellectual level has these rights at its foundation, as the basic form of the intellectual level is probably the awareness that the individual rights are more moral than the society. But the great part of the world has never met the intellectual level. We don't come to life naturally free. Freedom is a set of intellectual patterns of value we learn living in our social context. It sounds strange to our hears when we come to know that in many poor African countries wars are always tribal. There are many civil wars, but the result is often that the former government is replaced by another equally cruel ... of another tribe. Why? The MOQ can give an answer. They are not still in the intellectual level. Not 'cause they are stupid. Simply, 'cause the social context is not like ours. They can't fight for the individual freedom, as they don't know that the individual freedom is good. They just fight for their social structure, against another social structure. This is not racism, boy. This is MOQ. By the way, they never identify with their nation. African nations have been designed on the map by Europeans colonizers, with no care for the different cultures. Probably well knowing that thanks to the tribal wars, we can easily control them. So Glen, when you see that a people is NOT fighting, it doesn't mean that everything works well there. I have not easy solutions for the African forgotten tribal wars. But I'm pretty sure that the market model we are imposing there is not the right model. We are not teaching freedom. We are teaching that there's another big and ugly white tribe. Not really a good presage. Ciao Marco MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Hi Marco: Most humantarians talk a good game, but rarely practice what they preach. Indeed a good reason to be anti-humanitarian No, a good reason not to trust those who boast about their humanitarism. Pirsig railed against Rigel in Chapter 7 of LIla: The ones who go posing as moralists are the worst. Cost-free morals. Full of great ways for others to improve without any expense to themselves. There's an ego thing in there, too.They use the morals to make someone else look inferior and that way look better themselves. So our Leftist Andrea is like the Conservative Rigel ! In this regard, you bet. Anyway Platt, as I wrote once, here in Italy even the atheists are catholic. When we say that we put human life above everything we are probably meaning something a guy called Jesus used to say many years ago. I'm not very religious, but I've always read in the MOQ a metaphysical explanation that human life, that is source of intellect, is above everything. No, not when a free society is threatened. Reread Chap. 13 of Lila for occasions when war (the sacrifice of human life) is justified. Also note the following quote from Chap. 3: Of all the contributions America has made to the history of the world, the idea of freedom from a social hierarchy has been the greatest. It was fought for in the American Revolution and confirmed in the Civil War. Let us not forget that many Americans and Italians gave their lives for freedom that the MOQ calls the highest good. Why many Europeans do not hold freedom above security is a mystery, especially after suffering for so many centuries under totaliarian regimes of religious zealots, corrupt kings and ruthless dictators. But, I digress. As a humanitarian, what have you done (voluntarily) to alleviate the suffering of the Nigerians? Or even the Serbs next door? Platt MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
RE: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Marco, You seem pretty uptight about this racist thing. You think you've never had a rascist thought or never made a racist statement before? What are you some kind of special uber human? I was fortunately enough to grow up around all kinds of people and it's my observation that non-virulent forms of racsism aren't all that unusal. It doesn't mean the people that behave in some racist manner are totally evil, it usually means they're angry, scared, under stress, or possibly even trying to be helpful. 1. I agree that a civil war is not always a good option. We both seem to agree that the emargo on Cuba is idiotic and that American implementation and policy in Vietnam was ill conceived. Still in Cuba's case Castro policies are as idiotic as the US's. Oh yeah, we just finished overthrowing a dictator so what kind of government do we want... think hard... hmmm... I know let's have another dictator! The man is a f--king genius. 2. Here we part company. If the conditions in Nigeria are as you say I don't see how the Nigerian people have any option but civil war. They owe it to themselves. Duty to Self? Arete? (Considering some of your arguments in 4 I think it safe to say they are as advanced as Homeric greeks) I wonder about your conception of civil war is exactly. A civil war doesn't neccessarily mean that getting your matchette and chopping up your local offical (although it might). If your enemy is a corporation then it has certain vulnerabilities (just like a technologically advanced society does). Acts of sabotage (eg destroy all the power stations) alone can make a corporations existenance in a local unprofitable. Above all else to be an effective rebelion you need organization and dedication. Possibly the Nigerian rebels biggest weapon is public opinion in the West where these companies have their markets (which they must defend). I sincerely hope there is rebelion going on in Nigeria and I wish those people well. With any luck they'll get it better next time. 3. CNN is about as about as news worthy as Ally McBeal. IMHO if your government is a dictatorship you are definitely over due for a revolution anyway. On the other hand if the dictatorship is voluntarily supported by most of the people then what are they complaining about? Don't whine to me about how your government abuses you, if you support it! Work to change it. 4. Yes social patterns of value evolve. Yes perhaps the Nigerian social patterns are not yet at a point where they can see the value of a non-dictatorship form of government. Yes they will compete with other social patterns (corporations) and may get taken advantage of. This seems pretty normal. Based on the MoQ what else would one expect? I see evolution as a gritty nasty messy business. If the Nigerian patterns are as devolved as you say then they are not going to last nor should they. Survival of the fitess? Do you expect the west to swoop in and take care of those poor Nigerians? That to me sounds like a racist sentiment. The 'poor Nigerians' should learn to take care of themselves. Give a man a fish... Let's be clear, there definitely is a big ugly caucasian tribe that lives up the way and the faster the Nigerians learn how to deal with it effectively, the better off they'll be. Trying to make blanket statements about what contact with the west is teaching the africans seems fraught with peril. Sincerely, Glen MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
RE: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Andrea, Platt and all, While i'm not keen on social pattern (the state) destroying intellectual patterns (citizens), there are some animals (biological patterns) out there that happen to share a species with you and me. Look at any case history of a serial killer and it's clear that social patterns must protect themselves from such biological patterns. Based on the MoQ it is immoral for a social pattern to destroy an intellectual pattern but it is not immoral for a social pattern to destroy a biological one. Maybe if we wrote down all the thoughts (if any) of some these sick cookies you would feel better about removing them from the gene pool. I think the MoQ would support the use of deadly force to protect others from such predators if you caught them in the act, Don't you? Smiles, Glen MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Andi Norby wrote: David, I have a lot of trouble understanding your statement below. It seems to be in support of the death penalty, although you don't say that explicitly. SNIP I suppose I just don't see how killing someone is more effective than locking them up. McVeigh would not have escaped, and he would not have repeated his actions. He also wouldn't have repeated his actions if he was dead. The difference is that it would be considerably cheaper to execute him than to lock him up for life. Wouldn't that money be better spend funding hospitals or such? Anyone who saw the coverage of the event would know that many, if not a majority, of the people who witnessed his execution and supported it supported it for vengeful reasons. I wouldn't be supprised if all of them were there for that reason. I'd imagine anyone who wanted him dead, but not out of hate for him wouldn't need to see him being executed. MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Greetings Glen, You wrote: Define more likely. Vermont and Alaska both have damn near zero gun laws and very little crime, nothing on the scale of California. Have you spent much time around firearms to where you can honestly make this claim? I have and it seems pretty foundless. My point is that where the underlying causes of aggression are similar, if firearms are not widely available, less people will be shot. (Compare the murder rates of inner city London with inner city Washington DC). That doesn't seem an outrageous claim. Sam wrote: To look at it purely in MoQ terms for a moment this diminishes the resources available for the intellectual level and is therefore a low quality environment, it is one in which the potential to move to higher levels and experience DQ etc is diminished. You've lost me. Are you equating maximizing resources for the experience of dynamic quality as the goal of existence? Where does it say that in Lila? Elizaphanian you preach and I'll turn the pages! Whenever you kill a human being you are killing a source of thought too. A human being is a collection of ideas, and these ideas take moral precedence over a society. Ideas are patterns of value. They are at a higher level of evolution than social patterns of value..That was the real moral lesson of the brujo in Zuni. If those priests had killed him they would have done great harm to their society's ability to grow and change. (Lila, ch 13) Sam MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Greetings all! I hope you don't mind me butting in here but I've just joined the list and am eager to participate in the discussions. I have just finished reading Lila dn I read Zena nd the the art last year. Pirsig is the world's greatest living philosopher imnsho and he has much of relevance to say to all today's problems. wrt the discussion on guns it is clear that the more guns you have the more people will get shot! Hey I ddon't have to be a genius to figure that out. The key to understanding this is: TO KILL A PERSON IS TO DESTROY A SOURCE OF THOUGHT. Now I don't support the actions of the likes of Timonty McVeigh but it is clear that he should not have been executed, because he was a SOURCE OF THOUGHT. For society to grow and prosper we must heed PIrsig's ideas and evolve beyond archaic ideas of revenge as a means of justice KB Previous message: Jonathan B. Marder: "Re: MD Religion/God ~ MoQ/DQ" In reply to: N. Glen Dickey: "RE: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up" Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] Greetings Glen, You wrote: > Define "more likely". Vermont and Alaska both have damn near zero gun laws > and very little crime, nothing on the scale of California. Have you spent > much time around firearms to where you can honestly make this claim? I have > and it seems pretty foundless. My point is that where the underlying causes of aggression are similar, if firearms are not widely available, less people will be shot. (Compare the murder rates of inner city London with inner city Washington DC). That doesn't seem an outrageous claim. > Sam wrote: > > To look at it purely in MoQ terms for a moment this diminishes the > resources available > > for the intellectual level and is therefore a low quality environment, it > is one in > > which the potential to move to higher levels and experience DQ etc is > diminished. > > You've lost me. Are you equating maximizing resources for the experience of > dynamic quality as the goal of existence? Where does it say that in Lila? > Elizaphanian you preach and I'll turn the pages! "Whenever you kill a human being you are killing a source of thought too. A human being is a collection of ideas, and these ideas take moral precedence over a society. Ideas are patterns of value. They are at a higher level of evolution than social patterns of value..That was the real moral lesson of the brujo in Zuni. If those priests had killed him they would have done great harm to their society's ability to grow and change." (Lila, ch 13) Sam _ ManchesterAds.com http://www.manchesterads.com Free Classified Ads MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
RE: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
welcome Mr Blade, as much as i find McVeigh's actions reprehensible (I've been in a situation where there were terrorist bombs going off in Manchester UK) as a source of thought and as a sick human being he should not have been executed. he'd been caught, tried and convicted and posed no further threat, now every idiot with half a brain knows the amount of coverage you can get for such an act. -Original Message- From: killer blade [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 28 June 2001 12:56 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up Greetings all! I hope you don't mind me butting in here but I've just joined the list and am eager to participate in the discussions. I have just finished reading Lila dn I read Zena nd the the art last year. Pirsig is the world's greatest living philosopher imnsho and he has much of relevance to say to all today's problems. wrt the discussion on guns it is clear that the more guns you have the more people will get shot! Hey I ddon't have to be a genius to figure that out. The key to understanding this is: TO KILL A PERSON IS TO DESTROY A SOURCE OF THOUGHT. Now I don't support the actions of the likes of Timonty McVeigh but it is clear that he should not have been executed, because he was a SOURCE OF THOUGHT. For society to grow and prosper we must heed PIrsig's ideas and evolve beyond archaic ideas of revenge as a means of justice KB Previous message: Jonathan B. Marder: Re: MD Religion/God ~ MoQ/DQ In reply to: N. Glen Dickey: RE: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] Greetings Glen, You wrote: Define more likely. Vermont and Alaska both have damn near zero gun laws and very little crime, nothing on the scale of California. Have you spent much time around firearms to where you can honestly make this claim? I have and it seems pretty foundless. My point is that where the underlying causes of aggression are similar, if firearms are not widely available, less people will be shot. (Compare the murder rates of inner city London with inner city Washington DC). That doesn't seem an outrageous claim. Sam wrote: To look at it purely in MoQ terms for a moment this diminishes the resources available for the intellectual level and is therefore a low quality environment, it is one in which the potential to move to higher levels and experience DQ etc is diminished. You've lost me. Are you equating maximizing resources for the experience of dynamic quality as the goal of existence? Where does it say that in Lila? Elizaphanian you preach and I'll turn the pages! Whenever you kill a human being you are killing a source of thought too. A human being is a collection of ideas, and these ideas take moral precedence over a society. Ideas are patterns of value. They are at a higher level of evolution than social patterns of value..That was the real moral lesson of the brujo in Zuni. If those priests had killed him they would have done great harm to their society's ability to grow and change. (Lila, ch 13) Sam _ ManchesterAds.com http://www.manchesterads.com Free Classified Ads MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html _ This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. _ This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
killer blade wrote: Now I don't support the actions of the likes of Timonty McVeigh but it is clear that he should not have been executed, because he was a SOURCE OF THOUGHT. For society to grow and prosper we must heed PIrsig's ideas and evolve beyond archaic ideas of revenge as a means of justice What if it's not revenge, but rather the most effective method of preventing a person from repeating whatever crime it was they commited? MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
killer blade wrote: Now I don't support the actions of the likes of Timonty McVeigh but it is clear that he should not have been executed, because he was a SOURCE OF THOUGHT. and David Scarlett wrote: What if it's not revenge, but rather the most effective method of preventing a person from repeating whatever crime it was they committed? (I suppose you mean that it's a method of preventing other people to repeat the crime committed by the person that was executed.) First, you ought to be *sure* that this is the most effective method to do what you say. I personally doubt it, and I'm not the only one. So it does not seem *beyond any doubt*. For someone who values life above everything, an opinion or a guess is not enough to execute a man or a woman. -- Andrea MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
David, I have a lot of trouble understanding your statement below. It seems to be in support of the death penalty, although you don't say that explicitly. What if it's not revenge, but rather the most effective method of preventing a person from repeating whatever crime it was they commited? I suppose I just don't see how killing someone is more effective than locking them up. McVeigh would not have escaped, and he would not have repeated his actions. Anyone who saw the coverage of the event would know that many, if not a majority, of the people who witnessed his execution and supported it supported it for vengeful reasons. I remember staring at a wall for an hour because I was shocked at how much anger and cruelty these people had for him. I suppose that that reaction was more a reaction from the woman and the human that I am and less as the philosopher that I am, but because the philosopher in me has a lot of its purpose in soothing the woman in me, I began to philosophize it. If we haven't got off this subject in a few days, perhaps I'll post them. From: David Scarlett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 23:09:04 +1000 killer blade wrote: Now I don't support the actions of the likes of Timonty McVeigh but it is clear that he should not have been executed, because he was a SOURCE OF THOUGHT. For society to grow and prosper we must heed PIrsig's ideas and evolve beyond archaic ideas of revenge as a means of justice What if it's not revenge, but rather the most effective method of preventing a person from repeating whatever crime it was they commited? MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Hi Andrea: ANDREA: For someone who values life above everything, an opinion or a guess is not enough to execute a man or a woman. Does this mean YOU value life above everything? Whose life? Humans? Animals? Bugs? Trees? If human life, how come you're not down in South Africa handing out condoms? Any excuse means you value some things (or lives) more than those African lives. I think perhaps your statement is too broad to be meaningful. But, I could be wrong, and stand to be corrected. Platt MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
RE: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Sam and all, Sam wrote: (Compare the murder rates of inner city London with inner city Washington DC). That doesn't seem an outrageous claim. Well it certainly seems like you avoided my previous question pretty effectively. Do you only know what the experts tell you or do you know where of you speak? Washington DC, if memory servers, has a lot of gun control laws, while other cities in the US do not and still has a lot of crime (with guns). The point people that guns don't cause crime, people cause crime. I see no contradiction between guns and the passage in Lila. If a social pattern kills an individual for violating social prohibitions (mal prohibum) then yes that's bad but if I kill someone intent on doing me bodily harm then that's good! I am simply choosing my intellectual pattern over someone elses additionally the other person is acting as the initiator of force not me. AreteLaugh If they outlaw guns, does that mean we can use swords? - bumper sticker MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Hi again Glen, somewhere along the line our wires are getting crossed, because I really don't recognise my perspective in the position that you seem to be criticising. Sam wrote: (Compare the murder rates of inner city London with inner city Washington DC). That doesn't seem an outrageous claim. Glen wrote: Well it certainly seems like you avoided my previous question pretty effectively. Tell you what, if you repeat as explicitly as you can the question that you think I'm avoiding, I'll do my very best to answer it. Do you only know what the experts tell you or do you know where of you speak? I always endeavour to apply my independent judgement to all the sources of information at my disposal (including my experience of cities in the US, UK and continental Europe), after careful reflection on, and analysis of, the facts. Washington DC, if memory servers, has a lot of gun control laws, while other cities in the US do not and still has a lot of crime (with guns). This point isn't clear. To which sort of city does the 'still' refer to in the last clause? See my last point as well. The point people that guns don't cause crime, people cause crime. True, but misses my principal point: that if there is a high crime environment, then the presence of guns will make it more likely than not that people will die. That seems to me to be something not only intuitively reasonable, but also backed up by a great wealth of statistical evidence. I see no contradiction between guns and the passage in Lila. If a social pattern kills an individual for violating social prohibitions (mal prohibum) then yes that's bad but if I kill someone intent on doing me bodily harm then that's good! I am simply choosing my intellectual pattern over someone elses additionally the other person is acting as the initiator of force not me. The point that RMP is making is that you need to have a very good reason for killing someone, because any individual has the potential to provide a DQ breakthrough within the social environment. If it is a choice between your life and the life of the person attacking you, then yes, it is reasonable to act in self-defence. The point about the widespread availability of firearms is that it increases the likelihood of someone being killed, when the same situation in a different environment (that is, one without the widespread availability of firearms) would not lead to the death of the individual concerned - and that is a higher quality outcome for all parties involved, as well as the wider social structure. Your objections seem to centre on the positive value of the freedom to own a firearm, and the negative value of laws restricting that. My argument is more centred on the (MoQ) analysis of firearms prevalence in the first place. I view the question relating to the laws/state involvement etc as secondary, and to be determined once the prior question (about the different quality level of the opposing environments) has been resolved. Sam MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Glen, Altho i dont know too much about Nigeria in particular, i know that the citizens of many poor countries dont have the same opportunity to be act responsibly. First of all, the media is biased towards the government (eg Iraq, which tells its people that sadam is basically God). On the other hand, Americans are well informed about events and the government (but for some reason we still managed to elect george w bush for pres.) from a (mostly) disinterested media. we have the right to protest our government, whereas third world citizens could get beaten or murdered for this, have their houses destroyed, and even their families raped or killed for this. Would you protest your gov. if you knew that these were the consequences? rasheed PS. Watch 'the killing fields,' a great and powerful movie about Khmer Rouge and militant oppression in Cambodia. MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
RE: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Gerhard, Wim Nusselder and all, Gerhard wrote: The subjectivity in MoQ is still one of my headaches, it should not be there. I surmise that you are not an engineer. How many ways are there to build a bridge? Which one is the true bridge? Nonsense. They all do the same thing but there are an infinite kinds of bridge you can construct. This is freedom of design not subjectivity. Freedom should definitely be present in the MoQ because Dynamic Quality always has an element of freedom. Biological forms are not evolving toward a particluar form why should any other level? Gerhard wrote: IMO, Libertarianism is like trying to swim with an outboard motor, you have great possibilities for a high speed experience, but this is the only quality you can have hopes for - and you will probably drown before you get things going. The thing will not work before you have the boat (society). In short: IMO Libertarians are overrating one quality, and neglecting the rest. I found your analogy unsuitable. Libertarianism worked in the US for quite a while and echoes of it still exists. Social pattern of quality does not neccessarily imply the State. People can share values without putting the force of law (and the states threat of violence) behind it. In many ways these shared values are stronger than the state's laws. It's also considerably more efficient and dynamic. Gerhard wrote: I need to have people with high moral values for this to turn out to be a perfect world. I am of the pessimistic type, and will expect a large bunch of people that do not care so much for anybody exept themself. Interesting. So you think Utopia is an option? I don't think so. If people are basically good you don't need much government, If people are basically bad you don't dare have one. (I read that somewhere but don't remember where). Timothy McVey is bad, but Joseph Stalin is a catastrophe. Wim wrote: I have no strong opinions on it and wouldn't even mind much to call a retreat if someone explained to me that drug use is essential to create certain higher-level-valuable phenomena, of which psychedelic music is not necessarily on, if Gerhard is right. Be smart Wim, Heavy psychedelics are not toys and should be treated with a lot of respect. Expanding your mind is not neccessarily a fun experience. Looking over the edge can be enlightening but also terrifying. Wim wrote: I think it is a battle between phantoms or even spectres, the real issue being something else. Here I suspect you might be on to something. As a Libertarian MoQer I think we will never be able to transform the State to be what the Socialists dream it should be, but I think we might be able to transform people. Peace and order exist in society not primarily because of laws but because most people agree on how to behave. Wim wrote: I definitely don't agree to disagree with you on the value of non-violence for it is not a matter of opinions for me. I feel you deny part of my experience (my self-respect) or even of my identity when you call me a mere subject when I have no rifle and somehow see Dynamic Quality in an individual right to possess and use arms. Slightly overcharging for the sake of argument I deny you the right to call your libertarianism (whatever that may be) founded on the MoQ if you hold that libertarianism implies such a right. From my point of view you are a subject. You have abrogated the basic right to self preservation to others. It seems bizarre to me that you seem to think the MoQ does not imply a basic right/duty of self preservation. Competition in nature is not a pretty sight, neither is competition between societies. When you choose non-violence in the face of Hitler or Stalin you are behaving in a manner which will ensure you perish from the earth. Wim wrote: Be a human, Glen! Defend yourself. I called you a coward! (Well, almost. I don't know whether you really own a rifle and would use it against a cop trying to infringe on your precious right to pursue selfish interests or only think it would be cool to do so.) Well maybe I am a coward from your point of view. I've been called all kinds of things. It not the areas of total disagreement where we're going to be able to teach each other anything, it's the other areas where can enrich each other intellectually. I would absolutely hate to have to shoot anybody (especially a represenitive of the state) but sometimes you do more damage to yourself or society by not shooting! Evil (e.g. degenerate patterns of social quality) exist! If your not willing to stand up for your rights then it's certain after a while you won't have any. Wim wrote: No cause (= intellectual pattern) legitimises fighting with material weapons (= fighting social patterns by fighting biological patterns with inorganic patterns). Legitimises? You think that no ideas are worth killing for? That's weird. I respect the self control but I think it's misplaced. All government
Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
N. Glen Dickey wrote: To my ear it sure sounds like you don't think the Nigerians don't bear much resonsibility for themselves and from my point of view that opinion is rascist. Why should I hold the Nigerians to less of a standard than I hold myself and my own countrymen? They don't seem to have problems like this in Texas and certainly not in California. If you don't live as man in your own country who do you have to blame but yourself? Arete? Duty to Self? Some things are worth dying for, some things are worth killing for, and some things are worth moving for. Glen, so your point is: oppression does not exist; or in other words, blame on the oppressed. Why aren't they fighting and dying for their freedom? They must really have no backbone. Also, if a government is corrupted, blame the people. Why aren't they fighting against their government and dying for a better one? As above. You also seem to claim that if you state that a population is being oppressed, you are a racist. I find your position almost incredible. I hope you will give this all a second thought. Amongst *billions* of other things: a) people behave in a way that much depends on their culture. The texans' culture is not the nigerians' culture (fortunately?). b) people behave in a way that much depends on their awareness. What makes you think the nigerians are aware of what happens in their country? How do you know? Nigerians, methinks, don't spend their evening watching TV or reading a newspaper or a good book from the bookstore on the corner. c) people behave in a way that much depends on their possibilities. Even if the nigerians were aware of their situation, the texans' possibilities are not the nigerians' possibilities (unfortunately). d) the usual argument of a racist (as found in dictionaries) is that some races have less (or should have less) because they are worse than others and hence deserve so. Your view on the nigerian state of facts actually matches this definition much more than Marco's. A MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
RE: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
hello aretelaugh,I agree with you that violence sometimes is an option, a civilised man knows when it is called for and when it is futile. A lot of the martial arts around today have their origins in forms dating back 100's of years to a 1000yrs, in many cases the origin of these martial arts was as a response to the actions of a monarch/lord/shogun who held different beliefs and religion to those of these monks. Faced with a foe that outnumbered them and was better arned (which was not the case in Ghandhi's stand, the British colonials were outnumbered) the monks/priests fought for their rights to those beliefs and fought to the death(intellectual as a higher level of evolution than biological-people knew this circa 1000AD). If they had succumbed to the pressure and renounced those beliefs the meme's of the right to free speech may not have survived to this day. Over the years the survivors of these government/colonial attacks had developed tried and tested methods (methods that don't work die with the soldiers on the battlefield) that are around today in the form of martial arts. i don't know of any martial art that doesn't take the only for defense, never attack line seriously when you talk to its senior practitioners. Violence has on some level ensured that people with views like Wim's can hold them, I grew up in a rough area and a non-violent response would not have helped victims i had saved from worse beatings.I'm sure they respected me stepping in (DQ) and stopping an attack physically than shaking my had at the futility of violence. -Original Message- From: N. Glen Dickey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 27 June 2001 08:37 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up Gerhard, Wim Nusselder and all, Gerhard wrote: The subjectivity in MoQ is still one of my headaches, it should not be there. I surmise that you are not an engineer. How many ways are there to build a bridge? Which one is the true bridge? Nonsense. They all do the same thing but there are an infinite kinds of bridge you can construct. This is freedom of design not subjectivity. Freedom should definitely be present in the MoQ because Dynamic Quality always has an element of freedom. Biological forms are not evolving toward a particluar form why should any other level? Gerhard wrote: IMO, Libertarianism is like trying to swim with an outboard motor, you have great possibilities for a high speed experience, but this is the only quality you can have hopes for - and you will probably drown before you get things going. The thing will not work before you have the boat (society). In short: IMO Libertarians are overrating one quality, and neglecting the rest. I found your analogy unsuitable. Libertarianism worked in the US for quite a while and echoes of it still exists. Social pattern of quality does not neccessarily imply the State. People can share values without putting the force of law (and the states threat of violence) behind it. In many ways these shared values are stronger than the state's laws. It's also considerably more efficient and dynamic. Gerhard wrote: I need to have people with high moral values for this to turn out to be a perfect world. I am of the pessimistic type, and will expect a large bunch of people that do not care so much for anybody exept themself. Interesting. So you think Utopia is an option? I don't think so. If people are basically good you don't need much government, If people are basically bad you don't dare have one. (I read that somewhere but don't remember where). Timothy McVey is bad, but Joseph Stalin is a catastrophe. Wim wrote: I have no strong opinions on it and wouldn't even mind much to call a retreat if someone explained to me that drug use is essential to create certain higher-level-valuable phenomena, of which psychedelic music is not necessarily on, if Gerhard is right. Be smart Wim, Heavy psychedelics are not toys and should be treated with a lot of respect. Expanding your mind is not neccessarily a fun experience. Looking over the edge can be enlightening but also terrifying. Wim wrote: I think it is a battle between phantoms or even spectres, the real issue being something else. Here I suspect you might be on to something. As a Libertarian MoQer I think we will never be able to transform the State to be what the Socialists dream it should be, but I think we might be able to transform people. Peace and order exist in society not primarily because of laws but because most people agree on how to behave. Wim wrote: I definitely don't agree to disagree with you on the value of non-violence for it is not a matter of opinions for me. I feel you deny part of my experience (my self-respect) or even of my identity when you call me a mere subject when I have no rifle and somehow see Dynamic Quality in an individual right to possess and use arms. Slightly overcharging for the sake of argument I deny you the right
Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Stephen wrote: i don't know of any martial art that doesn't take the only for defense, never attack line seriously when you talk to its senior practitioners. Aikido certainly does, and I would argue that ju-jitsu is sympathetic to acting only in self-defense (or defense of another). I grew up in a rough area and a non-violent response would not have helped victims i had saved from worse beatings. A little story: I still live in a very rough area. Recently a friend left my house and walked to the local tube station (metro) across a local park. A fourteen year old boy was bullying an eleven year old boy, so my friend intervened and separated them. The fourteen year old went off and got his friends, and attacked my friend before he reached the far side of the park, causing a fractured cheekbone that needed hospital treatment. The point being that violence begets violence; even if there arise situations that leave us no alternative but a violent response, those situations have come about because of poor judgement, mistakes or plain evil intent earlier on in the process. The only way to make things better is to stop the cycle of violence escalating, and work towards reconciliation. Personally, I don't think the widespread presence of firearms helps in the endeavour. Sam MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
RE: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
I agree with you on the subject of firearms but they do have a place (last night I watched a documentary on how the Taliban have been massacring their own Afghan countrymen, wiping out villages etc,there was film showing people being executed for no reason, the villagers value their lives and are using violence to defend themselves and their children-who else is going to do it?should they lay down and die?). Re: Recently a friend left my house and walked to the local tube station (metro) across a local park. A fourteen year old boy was bullying an eleven year old boy, so my friend intervened and separated them. The fourteen year old went off and got his friends, and attacked my friend before he reached the far side of the park,causing a fractured cheekbone that needed hospital treatment. Recently in the UK a young 11yr old boy was bullied (stabbed) by 4 boys of 14-15yrs. There were several passers by who witnessed it and did not step in, phone for police, the poor boy was left to die. This was a child who was returning home after computer club and was picked on presumably randomly.The quality question is Is a cheekbone WORTH more than a human life,seeing as how the intellectual level values an idea over a society I think not.i agree with most of what you say, I used to know a lot of violent people and know the background that has led some of them down that road,but decent law abiding people have a right to defend themselves. Common sense and a bit of forethought will keep you out of a lot of situations, but a colleague of mine got mugged less than a 100yards from work not so long ago, he was a pacifist. Your friend sounds like a decent guy, I hope he's ok now. (excuse me for preuming your friend is female) stephen -Original Message- From: Elizaphanian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 27 June 2001 10:59 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up Stephen wrote: i don't know of any martial art that doesn't take the only for defense, never attack line seriously when you talk to its senior practitioners. Aikido certainly does, and I would argue that ju-jitsu is sympathetic to acting only in self-defense (or defense of another). I grew up in a rough area and a non-violent response would not have helped victims i had saved from worse beatings. A little story: I still live in a very rough area. Recently a friend left my house and walked to the local tube station (metro) across a local park. A fourteen year old boy was bullying an eleven year old boy, so my friend intervened and separated them. The fourteen year old went off and got his friends, and attacked my friend before he reached the far side of the park, causing a fractured cheekbone that needed hospital treatment. The point being that violence begets violence; even if there arise situations that leave us no alternative but a violent response, those situations have come about because of poor judgement, mistakes or plain evil intent earlier on in the process. The only way to make things better is to stop the cycle of violence escalating, and work towards reconciliation. Personally, I don't think the widespread presence of firearms helps in the endeavour. Sam MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html _ This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. _ This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
RE: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Andrea, Stephen, Sam, and all, Andrea wrote, so your point is: oppression does not exist; or in other words, blame on the oppressed. Why aren't they fighting and dying for their freedom? They must really have no backbone. My point is that to absolve the Nigerians for all responsibility for the conditions of their lives is immoral. Macro's original post to which I was responding, seemed to indicate that the Nigerians had no responsibility for this condition and they do. Andrea wrote: Also, if a government is corrupted, blame the people. Why aren't they fighting against their government and dying for a better one? No doubt, why aren't they fighting their government if it's as bad as Marco's claims? If you won't fight for your Liberty, don't expect to keep it. Andrea wrote: You also seem to claim that if you state that a population is being oppressed, you are a racist. I think we should hold the Nigerians to the same standard as every other people in the world. It seems rascist and condesending to me to give the Nigerians some special status because they're Africans (although perhaps this was not Marco's intent and I misinterpreted his statements). These people might very well be victims but the way them to stop being victims is for them to stand up and assert their rights. Stephen wrote: Violence has on some level ensured that people with views like Wim's can hold them, I grew up in a rough area and a non-violent response would not have helped victims i had saved from worse beatings.I'm sure they respected me stepping in (DQ) and stopping an attack physically than shaking my had at the futility of violence. Arete! Honor to you for leading by example. If the state or individual is acting not to assert preserve the social pattern of quality over the biological one then they must be met with force. This is how the MoQ differentiates being a thug and a dissident. I think this is made pretty clear in Lila. Hopefully those people you saved were people putting up the best defense they could. Better to die on your feet, than on your knees. Sam wrote: The point being that violence begets violence; even if there arise situations that leave us no alternative but a violent response, those situations have come about because of poor judgement, mistakes or plain evil intent earlier on in the process. The only way to make things better is to stop the cycle of violence escalating, and work towards reconciliation. Personally, I don't think the widespread presence of firearms helps in the endeavour. A question; Do you think the state would have been correct in interviening when the gang of people was trashing your friend? The mainstream media in the US is curiously silent about the people who successfully defend their homes and person with firearms. All the media does is popularzied the rare wacko who shoots up a McDonalds or school. If you can't differentiate between a group of criminals (biological vs. social) and disident college professors (intellectual vs. social) maybe you should re-read Lila (Lila Chapter 24). 419, AreteLaugh MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
RE: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Glen Dickey, Gerhard wrote: IMO, Libertarianism is like trying to swim with an outboard motor, you have great possibilities for a high speed experience, but this is the only quality you can have hopes for - and you will probably drown before you get things going. The thing will not work before you have the boat (society). In short: IMO Libertarians are overrating one quality, and neglecting the rest. Glen wrote: I found your analogy unsuitable. Libertarianism worked in the US for quite a while and echoes of it still exists. Social pattern of quality does not neccessarily imply the State. People can share values without putting the force of law (and the states threat of violence) behind it. In many ways these shared values are stronger than the state's laws. It's also considerably more efficient and dynamic. Gerhard: I did not expect you to like my analogy, but I can't see the reason for getting US involved in this. I think there is a lot of people that would not agree that US are a Libertarian country, even though X-files probably didn't give the correct impression. However I agree that US is somewhat closer to Libertarianism than Norway. I do not expect that the goverment is going to force people to experience dynamic qualities, but I have hopes for a goverment giving optimal possibility for the people to experience DQ. This might lead to some regulation on some of the possible freedoms, e.g. ecomomy. Gerhard wrote: I need to have people with high moral values for this to turn out to be a perfect world. I am of the pessimistic type, and will expect a large bunch of people that do not care so much for anybody exept themself. Glen wrote: Interesting. So you think Utopia is an option? I don't think so. If people are basically good you don't need much government, If people are basically bad you don't dare have one. (I read that somewhere but don't remember where). Timothy McVey is bad, but Joseph Stalin is a catastrophe. Gerhard: I must have missed something here. I was of the opinion I was accusing YOU for beliving in Utopia. Maybe Utopia have a different meaning to us - I see Utopia as a society where everybody is belived to be basically good. So in a MoQ sence: in such a society everybody would understand imidiately that an individual in this society was contributing with dynamic qualities (art, music, philosophy etc.), and rush to him / her in order to finance his attempts. I belive that such a thing does not necessarily happen, and that you need some regulation to the system in order to acheive a balanced possibility for quality. If this is your understanding of Utopia - I belive in something like that. Glen wrote: Be smart Wim, Heavy psychedelics are not toys and should be treated with a lot of respect. Expanding your mind is not neccessarily a fun experience. Looking over the edge can be enlightening but also terrifying. Gerhard: I was of the opinion that we wanted to experience DQ, and that DQ was change, creativity, chaos, etc. in other words looking over the edge. Regards, Gerhard MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Sam wrote: The point being that violence begets violence; even if there arise situations that leave us no alternative but a violent response, those situations have come about because of poor judgement, mistakes or plain evil intent earlier on in the process. The only way to make things better is to stop the cycle of violence escalating, and work towards reconciliation. Personally, I don't think the widespread presence of firearms helps in the endeavour. And Glen responded: A question; Do you think the state would have been correct in interviening when the gang of people was trashing your friend? The mainstream media in the US is curiously silent about the people who successfully defend their homes and person with firearms. All the media does is popularzied the rare wacko who shoots up a McDonalds or school. If you can't differentiate between a group of criminals (biological vs. social) and disident college professors (intellectual vs. social) maybe you should re-read Lila (Lila Chapter 24). Sam responds: The substantial question Glen raises is about the role of the state. There is a significant degree of teenage tension in my area (to put it in no stronger terms), and I was recently discussing the situation with one of our local police officers. He commented that the police have to rely on a certain level of 'social control' - in other words the informal restraints exercised within a community by those with authority. (This is called social capital by some theorists). The real way to deal with the situation that my friend encountered is to ensure that it is less likely to happen in the future - through better education, a higher quality (= more moral) upbringing and the freedom for local groups to have some measure of authority in their own areas. My view is that what has really caused the great increase in violent crime etc has been the state getting involved in all aspects of violent conduct. As there are now strong laws against any form of physical aggression (eg against smacking children) there is no longer any means of developing self-discipline in young men growing up. (The specific example I was discussing was related to an immigrant community, whose teenage sons were causing problems and bringing their community into disrepute. The elders of the community wished to take their own measures to enforce good behaviour but it was illegal in this country (the UK)). And the fact that it IS young men who cause the vast majority of the problems is just one of the reasons for thinking that it is a biological problem (hormonal overload) which requires, at least in part, a biological solution, meaning the exercise of physical restraint. Without those low level biological controls the situation is bound to escalate, and where firearms are present, people will be killed. This question about firearms isn't one that can be neatly reduced to biological v social against intellectual v social. I am not a complete pacifist (as my comment in the earlier post should have made clear) but I do put a high value on human life. Where there are firearms widely available then conflict is more likely to have a fatal outcome. To look at it purely in MoQ terms for a moment this diminishes the resources available for the intellectual level and is therefore a low quality environment, it is one in which the potential to move to higher levels and experience DQ etc is diminished. The situation is therefore more nuanced than you have appreciated (as a close reading of Lila would have indicated ;) ) Sam MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Sam, Although I don't disagree with you on your main points in your last post about the need to utilize some sort of low level restraint when it comes to individuals who are behaving violently, I feel the need to disagree with your statement, And the fact that it IS young men who cause the vast majority of the problems is just one of the reasons for thinking that it is a biological problem (hormonal overload) It's really unfair to blame the problem of violence in young males so largely on hormones. I know many teenage males who would be classified as violent, and I know very few who don't act violently because of social issues, issues of race and class, as well as issues with the school system itself and the police themselves. That is, they're saying I see something wrong with the system, and this system has not provided me with any tools to change it legally. My voice, as a teenager (or a female or an African American or a person in poverty or...) will not be heard, unless I make it heard. Hormones play little part in it, and the part they play involves the methods they use, not the reason for action. These social controls only make the problem worse. A lot of the trouble starts when these social controls are applied to people who don't need them in the first place, people who are not a social threat but who find their intellectual freedom threatened because someone thinks they are. Teenagers who look like drug users, who look like gangsters, who look like anything can and will be pulled off the street and into police departments. I've seen it done. They're almost always released immediately, because they've done nothing wrong. You've misdiagnosed the problem in suggesting that it's hormonal, and have suggested a solution that can only make the problem worse. From: Elizaphanian [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 19:01:32 +0100 Sam wrote: The point being that violence begets violence; even if there arise situations that leave us no alternative but a violent response, those situations have come about because of poor judgement, mistakes or plain evil intent earlier on in the process. The only way to make things better is to stop the cycle of violence escalating, and work towards reconciliation. Personally, I don't think the widespread presence of firearms helps in the endeavour. And Glen responded: A question; Do you think the state would have been correct in interviening when the gang of people was trashing your friend? The mainstream media in the US is curiously silent about the people who successfully defend their homes and person with firearms. All the media does is popularzied the rare wacko who shoots up a McDonalds or school. If you can't differentiate between a group of criminals (biological vs. social) and disident college professors (intellectual vs. social) maybe you should re-read Lila (Lila Chapter 24). Sam responds: The substantial question Glen raises is about the role of the state. There is a significant degree of teenage tension in my area (to put it in nostronger terms), and I was recently discussing the situation with one of our local police officers. He commented that the police have to rely on a certain level of 'social control' - in other words the informal restraints exercised within a community by those with authority. (This is called social capital by some theorists). The real way to deal with the situation that my friend encountered is to ensure that it is less likely to happen in the future - through better education, a higher quality (= more moral) upbringing and the freedom for local groups to have some measure of authority in their own areas. My view is that what has really caused the great increase in violent crime etc has been the state getting involved in all aspects of violent conduct. As there are now strong laws against any form of physical aggression (eg against smacking children) there is no longer any means of developing self-discipline in young men growing up. (The specific example I was discussing was related to an immigrant community, whose teenage sons were causing problems and bringing their community into disrepute. The elders of the community wished to take their own measures to enforce good behaviour but it was illegal in this country (the UK)). And the fact that it IS young men who cause the vast majority of the problems is just one of the reasons for thinking that it is a biological problem (hormonal overload) which requires, at least in part, a biological solution, meaning the exercise of physical restraint. Without those low level biological controls the situation is bound to escalate, and where firearms are present, people will be killed. This question about firearms isn't one that can be neatly reduced to biological v social against
Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Andi wrote: It's really unfair to blame the problem of violence in young males so largely on hormones. My last post was somewhat hastily written, and there were some things I didn't spell out. I actually don't think we disagree too much on this. My view is really that there is a biological/hormonal surge in teenagers (male and female) but that it is the social context in which this happens that is the root cause of the problems. I am very happy to concede that a lot of the problems are a DQ reaction to a very low Q environment (inchoate and ill-expressed, but valid nonetheless) - my point is really that the force driving the DQ reaction is largely hormonal. Teenagers who look like drug users, who look like gangsters, who look like anything can and will be pulled off the street and into police departments. I've seen it done. They're almost always released immediately, because they've done nothing wrong. This is actually the precise point that I was trying to support - in these sorts of cases the police (ie the state) shouldn't be getting involved, it just makes things worse. If there were 'elders' - principally mature males - who could mentor/encourage/act as points of discipline and respect, then they could be the people who would know if there was actually a problem case arising, and nine times out of ten make an intervention that brought a good outcome on all sides. Getting the police involved is surely a last resort. You've misdiagnosed the problem in suggesting that it's hormonal, and have suggested a solution that can only make the problem worse. As I said, my early post was written in haste (I can't actually believe I've had a chance to write so much in the last twenty-four hours; it won't last) and I don't think there's much between us. Principally, what I was referring to as social controls are things which are much more local and personally based than anything that might be official or state sponsored. Of course, the real challenge is to structure the social controls so that postive criticisms (ie intellectual level ones) aren't squashed in the way that biological ones are. But that's another thread. Sam MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
RE: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Gerhard, Sam, Elizaphanian and all, Gerhard wrote: I do not expect that the goverment is going to force people to experience dynamic qualities, but I have hopes for a goverment giving optimal possibility for the people to experience DQ. I don't think the State can do that. I think the state can get out of individuals way and they will experience it for themselves. Gerhard wrote: I must have missed something here. I was of the opinion I was accusing YOU for beliving in Utopia. Maybe Utopia have a different meaning to us - I see Utopia as a society where everybody is belived to be basically good. I think of Utopia as a perfect world. Basically good would not meet my definition of a Utopia. I do not believe a Utopia is possible. Gerhard wrote: I was of the opinion that we wanted to experience DQ, and that DQ was change, creativity, chaos, etc. in other words looking over the edge. Wanted to? have, did. I've seen the elephant and know of what I speak. Sam wrote: The real way to deal with the situation that my friend encountered is to ensure that it is less likely to happen in the future - through better education, a higher quality (= more moral) upbringing and the freedom for local groups to have some measure of authority in their own areas. The only real way? Perhaps a way, surely there is more than one possible soultion to this problem. I don't know that your solution is such a bad one though the question in my mind is implementation. I don't think the State can teach morality and ethics, which is not to say that this isn't a powerful and important social pattern, it just can't be conveyed very well by bureacratic organizations. The State can hardly teach people to read and they want to tackle ethics? No way. Sam wrote: My view is that what has really caused the great increase in violent crime etc has been the state getting involved in all aspects of violent conduct. As there are now strong laws against any form of physical aggression (eg against smacking children) there is no longer any means of developing self-discipline in young men growing up. Damn that's too bad. I am really glad my father hit me for a couple of the stupid things I did. He's still alive and we have good relationship. Sam wrote: Without those low level biological controls the situation is bound to escalate, and where firearms are present, people will be killed. Where there are firearms widely available then conflict is more likely to have a fatal outcome. Define more likely. Vermont and Alaska both have damn near zero gun laws and very little crime, nothing on the scale of California. Have you spent much time around firearms to where you can honestly make this claim? I have and it seems pretty foundless. Sam wrote: To look at it purely in MoQ terms for a moment this diminishes the resources available for the intellectual level and is therefore a low quality environment, it is one in which the potential to move to higher levels and experience DQ etc is diminished. You've lost me. Are you equating maximizing resources for the experience of dynamic quality as the goal of existence? Where does it say that in Lila? Elizaphanian you preach and I'll turn the pages! Could I take this oppurtunity to again stress that the State is not equivilent to social patterns of quality. The State is large and easily identifiable but does not nearly encompass the totality of social patterns. I suspect that most social patterns do not originate with the State but with the people we grew up with and the people we spend our lives around. AreteLaugh MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Dear Glen, I don't mind to agree to disagree with you on the value of drug use. I have no strong opinions on it and wouldn't even mind much to call a retreat if someone explained to me that drug use is essential to create certain higher-level-valuable phenomena, of which psychedelic music is not necessarily on, if Gerhard is right. I'm not happy with your handling of the socialism versus capitalism debate. I wouldn't call myself a socialist but you probably would. I think it is a battle between phantoms or even spectres, the real issue being something else. But I can't explain that yet before I have finished some other threads, so I won't enter that debate. I definitely don't agree to disagree with you on the value of non-violence for it is not a matter of opinions for me. I feel you deny part of my experience (my self-respect) or even of my identity when you call me a mere subject when I have no rifle and somehow see Dynamic Quality in an individual right to possess and use arms. Slightly overcharging for the sake of argument I deny you the right to call your libertarianism (whatever that may be) founded on the MoQ if you hold that libertarianism implies such a right. Be a human, Glen! Defend yourself. I called you a coward! (Well, almost. I don't know whether you really own a rifle and would use it against a cop trying to infringe on your precious right to pursue selfish interests or only think it would be cool to do so.) I stated 12/6 23:17 +0200: No cause (= intellectual pattern) legitimises fighting with material weapons (= fighting social patterns by fighting biological patterns with inorganic patterns). Dan wrote 14/6 13:17 -0500: This is a tough one. I would like to intellectually agree with you but I am quite sure in a threatening situation my instinct for survival would precondition my actions. There would be no thought involved at all. Only action. And that action would be of a violent nature if that is what the situation called for, but only upon reflection. At the time it would be just what I had to do to survive. I think that part of 'me' is very old and very ruthless and it disconcerts me when I look at what we are capable of as human beings. There is no more dangerous creature on earth. It fills me with wonder too though. Dynamic Quality is very strange. I replied 16/6 21:59 +0200: No dispute here. You describe reaction to biological or perhaps social threats: from an intellectual viewpoint illegitimate action but nevertheless unavoidable to the extent that one identifies with biological and social values. One can train oneself to identify more with intellectual values and less with lower level ones. In fact Civilisation is maybe about just that: offering scores of disciplines for this training. Aikido, which I mentioned in my e-mail to Clarke (12/6 22:46 +0200 same thread) is only one among many such disciplines. If you feel biologically and socially threatened and use arms I can excuse you, but that does not convince me that it has more value than a more civilised approach. Socrates would not be remembered for establishing the independence of intellectual patterns from their social origins (Lila ch. 22) had he defended with arms his right to brainwash the youth of his day with Ratio. He proved the strength of those intellectual patterns by offering his life (biological and social patterns of value) for them. Was he a mere subject in doing so??? Do you have the courage to stand for your right to possess and use arms by offering your life (not using your rifle of course) for it? That right is just a misnomer for the biological law of the jungle, the right of the strongest. For the sake of argument I am even willing to be so impolite to state that in my humble opinion the United States of America are a backward part of civilisation as long as this right is being upheld. My view of the facts of history is that civilisation (intellectual evolution for the better) means that nations increasingly monopolise violence vis-a-vis their citizens (if they trespass) and even increasingly cede sovereignty to use violence to supranational bodies. Whether non-violence would succeed against Hitler or Stalin is not a valid argument. Courage implies taking risks. Anyway a majority of Hitler's citizens supported him. (About Stalin's citizens I simply don't know.) Between 20 and 15 years ago I stopped being a principled non-violent activist. I don't hold anymore that no-one should ever use arms. Instead I adopted the stance of George Fox when William Penn asked him whether he (being a court official) could go on wearing a sword (when he would be seen by his peers as being almost naked without it): Wear thy sword as long as thou canst. meaning: as long as God does not call you personally to stop wearing it. (This anecdote by the way was first put to paper more than two centuries after the death of both gentlemen, so it
RE: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Marco and all, Marco wrote: 3. Free trade This supposed free trade is not free at all in the third world, where capitalist firms (not only American, of course) still persevere to act immorally toward the local populations and environments. It's cynical to say that it's fault of the Nigerian government, so to say, if the oil companies are *legally* destroying the environment. We all know that the oil firms can make the laws there. To my ear it sure sounds like you don't think the Nigerians don't bear much resonsibility for themselves and from my point of view that opinion is rascist. Why should I hold the Nigerians to less of a standard than I hold myself and my own countrymen? They don't seem to have problems like this in Texas and certainly not in California. If you don't live as man in your own country who do you have to blame but yourself? Arete? Duty to Self? Some things are worth dying for, some things are worth killing for, and some things are worth moving for. Sincerely, AreteLaugh/Glen MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
RE: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Gerhard, Marcos, and all, Gerhard wrote: I think that is why we can agree based on MoQ, as I see economic activity as a social pattern of values. This have been discussed in depth earlier. In Lila Pirsig states (Chapter 13 Paragraph 27 pg 163 Bantam HC 1991); Second, there were moral codes that established the supremacy of the social order the biological life-conventional morals-proscriptions against drugs, murder, adultery, theft and the like. Third, there were moral code that established the supremacy of the intellectual order over the social order-democracy, trial by jury, freedom of speech, freedom of the press. Where would a Freedom of Exchange exchange fit in this paragraph? I see a market as being very similar to the intellectual hierarchy/system of the motorcycle discussed in ZMM. The real market isn't the trading floor but the results of supply and demand which are driven by the intellectual values of the individuals in the population. Marcos wrote: So I think that it's immoral (for example) for market to own ideas, rather than helping the development of ideas. Where do these Ideas come from Marcos? I would love to learn of a mechanism more dynamic and just than the market system, but until that mechanism arrives the we distrub the dynamic nature of the market at our own peril. (Chapter 14 Paragraph 65, 66, 67 pg 221 Bantam HC 1991.) I read the rest of Marco's posts and found his arguments somewhat bizare. What remedy would Marco's provide to an unarmed population saddled with a tyrannical government? Learn to like it? Marcos wrote: We all know that the oil firms can make the laws there. And probably all the blind supporters of this system (that is NOT the ideal free trade the MOQ talks about) too easily forget that the western richness has been built also thanks to the exploitation of the third world. Sure let's absolve the Nigerian government of all responsibility to act in a moral and ethical way. I think his post is the most condesending rascist screed i've read all week. What Nigeria needs is good old fashioned civil war if the government is as corrupt as Marco's implies. Social paterns that do not take care of their physical environment will have a reduced ability to compete. Survival of the fitess remeber? Those Nigerians owe it to themselves to live as men in their own country. I do agree the system currently inplace is not free trade, nor are the laws (at least in the US) applied with anything approaching complete justice. Gerhard wrote: I'm sorry to hear that. As you understand, I do not think that libertarianism is the solution. I was of the opinion that the energy-crisis in California was a good proof of that, but I'm not to familiar with the problem. Your willing to accept the California energy crisis as proof of the failure of free market system but think that the collapse of Eastern Europe isn't proof of the failure of Socialism? Hmmm... Is that Empiricism? (In reality the California energy market was never really a free market and the whole process of deregulation was hamstrung from the start by the idiots in Sacramento.) AreteLaugh A man with a rifle is a citizen, A man without one is a subject. - Unknown MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Dear Glen (AreteLaugh), You wrote 25/6 02:52 -0700: What remedy would Marco provide to an unarmed population saddled with a tyrannical government? Learn to like it? I would recommend reading M.K. Gandhi An autobiography, or The story of my experiments with truth, Ahmedabad: Navajivan, 1940. He is credited with liberating India from the British. You wrote: 'A man with a rifle is a citizen, A man without one is a subject.' Unknown I'd say: A human with a rifle is a coward. The courageous trust in truth. Could you please pretend some more patience with us poor short-sighted left-liberals (respect would certainly be too much to ask for)? With friendly greetings, Wim Nusselder
Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
AreteLaugh and any other that is still interested, So we disagree on some different items. What troubles me is that I think we both are basing our argument on MoQ (most of the time) and end up with different answers. I admit to believe in Utilarism (Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill), and mix this with the MoQ. You seems to belive in Egoism (Adam Smith: Wealth of nations), and mix that with MoQ. This leads to very different veiws on things. This troubles me, as the MoQ is not supposed to be subjective, if I understand it correctly. Maybe it is just me, being a utilarist looking into MoQ to see if there are any new ideas that works, but not being able to totally step into the new paradigm. Or maybe there is something fundamentally wrong I'm not getting the hold of. So, to your e-mail: Gerhard wrote: I think that is why we can agree based on MoQ, as I see economic activity as a social pattern of values. This have been discussed in depth earlier. Arete wrote: In Lila Pirsig states (Chapter 13 Paragraph 27 pg 163 Bantam HC 1991); Second, there were moral codes that established the supremacy of the social order the biological life-conventional morals-proscriptions against drugs, murder, adultery, theft and the like. Third, there were moral code that established the supremacy of the intellectual order over the social order-democracy, trial by jury, freedom of speech, freedom of the press. Where would a Freedom of Exchange exchange fit in this paragraph? I see a market as being very similar to the intellectual hierarchy/system of the motorcycle discussed in ZMM. The real market isn't the trading floor but the results of supply and demand which are driven by the intellectual values of the individuals in the population. Gerhards answer is still: The marked is IMO a social value pattern. Freedom of exchange is an intellectual idea. Socialism is another intellectual idea. I understand that a free marked is probably more dynamic than a controlled marked, but I am of the opinion that this also reduces the possibility of many other dynamic social patterns and many intellectual patterns. Due to this, IMO the marked needs to be controlled so it don't destroy other values (on an equal level and on higher levels). Gerhard wrote: I'm sorry to hear that. As you understand, I do not think that libertarianism is the solution. I was of the opinion that the energy-crisis in California was a good proof of that, but I'm not to familiar with the problem. AreteLaugh wrote: Your willing to accept the California energy crisis as proof of the failure of free market system but think that the collapse of Eastern Europe isn't proof of the failure of Socialism? Hmmm... Is that Empiricism? Gerhard: I do not know enough about the energy crisis in California to blame it on anything, and I was of the opinion that I stated this clearly in my e-mail. I maybe should have stated I've heard ... instead of I was of the opinion ... to be even more accurate. I'm not very interested in why communist states failed, or why America is a popular place to be amongst former communist state citizens. I rather would like to see what the MoQ brings when it comes to evaluating these different theories, and I had the impression that was also your intention. Based on this intention I asked you why you did not prefer Anarchism to Libertarianism, as Anarchism have a basis on a Social level as Libertarianism is based on a dog-eat-dog biological level, and both relying on freedm to do whatever you want more or less. Socialism, Social-democracy an other forms of light socialism is IMO superior to Libertarianism from a MoQ view, due to the reasons I stated earlier in this e-mail. I understand that the pure communism is too static in the social value patterns, and maybe this even is the reason for the collapse of communism. Also - IMO the Eastern European states did not practise communism or socialism. AreteLaugh wrote: Hmmm... Is that Empiricism? Gerhard: I was of the understanding that we belived in Expressionism :-) Gerhard MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
RE: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Wim Nusselder, Perhaps it is best if we agree to disagree on this matter. I will conceed the their are many paths to the top of the mountain and mine is surely not the only way to the top (nor is yours). We obviously draw very different conclusions from thehistoric example of the last couple of centuries. I find it inconceivable that a program of non-violence would succeed versus Stalin or the Nazis. Or even freed the thirteen colonies from Britian. While I think there is definitely a place for non-violence and civil disobedience, as evidenced by the civil rights movements in the US, I also think there is a time for other methods. Sincerely, AreteLaugh
RE: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Gerhard, I am unsure if we should be that troubled by our disagreements over these issues. I actually became a Libertarian after adopting the MoQ precisely because I think that the MoQ suports Libertarian ideas. Still we don't argue about which painting in a gallery is real and which is not do we? So perhaps we should not be that concerned that Dynamic Quality has lead different people to different solutions for similar problem. I think that the destinies of Europe and the US are different. We prefer our system, you yours. Nothing weird about that. To parapharse Lila How can those Europeans stand to be Europeans? and How can those Americans stand to be Americans? I can not accept your analysis of Libertarianism as being based on dog-eat-dog biological level as being accurate. Libertarians do not think that charity should not exist, but that the appropriate place for it is not within the state but with the individuals and private organizations. Libertarians think that people should not be compelled/coerced by the state to contribute to programs or policies they do not think correct. In the US we have Arab-American citizens who are forced to contribute tax dollars which are then spent on buying arms for Isreal. What an absurdity! Libertarians think that if people want to support this cause or that perhaps THEY should support it. And let the rest of us do our thing. Gerhard wrote: Socialism, Social-democracy an other forms of light socialism is IMO superior to Libertarianism from a MoQ view, due to the reasons I stated earlier in this e-mail. How would we differentiate between light Libertarianism and light socialism? Seems to me that in the middle there is a great deal of blurring going on. Sincerely, AreteLaugh MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Glen, I don't want to re-open the socialist thread, as it is very recent, and I think your position is almost the same than other's, especially Platt's. Just, Platt seemed to be a little more disposed to listen to the others. I'm here as I've not understood one thing: Sure let's absolve the Nigerian government of all responsibility to act in a moral and ethical way. I think his post is the most condesending rascist screed i've read all week. The term rascist is not in my dictionary. I'm wondering if you were meaning racist or fascist Indeed, even if I'm Italian, fascist would be bizarre, after I've been blamed as socialist, just because I'm critic to an excessive freedom of the market. But racist is also more bizarre. I accuse the oil companies (very white, I'd say, and both American and European, just to show I'm not merely accusing the USA) to exploit the African people (very black, seemingly) and this is racism? Maybe, against the whites. Leaving racism aside, I advise you to document yourself about Nigeria, and the side effects of certain capitalism. «For a private company, which has to realize investments, it is necessary a stable situation... dictatorships can provide that» (N. Achebe, general manager of Shell Oil Company in Nigeria, 1995 A.D. - Explaining why Shell was supporting the military government of Nigeria - Quoted in Patas Arriba by Eduardo Galeano 1998. My translation) Said that, if it can be of help, a point we reached in the recent socialism/capitalism thread, far from being a conclusion, is that the MOQ can well find good aspects both in the American libertarianism and in the typical social-democratic European systems, where the market, far from being extinguished, is a bit more controlled. It must be that, or it would be hard to explain while intelligent MOQers like 3wDave, Clarke, Platt and Roger and others are anti socialists, while likewise intelligent MOQers like Horse, Jonathan, Gerhard, Andrea and others are socialists. Marco MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
RE: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
AreteLaugh, The subjectivity in MoQ is still one of my headaches, it should not be there. However, I hope I'm correct to say that you agree that it is possible for MoQ to lead different people to different solutions for similar problem, as you stated. That do IMO result in a situation where many political ideas seems to be possible outcomes of MoQ, obviously Libertarianism for your part, left-liberalism for my part, and socialism for others. Arete wrote: I can not accept your analysis of Libertarianism as being based on dog-eat-dog biological level as being accurate. Libertarians do not think that charity should not exist, but that the appropriate place for it is not within the state but with the individuals and private organizations. Libertarians think that people should not be compelled/coerced by the state to contribute to programs or policies they do not think correct. Gerhard: I need to have people with high moral values for this to turn out to be a perfect world. I am of the pessimistic type, and will expect a large bunch of people that do not care so much for anybody exept themself. These are the people that will be spilling oil or chemicals in your water supplies, and pay the press to look another way when you protest. Gerhard wrote: Socialism, Social-democracy an other forms of light socialism is IMO superior to Libertarianism from a MoQ view, due to the reasons I stated earlier in this e-mail. Arete wrote: How would we differentiate between light Libertarianism and light socialism? Seems to me that in the middle there is a great deal of blurring going on. Gerhard: As mentioned earlier, I'm probably what you would call a left-liberal, and I guess that is something like light Libertarianism and light socialism. I tried an analogy a couple of weeks ago, and it resulted in a roaring silence. Anyway, I'll try again: IMO, Libertarianism is like trying to swim with an outboard motor, you have great possibilities for a high speed experience, but this is the only quality you can have hopes for - and you will probably drown before you get things going. The thing will not work before you have the boat (society). In short: IMO Libertarians are overrating one quality, and neglecting the rest. I have no hopes in converting you to anything, but I hope you understand my doubt. Sincerely, Gerhard (and good night) MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
RE: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Gerhard all, AreteLaugh wrote: Libertarianism might be summed as 1) Property and personal ownership, 2) Free interaction between consenting individuals and 3) A State that is limited to assisting it's citizens assert these rights in the face of aggression. Gerhard wrote: I think that anachism would agree very much with 2) and 3), but probably have problems with 1). I'm not sure if I see where MoQ are making you prefer 1), as I see only as a biological value set. I think you are confusing the map for the actual terrain. Economic activity relates primarily to the intellectual patterns of values. Sometimes things are exchanged, but what is really being exchanged is values. Information, not things, is the most highly prized item of trade there is. Some anarchists might agree with 3), but some anarchists could just as easily believe that killing people who would not give do as they wished was an acceptable form of social interaction. No Libertarians think this. Gerhard wrote: I agree that many of these old comunist states must have been horrible to live in, but I would not necessarily agree to blame it on the socialism. Anyway, here in Norway we are invaded by Russian and Polish people in the summer, highly educated or good artists, taking all kind of work in order to earn some money for their families to live for. According to newspapers here in Norway, a university proffesor can make more money picking strawberries two months in Norway than they make the rest of the year in Poland (I didn't even pick strawberries when I was a student, as it was so bad payed). I am rather certain that these highly educated persons and these artists are only partly pleased with their new freedom. What exactly would you blame it on? How were the conditions after the end of the second world war (1945) different between Eastern and Western Europe? While both sides had Socialist political parties, one side didn't have anything but Socialist political parties! Hong Kong is a great example of what happens when you implement Libertarian economic policies. Gerhard wrote: The few people that have become very rich in Russia and Poland these years, are in my opinion not at all contributing with dynamic values at any levels, and seems to be only interested in a biological show-off to prove their wealth. What an interesting thing to say! Economic activity is an expression of intellectual value. I have a cow, you have 1000 units of currency. I value 1000 units of currency more than my cow, you value a cow more than your 1000 units of currency. We swap. If I only paid 950 for the cow the day before then i'm better off, If now have milk for your children's breakfast then your better off. Both parties have benefited from the transaction precisely because they had different values (I valued money, you valued a cow). Gerhard wrote: I didn't know that California was a Socialist state, and I have never been there. I was born there and I see it get worse almost every single day. AreteLaugh MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
AreteLaugh, You wrote: Economic activity relates primarily to the intellectual patterns of values. I think that is why we can agree based on MoQ, as I see economic activity as a social pattern of values. This have been discussed in depth earlier. Also read Marcos e-mail of 22nd of May: Market is a social pattern. The right to a free market is an intellectual pattern which ensures social dynamism. I think that we have problems when market tries the invasion of intellectual patterns. So I think that it's immoral (for example) for market to own ideas, rather than helping the development of ideas. And this is happening. I have attached parts of another e-mail from Marco in the end of this e-mail. I do recomend that you read the previous discussion on this subject. AreteLaugh: Some anarchists might agree with 3), but some anarchists could just as easily believe that killing people who would not give do as they wished was an acceptable form of social interaction. No Libertarians think this. Gehrard: I can not remember if Pinochet called himself libertarian, but he claimed some of the same ideas as libertarians. And I'm sure you would find more bad-guys if you start looking. AreteLaugh: What exactly would you blame it on? Gerhard: I would blame it on that socialism does not fullfill the principle of double reflection, the teory does not have a super-theory of how the society will react when the teory is applied. My point however is that they have not acheived a higher order of quality, as the social value system is not established yet. Maybe this is possible within the frame of Libertarianism, but I do not think so. I think that the social value pattern have to be excisting prior to the intelectual value pattern. I understand that this is one of RMP ideas as well, that a static level is depending on the level below to excist. Gerhard wrote: The few people that have become very rich in Russia and Poland these years, are in my opinion not at all contributing with dynamic values at any levels, and seems to be only interested in a biological show-off to prove their wealth AreteLaugh: What an interesting thing to say! Economic activity is an expression of intellectual value. Gerhard: You are here very far from my understanding, so the rest of the argument is not very interesting to me. Gerhard: I didn't know that California was a Socialist state, and I have never been there. AreteLaugh: I was born there and I see it get worse almost every single day. I'm sorry to hear that. As you understand, I do not think that libertarianism is the solution. I was of the opinion that the energy-crisis in California was a good proof of that, but I'm not to familiar with the problem. Gerhard From Marcos e-mail of 13.06.01: 3. Free trade This supposed free trade is not free at all in the third world, where capitalist firms (not only American, of course) still persevere to act immorally toward the local populations and environments. It's cynical to say that it's fault of the Nigerian government, so to say, if the oil companies are *legally* destroying the environment. We all know that the oil firms can make the laws there. And probably all the blind supporters of this system (that is NOT the ideal free trade the MOQ talks about) too easily forget that the western richness has been built also thanks to the exploitation of the third world. A good intellectual project should be to build a fair world, even helping those people to create a *really free* market and a *really representative* democracy. After the WWII, for the fear of communists, USA helped western Europe with the Marshall Plan. Isn't it time for another plan like that? Roger is surely right now typing his usual answer that capitalism inherited poverty. I don't think so, but even if it was true, it's like to say: a flash destroyed the house of my neighbor.. who cares? my house is untouched and there's the NBA final this evening. Even the slave traders used to say that they did not invented slavery. This introduces the next point. 4. Libertarianism is a dangerous illusion. Of course we have the right to smoke a cigarette, but we also have the duty to ask for the other's permission. Maybe I'm stating obvious things, but it's good to remember that our freedom begins in the point where the other's freedom ends. More than one century ago, an Italian thinker, Giuseppe Mazzini, while the whole world was going mad talking about the rights of peoples, workers, women, minorities and so on, wrote a book entitled I doveri dell'uomo (The duty of man). I've always thought that if Mazzini was German and Marx Italian, the history of twentieth century had been different. In few words, every right has a duty as counterpart. Apply the discourse to the MOQ, and you can easily read that rights are dynamic, while duties are static. There's no way out: you can't have only rights; an absolute freedom is impossible. You should
RE: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
AreteLaugh, What examples of socialism have you seen? What in your mind is the difference between Libertarianism and Anarchism? Gerhard MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
RE: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
I have only personally witnessed modern California and East Germany (DDR). The DDR I think I understood but some of the woolly thinking coming out of the Left in California. I can't understand why despite the complete defeat of Socialist theories of economic the Left persists in it's drive toward a totalitarian state. Economic control is effectively total control. Libertarianism might be summed as 1) Property and personal ownership, 2) Free interaction between consenting individuals and 3) A State that is limited to assisting it's citizens assert these rights in the face of aggression. I would assume an Anarchist would not believe in any of these. I can not say that i've met many self-identified practicing Anarchists. AreteLaugh -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Gerhard Ersdal Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2001 08:08 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up AreteLaugh, What examples of socialism have you seen? What in your mind is the difference between Libertarianism and Anarchism? Gerhard MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
AreteLaugh, You wrote: Libertarianism might be summed as 1) Property and personal ownership, 2) Free interaction between consenting individuals and 3) A State that is limited to assisting it's citizens assert these rights in the face of aggression. I would assume an Anarchist would not believe in any of these. I can not say that i've met many self-identified practicing Anarchists. I think that anachism would agree very much with 2) and 3), but probably have problems with 1). I'm not sure if I see where MoQ are making you prefer 1), as I see only as a biological value set. Anarchism is giving you unlimited freedom, with a society (family or large family) as a foundation and owner of properties. As far as I see you should be better of with anarchism, that will even lift your 1) to a social level. You also wrote: I have only personally witnessed modern California and East Germany (DDR). The DDR I think I understood but some of the woolly thinking coming out of the Left in California. I can't understand why despite the complete defeat of Socialist theories of economic the Left persists in it's drive toward a totalitarian state. Economic control is effectively total control. I didn't know that California was a Socialist state, and I have never been there. I have been to DDR, Hungary and Jugoslavia many years ago (around 1985), and I was suprised by the enornous creativity in arts and technology. They where IMO in some cases improvising a little much, but they had a society that alowed what I would call a dynaic evaluation in many intelectual levels. I agree that many of these old comunist states must have been horrible to live in, but I would not necessarily agree to blame it on the socialism. Anyway, here in Norway we are invaded by Russian and Polish people in the summer, highly educated or good artists, taking all kind of work in order to earn some money for their families to live for. According to newspapers here in Norway, a university proffesor can make more money picking strawberries two months in Norway than they make the rest of the year in Poland (I didn't even pick strawberries when I was a student, as it was so bad payed). I am rather certain that these highly educated persons and these artists are only partly pleased with their new freedom. The few people that have become very rich in Russia and Poland these years, are in my opinion not at all contributing with dynamic values at any levels, and seems to be only interested in a biological show-off to prove their wealth. I honestly need to understand how you can believe in all this freedom, when you see how bad it gets when the society value level is to loose (or more or less non-existing). And that is my reason for fining Libertarianism not to agree with MoQ (I also do not belive anarchism is a good thing). Most of these things have been covered in previous discussions: Marco have said these things in much better way - and I advise you to read his posts. It seems to be difficult to agree on these question based on MoQ. Gerhard MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
