From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Thu Jul 07 2005 - 14:56:30 BST
> msh before:
> Although the Constitution and its amendments (sometimes referred to
> as the Bill of Rights ) does not specifically state that we have
> the right not to die just because we cannot afford a pacemaker or
> dialysis, it's pretty easy to argue that anyone who dies under such
> conditions is being deprived of life without the due process of law,
> as required by the Fifth Amendment.
>
> platt 7-6-05:
> If it's an easy argument, why don't you try to make it.
>
> msh 7-6-05:
> I didn't formalize it because it is obvious, or should be. When
> someone dies as a result of being refused life-saving treatment, they are
> being deprived of life. If the government allows this to happen without
> showing legal cause, then the government has deprived someone of life
> without the due process of law.
If your argument had value, the Supreme Court would have required the
federal government to provide a national health service, not to mention
other "life-saving" measures to provide jobs, cars, computers, phones and
other "necessities of life." The politicians would have had a field day
promising this or that "necessity" to everybody. All the more reason why
it's important for Congress to approve a strict constructionist to the
Supreme Court to replace O'Conner.
> msh before:
> Now, on to the next subject. Here's the reply to my example of a
> car manufacturer's decision to allow expected injury and death to
> occur because it would be more cost effective to do so:
>
> "Freedom doesn't mean ... freedom from the risks of driving an
> automobile. Criminal neglect that causes injury to others can be
> redressed in courts of tort law."
>
> My example shows deliberate action resulting in a dramatic increase
> in the risk of driving an automobile, and then more action to
> conceal the heightened risk from consumers. This is certainly
> criminal, but way more than simple neglect. The idea that death and
> injury and general familial misery resulting from this activity can
> be compensated through law suits after the fact is obscene. Anyone
> promoting such an idea is operating at the same moral level as the
> executive who made the decision in the first place.
>
> platt 7-6-05:
> Somehow I don't to look to MSH for guidance on what moral level
> someone occupies.
>
> msh 7-6-05:
> This is a non-responsive insult devoid of argument or evidence,
And where, pray tell, is the argument or evidence for your "obscene"
insult?
> platt 7-6-05:
> I don't think quality of life can be measured in percentages of
> wealth or insurance.
> msh 7-6-05:
> This is non-responsive opinion devoid of argument or evidence.
No. It's answering you assertions by denying the relevancy (not to mention
the reliability) of your statistical measurements.
> platt before:
> The question I would pose is: Who decides when ownership becomes low
> quality?
>
> msh responded:
> If one truly embraces the Metaphysics of Quality, the decision is
> made by examining the moral hierarchy. Low-quality ownership is
> that which leads to the destabilization of society. See my
> examples above.
> platt 7-6-05:
> There's a revolution going on in Afghanistan and Iraq? I thought by
> your lights it was an American invasion.
> msh 7-6-05:
> The invasion is over. The insurrectionists are fighting against the
> American occupation, as well as the American-backed government, which they
> see as non-representative of their interests, just as the American
> colonists in our own Revolutionary War fought British troops and other
> representatives of the British government.
Of course. I should have known that this would be the view of Chomsky's
Chum. The terrorists that this morning bombed London are the moral
equivalent to the fighters at Valley Forge.
> msh before:
> Even in America, in the 1930's and later in the 60s, we have come
> very close to insurrection. In the 30's the unrest was directly
> attributable to the disparity between rich and poor. Massive
> violence was averted by the domestic policies of the New Deal,
> followed by the really huge economic injections of state cash
> required by US involvement in WWII.
>
> platt 7-6-5:
> Massive violence averted by the New Deal? Talk about unsupported
> statements.
>
> msh 7-6-05:
> Yes, "massive" was a bad choice of words on my part, suggesting as it does
> some sort of large-scale organized rebellion. This was not the case,
> though things may very well have gotten to that point had the government
> not intervened economically.
>
> In fact, there were many violent encounters between authorities and
> desperate people in cities all around the country, with the number
> growing each year the Depression wore on. For starters, read
> Chapter 15 of Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United
> States," and follow up some of the references.
>
> Or "Hammer and Hoe: Alabama Communists During the Great Depression"
> by Robin D. G. Kelley
>
> I'm sure your own diligent research into the subject will turn up
> many more references.
Right. You might try reading "FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal
Prolonged the Great Depression."
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 07 2005 - 14:56:57 BST