From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Tue Sep 20 2005 - 14:55:34 BST
Case:
Interesting to me that you identify only two "moral issues." In the MOQ,
all issues are moral issues.
> Since this seems to be a kind of poll here are my answers. I have
> rearranged the list a bit to relect a leveling of the items:
>
> LIBERALS VALUE HIGHLY
> INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS ISSUES:
> Abortion rights F
> Legalized marijuana F
> Gay marriage Don't Care
> Gun control Don't Care
>
> SOCIO_ECONOMIC ISSUES:
> Redistribution of income Meaningless
> Minimum wage F
> Social security status quo F
> National health insurance F
> Right to welfare No such Right Exists
> Affirmative action F
> Diversity F
> Kyoto treaty F
>
> MORAL ISSUES
> Secularism F
> Moral relativity Meaningless
> Laws against hate speech A
> Darwinian evolution F
>
> LIBERAL PLACE LOW VALUE:
> INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS ISSUES
> Patriot Act A
>
> SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES:
> Republican tax cuts A
> Capitalism For - with qualifications
> Multi-national corporations For - with Qualifications
> Profits F
> School vouchers A
>
> MORAL ISSUES:
> Evangelical Christians A
> Death penalty Don't Care
>
>
> MILITARY ISSUES:
> War in Iraq A
> Nationalism F
> Military force F
>
> So I think I am more liberal than even Arlo.
Apparently so. Interesting that you favor capitalism, profits, nationalism
and military force. Definitely not your basic liberal.
> But here are a few questions for you:
>
> Could you make a conservative list like your liberal list or are we to
> assume that if liberals are for it conservatives are against it. and visa
> versa?
Your assumption is correct.
> How do conservatives on the religious right reconcile themselves with the
> fact that the early followers of Jesus were communists? (See Acts 2: 44-47
> then later Acts 4:34- Acts5:10)
How could the early followers of Jesus be communists since communism
didn't exist until the 1800's?
> How is individual freedom served by laws that favor one set of religious
> values over another?
Some sets of religious values favor freedom, like " . . .endowed by their
Creator . . ."
> How does our current use of military force to invade countries help us
> stop the acts of terrorist who operate outside of national borders and
> in virtual isolation from each other? It is hard to lump Tim McVey in
> with Bin Lauden or the London subway bombers with either.
Terrorism has its roots in the Middle East. When that area becomes
democratic, terrorism will abate.
> How does conservatism uphold individual freedom and at the same time favor
> restricting it arbitrarily? (see your list)
How about some examples of conservative "arbitrary restrictions" on
freedom?
> You include on your list the redistribution of wealth. As I understand it
> all economic systems are about the redistribution of wealth. Capitalism
> works very well in this respect when dealing with tangible goods. I think
> it is out of step and artificially forced in confronting an information
> driven economy but that is another story.
Capitalism creates wealth, socialism redistributes it.
> Economics is all about money. Money is what psychologists call a
> conditioned reinforcer. A conditioned reinforcer is one that derives its
> power to effect behavioral change by being paired with primary reinforcers.
> Primary reinforcers are typical things that satisfy biological needs: air,
> food, water, shelter, sex, drugs... Money is an especially powerful
> conditioned reinforcer because it can be used to get almost anything in the
> way of primary reinforcment. As such it works very well to establish the
> relative "value" of things. A problem occurs because money is such a
> powerful conditioned reinforcer that it becomes an end in itself. In the
> United States this has de-evolved to the point where money overshadows
> nearly every other value.
Money is the medium of exchange between free traders. As the measure of
the value of goods and services in a free society, it is indispensable.
> The chief function of the U.S. political system is to maintain a system of
> checks and balances. What this means is that it is a highly static system.
> It is purposely designed to make sure either that nothing happens or that
> if anything does happen it happens slowly and deliberately. However, the
> system does almost nothing to specify checks and balances for powerful
> money interests. There is a degree of government regulation of business and
> industry. But it is implemented piecemeal and is not built into the design
> of our government.
If government would keep hands off private business, there would be no
need for politicians to accept bribes .
> As I see it the biggest problem is that our law make corporations into
> individuals and we assign most of the rights of individuals to then. This
> in effect makes for immortal, abstract entities who can act as legal and
> moral agents. This promotes a system that favors the accumulation of power
> into the hands of entities whose only value is the accumulation of money.
> In some weird sense, money is a primary reinforcer for corporations. In
> fact in most cases it is the only reinforcer. I would hold that government
> regulation of these superpersons is in fact a way for other values to play
> a role. Examples would be environmental regulation, health and safety
> issues, union law, air traffic control and monitoring of public utilities.
Government is the only superperson (The Giant) who can legally use guns to
force its will on it citizens. Corporations cannot force anybody to do
anything. They must fight for survival in the free competitive marketplace
by offering goods and services people are willing to pay for.
> [C.L.]
> >> I don't see dynamism as restricted to a particular "ism"
> [Platt]
> > Pirsig says capitalism is more dynamic than socialism.
>
> [Case]
> Social democracy and socialism seem to work pretty well in many countries
> all over the world. But even so, is promoting rapid change really a good
> thing. As noted above the U.S system is designed to thwart change.
I don't know how you define "pretty well." In most socialistic European
countries, unemployment is in the double digits. Germany presently can't
even form a government.
> [C.L. wrote]
> >> And show me where the line between the idea and the
> >> mental masturbation is drawn?
> [Platt asks]
> > Define "idea" and "mental masturbation." and I'll take a crack at
> > showing you the line.
>
> [Case]
> Mental mastrubation would be the frequent stroking of an idea for the self
> gratification that it brings.
Thanks for the definition. I still can't draw the line. Can you?
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 : Tue Sep 20 2005 - 14:57:53 BST