From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Fri Sep 23 2005 - 22:18:20 BST
> [Case]
> I suppose they look at us and say they are nuts they think they can find
> happiness in material possessions. Regardless you answer does not reflect a
> serious effort ot understand those who you consider to be your enemies.
I don't try to understand those who want to kill me. I just hope I kill
them first.
> [Case]
> I don't think this definition means one who gives blind allegance to
> country. Furthermore your frequent rants against the govenment would
> clearly put you in the camp of non-patriots. Our history is full of
> patriots who have spoken out against the government when it was wrong.
When a nation is at war, those who give aid and comfort to the enemy are
traitors.
> > Yes. We have not been attacked since 9/11.
>
> [Case ]
> Certainly our allies have been attacted and further more there is nothing
> to suggest that our various invasions have had an impact and the rate of
> terroist activity in the west.
What few attacks that have occurred haven't been on the scale of 9/11.
Maybe you don't think that's a positive development, but I do.
> [Platt]
> > In a capitalist system you and I exchange goods and services voluntarily.
> > Wealth is transferred from one type of asset to another. In a socialist
> > system, the government takes money out of your pocket and gives it to
> > somebody else. That's redistribution.
> [Case]
> So you think that transfering wealth from one asset to another is not a
> redistribution? One again taxation has been a feature of most civilizations
> in history. Every capitalist systen also included taxation. Since both
> systems tax and both systems redistribute is there some other difference
> between them that you find objectionable?
Taxes collected for previously cited public purposes are OK. Robbing
Peter to pay Paul because Paul doesn't have as much as Peter is not OK.
> [Case]
> Since money is no longer backed by gold and inflation is actually more of a
> problem for capitalists than its is for socialist, this sheds little light
> on your view of how the abstraction of money attains its value.
Why is inflation more of a problem for citizens of a capitalist country
than those of a socialist country?
> [Case]
> You seem to insist that if a choice seems correct to you it matters not at
> all how it effects the people facing the choice. Again this seems curiously
> out of step with your avowed respect for individual value.
Huh?
> [Case]
> I am still having a hard time figuring out how you can find the errosion of
> rights an acceptable expediant. How many rights and which ones specifically
> ar you willing to sacrifice on the alter of security?
First, define what rights you are talking about.
> [Case]
> Our teachers' unions function more as lobbying groups than collective
> bargaining agents.
Same difference.
> [Case]
> Or it could be the way they count or it could be conditions spefic to the
> country. It is not as though 10% is unheard of in this country.
You think 10% unemployment is acceptable?
> [Case]
> The same would be true here if there was reason to suspect a problem but
> try just making an appoint for a physical. Or an appointment with a
> specialist for something nonthreatening. I seriously doubt if these
> problems are significantly more pronounced in Canada than they are here. It
> is also a matter of what you value I would think given you love of money
> that the cost factor would enter in there somewhere.
If money isn't important to you, why don't you are voluntarily give what
money you have to the poor?
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 : Fri Sep 23 2005 - 23:01:27 BST