From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sun Jul 03 2005 - 02:38:15 BST
On 30 Jun 2005 at 19:20, Platt Holden wrote:
So, you believe there's an incestuous relationship between government
and private wealth, meaning I presume that there should be no such
relationship between the two? We agree! Let's work together to get
the government's iron-fisted hand out of our pocketbooks!
msh:
This is an attempted Platteral Shift. I agree that there should be
no relationship between private wealth and government, but don't
agree that government should keep its hand out of our pocketbooks.
Unless you want no government at all, it (government) will need to be
financed. The problem today is that government is influenced by
wealth, which means that input of, say, 90% of the citizenry is
largely ignored:
JEFFREY H. BIRNBAUM WASHINGTON POST - The number of registered
lobbyists in Washington has more than doubled since 2000 to more than
34,750 while the amount that lobbyists charge their new clients has
increased by as much as 100 percent. Only a few other businesses have
enjoyed greater prosperity in an otherwise fitful economy. The
lobbying boom has been caused by three factors, experts say: rapid
growth in government, Republican control of both the White House and
Congress, and wide acceptance among corporations that they need to
hire professional lobbyists to secure their share of federal
benefits.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2005/06/21/AR20050621
01632.html
msh:
Now, how many lobbyists do you think mom and dad can afford to hire?
msh before:
"In 1998, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer built a plant next to Fort
Trumbull and the City determined that someone else could make better
use of the land than the Fort Trumbull residents. The City handed
over its power of eminent domain—the ability to take private
property for public use—to the New London Development Corporation
(NLDC), a private body, to take the entire neighborhood for private
development. As the Fort Trumbull neighbors found out, when private
entities wield government’s awesome power of eminent domain and can
justify taking property with the nebulous claim of 'economic
development,' all homeowners are in trouble.
platt:
You bet. The key move here was "The City handed over its power of
eminent domain." I don't know why you can't see that legalized
government force is the culprit here.
msh:
Because government is not the problem. Government influenced by
wealth is the problem. Government, uninfluenced by wealth, may very
well have made an entirely different taxing decision regarding
Pfizer's use of its land, then used the proceeds to pay displaced
home owners a fair market value and turned the acquired land into
parks and libraries and public housing. Of course, in reality, this
would fail because Pfizer would simple shift its development plans to
another town. But this is where the dreaded idea of "collectivism"
might come into play. What if every town Pfizer went to had
coordinated with New London and therefore offered them the same deal
and nothing more? I realize this is idealistic, but it's not
impossible, but will never be achieved if competition is forever
championed over cooperation.
msh before:
The point Arlo and I have tried to make regarding political
philosophy is that a simplistic clinging to the red-herring false-
dichotomy of "Liberals" vs. "Conservative" is a sure way to halt
meaningful discussion.
platt:
Nothing false about the difference between liberals and conservatives
as anyone familiar with the history of the U.S. knows. It's a useful
generality when discussing politics, just as are the terms Communist,
Socialist, Fascist, Nazi, Anarchist, etc.
msh:
Here's where the falsity occurs: Generalizations beneath labels is
useless and progressively obstructive when the labels are tainted
beyond recognizabilty by constant distortion of the ideas they
originally represented. For example, you hear the word "communism"
and you immediately think of Stalin, though I have pointed out to you
examples of communal societies that are neither brutal nor
totalitarian. When you hear the word "socialism" you immediately
point out that the word occurs in the definition of the Nazi party
and, therefore, equate it with Hitler's brutal totalitarianism when,
in fact, elements of socialism are prevalent in many non-totalitarian
societies, including our own.
platt:
Why anyone who turns to government to cure social ills doesn't like
to be called a "liberal" is a mystery to me.
msh:
You can call be a liberal all day long. The problem is that, due to
your Limbaugh-skewed understanding of the word, you'll have no idea
of what I really believe in. Why not just listen to what I say?
As for the first the curing of social ills, business, too, relies on
government to ease it's problems. I'll provide a nearly endless list
of examples, though you should already be familiar with them if
you've digested a fraction of what I've written to this list over
that last 14 months. Why should people who are not in business be
excluded from equal consideration?
platt:
If they truly [liberals, I guess] believe in the perfectability of
man, they ought to be proud of their efforts to improve life through
government dictates.
msh:
I don't believe in the perfectability of man, nor does any "liberal"
I know. I do believe that societies can morally evolve, and that
human activities can expedite, or retard, the process.
platt:
Conservatives on the other hand say government
retards hopes for a better life. Just look at Africa for a current
example. Government banned DDT. Result: Millions dead and dying of
malaria.
msh:
The issue of DDT is a bit more complex than you've indicated.
However, if you'd care to provide a reference to information
supporting your views, I'll be happy to take a look at it.
msh before:
Today, particularly in the US, politics is
about wealth, which means power, which means accumulation of more
wealth. To call the Supreme Court's decision a "liberal" decision,
to blame it on "the liberals," is to engage in regressive fantasy.
platt:
Talk about unsupported opinions!
msh:
Everything I've written in this thread and any other thread of a
political nature supports my opinion.
platt:
If you ask me, politics today is about redistribution of wealth from
the producers to the moochers. It was only a matter of time before
such redistribution would be turned on its head, as is the case with
the Supreme Court decision we both abhor.
msh:
In this country, the redistribution of wealth has been going on for
more than 200 years, just not in the direction you indicate. If
wealth is being redistributed from "producers to moochers," how do
you explain the ever-growing gap between the rich and the poor? The
last I looked, the wealthiest 1% of the population owns more than 40%
of the country's wealth.
msh before:
I will be happy to pursue this line of reasoning, and to show the
connection to the MOQ and the Moral Society. All I ask is that
divergent opinions be supported by evidence and argument.
platt:
Forge ahead. Don't let me stop you. I know many will be interested in
your idea of a Moral Society and how you intend to achieve it while
taking into account human nature and holding dear the MOQ ideal of
freedom.
msh:
I wasn't really asking your permission. I'm asking only that you
support your opinions with evidence and argument. Keep your eye on
this thread.
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com 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 : Sun Jul 03 2005 - 02:38:43 BST