From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Wed Jul 06 2005 - 13:51:12 BST
MSH writes:
> msh:
> For the purpose of this discussion, let's forget that none of the
> "founding fathers" walked like they talked, including Jefferson whose
> elegant thought I greatly admire. Being human and immersed in the culture
> of their times, they owned slaves and condoned if not encouraged the
> slaughter of Native Americans, and evidently did not regard women and
> people without property as their equals in any significant way.
You just can't resist smearing those who created the U.S. can you?
> Nevertheless, as you may remember from grammar school, the
> Declaration of Independence, one of the most important papers
> expressing the collective opinion of our "founding fathers," makes
> clear the inalienable nature of every human's right to life, among
> others.
Never forget the words "endowed by their Creator, and after "the right to
Life" the word "Liberty." Also, "Pursuit of Happiness," not guarantee of.
> 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.
If it's an easy argument, why don't you try to make it.
> 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.
Somehow I don't to look to MSH for guidance on what moral level someone
occupies.
> But this just raises the question of what preventive action should be taken
> BEFORE the fact. One suggestion is to rescind laws that grant to
> corporations the rights of individuals, and to allow public oversight of
> internal corporate activity and documents. I'll be happy to pursue this
> idea with anyone who's interested.
It will be interesting to see if anyone is interested.
> Next topic:
>
> platt before:
> By owning things I don't deny others the right to own the same
> things.
>
> msh in response:
> This is simply false. If you own the water or mineral rights to all
> the land in your community, how can others in the community own
> those rights?
>
> platt:
> You got me there. What I had in mind is what most people have in mind
> when they think of property -- houses, cars, furniture, clothes, lawn
> mowers and such -- the artifacts of intellect.
>
> msh:
> Well, I'd say that mineral rights, as well as copyrights, patents,
> etc., are the artifacts of intellect. What I'm trying to explore
> here is the moral limitation of private ownership. Is there a point
> at which the accumulation of individual wealth becomes a threat to
> society and is therefore immoral, in accordance with the Metaphysics
> of Quality?
>
> Let me paste in, for general consumption and response, the series of
> questions I asked someone earlier, in a different thread:
>
> "Can you imagine any point in the accumulation of personal wealth at
> which such an accumulation threatens the existence of society? What
> if, due to highly concentrated real estate holdings, only 1% of us
> were able to afford homes and the rest were required to pay whatever rent
> the market will bear, or to live on the street? Would this be acceptable
> to you? If not, what percentage would be acceptable? And what would you
> propose to do about it if combinations of extant wealth and power drove the
> percentage below your acceptable amount?"
>
> And...
>
> "According to research done by Gilmer and Kronick of UC San Diego,
> nearly 25% of US workers under the age of 65 are or will soon be
> uninsured for health care because they are unable to pay the high
> cost of coverage. Is this an acceptable percentage in your view of a
> moral society? If so, what would be unacceptable to you, 30, 50, 75
> percent? Or just the percentage that would include you? "
>
> I think getting responses to these questions would go a long way
> toward establishing some common ground for discussion.
I don't think quality of life can be measured in percentages of wealth or
insurance.
> 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.
>
> If a society's ownership arrangements are such that large numbers of
> people are unable to afford basic services and products-- food,
> water, clothing, shelter, life-saving drugs-- then the society may
> be destabilized to the point of its own destruction. History is
> full of examples of such self-destruction.
>
> platt:
> If you're talking about revolutions, they have many causes. Our own
> had nothing to do with basic services and products. It had to do with
> over taxation by an oppressive government.
>
> msh:
> As you suggest, revolutions occur for a variety of sometimes complex
> and interconnected reasons. But I think it's safe to say that the
> ROOT cause of any popular rebellion is a mass dissatisfaction with a
> society's current distribution of wealth, power, and privilege, in
> conjunction with the realization that the system will allow no
> peaceful redress of such grievances. This applies even to the
> American Revolution, though, for clarity, I think we should make a
> distinction between colonial rebellions, such as ours, and domestic
> revolutions such as in France (1789), Mexico (1910), Russia (1917),
> Spain (1939?), Cuba (1959), as well as the Central American armed
> struggles of the 1970s and 1980s, right up to the current situation
> in Chiapas, Mexico, not to mention what's going on in Afghanistan and Iraq.
There's a revolution going on in Afghanistan and Iraq? I thought by your
lights it was an American invasion. As for redress of grievances, I hope
you will keep democracy in mind when you lay out your blueprint for a
moral society.
> 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.
Massive violence averted by the New Deal? Talk about unsupported
statements.
> platt before:
> Finally, there are a lot of people around who want to be admired for
> their selflessness, especially politicians who pride themselves on
> their "public service." It's not hard to detect the contradiction
> and hypocrisy in their "selfless" pose.
>
> msh responded:
> The only pose here is yours in pretending to know the motives of
> everyone who works for the public good. Besides, what matters is
> what people do, not why they do it. Ad hominem attacks on motives
> rather than analysis of results is just another way of derailing
> meaningful discussion.
>
> platt:
> That we can agree on. So from now on I know you will desist from ad
> hominem attacks on your fellow MD contributors.
>
> msh:
> I give what I get, or what I perceive to be given to other thinkers
> who are not here to defend themselves. Personally, I'm not bothered
> by insults, unless they are offered IN LIEU of analysis, argument,
> and evidence in attacking my own or anyone else's ideas. In fact,
> I'm always complimented by insults spat from benighted corners; it's
> a clear indication that I'm moving toward the light.
Likewise I'm sure.
Still looking forward to seeing your blueprint for a moral society.
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 : Wed Jul 06 2005 - 15:25:07 BST