[MD] On Indian Values (Part I?)

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Platt]
What you've repeatedly stated is that you favor and value a regulated 
market, and that you favor using the tax code to transfer wealth from each 
according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. That, my 
friend, is pure Marx.

[Arlo]
I think regulations are required. Sure. Such things as "intellectual 
copyright", for example, are regulations on the market. We may disagree on 
certain regulations, but to paint me as demanding complete regulation, and 
yourself as no regulation, is pure propaganda. As for the tax code, my 
distortive friend, I said I recognize the valuable infrastructure that 
requires taxation, from public libraries to EMT services, to public roads 
and parks. Again, we may disagree on particular taxes, but to paint me as 
"pro-tax" and yourself as somehow "anti-tax" is, again, nothing but pure 
propaganda.

[Platt]
Nonsense. The bulk of Pirsig's ideas I agree with.

[Arlo]
The bulk? This is the biggest distortion to date. You dismiss ZMM, you 
dismiss 98% of what he said about the Indians, the peyote ceremony, the 
emergent nature of the MOQ levels,  and any mention of anything that does 
not conform to party ideology. I duck and evade from nothing. While I don't 
accept everything Pirsig says, I don't ignore or dismiss anything, unlike 
you. To date, you possibly shown that there a few sentences I "ignore". To 
date, you yourself have indicated you ignore 7/10 of all his words.

You rail against "intellectuals" in a nonsensical, propagandistic way, that 
says nothing to why Pirsig and Hayek are "intellectuals" you admire? Or, 
are they not "intellectuals"? I can see why its difficult to admit to 
Pirsig's condemnation as a "subversive professor" by what he calls "just 
right wing politics", and that it is quite evident that right-wingers since 
the beginning of "right-wingness" have always waged war against the 
Academy. Pirsig was a victim of right-wing politicos like yourself who make 
blanket condemnations based on idiotic allegiences to Party Ideology.

So, you've neatly evaded the question as to provide ANYTHING from Pirsig 
that (1) you agree with, and (2) is not in-line with conservative ideology. 
I'll give you another chance to answer this, but I assume all you'll do is 
call me a Marxist. C'mon, name ONE THING. I know you can't. You know you 
can't. But you'll pretend it isn't so. Prove me wrong, Platt. Go ahead. One 
thing. Anything. But you can't. And you won't.

Or, let me ask this. You said, several times, that one can pretty much 
dismiss everything Pirsig said about the Indians, but then for the one or 
two sentances that conform to your party ideology, you turn around and 
accuse me of ignoring as "contrary fact"! Incredible!

So, why if you believe this, "Pirsig's ideas about Indian influence on 
American speech and ethics are highly speculative", do you toss out your 
"dash brains on rocks" as some "undeniable fact" that I ignore (which I 
haven't)?

I can answer that, of course. But I think everyone here knows what the 
answer is.

And while I'm asking questions I know you'll ignore and evade (no 
surprise), here's another. What "Victorian values" are "unfitted for modern 
life"? Just curious?

Arlo