[MD] On Indian Values (Part I?)

[Platt Holden]

[Arlo]
> Let me recap for the folk all the questions in this thread you are
> ignoring and evading first, shall we? Then I'll answer you inane
> accusation about eliminating motorcycle tax as "Marxism". (Stay tuned,
> boys and girls, this is gonna be good...)

On and on goes the Marxist thinker, blindly lashing out with continuous 
ad hominem attacks in hopes of convincing someone, anyone -- that in 
contrast to Platt -- he is an intelligent, sweet, compassionate, caring 
person who understands Pirsig perfectly. 

> So, I assume your answer to my question as to why abolition of the
> income tax in favor of a progressive consumption tax, as favored by
> Forbes Magazine, is NOT Marxist. I'll assume too, you can find nothing
> Marxist in my addition that eliminates taxes altogether on the lowest 5%
> valued necessities for anyone. Good. I know admitting it undermines your
> continued use of rhetorical fear, but your evasion is answer enough for
> me.

Any progressive tax is Marxist. (Take more from those with ability to 
pay.) Determining  what are "valued necessities" is Marxist (The 
government determines "necessities" instead of the free market.) 

 > As to my other point, bankruptcy, I'll take it that you can find no
> support whatsoever that abolishing bankruptcy for BOTH individuals and
> companies is Marxist. Nor, I see, can you find an answer for why
> bankruptcy, if you favor it, (1) is NOT a regulation of the market and
> (2) should be denied individuals but given to companies. Again,
> admitting this proves you are doing nothing but distortive fear tactics.
> But again, your evasion speaks loudy.

Bankruptcy is the failure of a buyer to fulfill his contracts with 
sellers. It occurs when an individual reneges on a promise to pay for 
goods and services in a free market. Marxists abolish bankruptcy laws 
because in their controlled economy the government is the market. When 
it goes bankrupt a revolution soon follows as we saw in the Soviet 
bloc.              

 > While we're reminding the folk of questions you're evading, perhaps I
> can offer you one more chance to point to one thing in Pirsig that (1)
> you believe and (2) opposes "conservative orthodoxy". Anything? Either
> book? One thing?

Since I have no idea what you mean by "conservative orthodoxy" I can't 
answer. Why don't you define what you mean (be sure to cover all the 
bases), and why you think it's important that I answer such a really 
weird question? 
 
> Are there any "Victorian values" that are "unfitted for modern life"?
> Which ones?

Again, spell out what you mean by "Victorian values." Seems they valued 
the free market as I do while you praise the Marxist value of 
interfering with the market to "do good." 

> Okay. That brings us back to the present charge, that eliminating
> motorcycle tax as a means to encourage conservation is "Marxist".
> 
> [Platt]
> Yes indeed. Your willingness to use the social engineer's carrot-stick 
> approach to change behavior is right out of the Marxist playbook. I 
> suppose you would be in favor of raising taxes on SUV's. Hell, why not 
> just give give everybody a bicycle so Americans can get around like the 
> Chinese in Beijing? That would encourage your desire to conserve 
> gasoline wouldn't it? Better yet, give a tax rebate to everyone who 
> walks instead of rides. 
> 
> [Arlo]
> Before even commenting on the obvious "fear-distort-Wurlitzer" bunk that
> makes up 90% of this paragraph (that's quite sad, Platt), let me first
> ask this question.
> 
> Is giving tax relief to corporations to develop alternate fuels
> "Marxism"?  

Every initiative by the government to control what legitimate 
businesses do smacks of a Marxist do-gooder mentality. 

> And this, is giving tax relief to the wealthy to encourage investment
> "Marxism"?

What example of "tax relief to the wealthy" do you have in mind? I 
favor tax cuts for everyone.  

> Seems to me, if you tell me that using tax relief to encourage behavior
> is "Marxist", our oil and energy companies are Marxist.

No. The companies aren't Marxist. The government is. Get it
through your head -- Marxism requires the police powers of government 
which you find no problem in using if it suits your purposes. That 
liberty suffer in the process makes no difference to you. 

> Trickle-down
> economics is Marxist. Because of these rely on "social engineering" via
> tax relief to "encourage" a desired activity.

Yes. You don't seem to get it. I guess you never will. The intellectuals,
with their scientific approach to solving problems have taken over 
control of society using government powers. That's what Marx advocated. 
In the U.S. so far the intellectuals haven't gained total control. But 
ever since FDR, the direction has been towards ever increasing 
government interference in the market. (Europe is about 90 percent of 
the way to total government regulation of their economies.)  Now what 
did Pirsig say about the dangers of intellectuals controlling society? 
Well, no point in repeating the theme of "Lila." You'll simply ignore 
it again. 
 
> As for the rest, the only "obvious" thing, Platt, continues to be your
> completely idiotic and assinine attempts to use fear and rhetoric when
> you have obviously nothing of substance to say. But, hey, what can one
> expect from someone weened on the Limbaugh radio program.

No there's a brilliant argument from the pen of the Marxist thinker. 
Typical Marxist rhetoric: When in doubt, throw mud and attempt in every 
way to demonize your opponent. Given that colleges require extra 
security for conservative speakers (on the few occasions they are 
invited) and disrupt their talks with demented invective and sometimes 
physical assault, why am I not surprised? 

Platt