[MD] On Indian Values (Part I?)

[Arlo J. Bensinger]

Platt,

You make some valid attempts at substance here, too bad you had to mar this with
the usual "fear-distort-ad hominem". I'll try to seperate out the legitmate
dialogue points, and respond to them. As for the rest, it continues to speak
volumes.

[Platt]
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.

[Arlo]
Ad hominem, nothing more. Well, the usual boring "Marxist" fear label.

[Platt]
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.) 

[Arlo]
Now, this is a legitamate point. But it forces a backup first. Namely, we NEED
taxes. Right? Police, fireman, public libraries, state lands, public roads,
military forces... So the question becomes, what is the manner by which we
collect taxes?

Forbes' (the magazine) argument for the consumption tax (and the abolition of
the income tax) rests on this case. Don't tax what people contribute TO society
(income), tax what people TAKE OUT (consumption). I'm not going to restate
their entire argument here (you can look it up online), but its one overall
I've come to favor.

Currently (and generally), we don't tax necessities (food, clothing, etc.). This
is a "value judgement", of course, of the kind you mention. Who says, for
example, that "shoes" (or "frozen pizzas") are a necessity? So, we either "tax
everything", "tax nothing" or make a "value based decision on what to tax".
(Again, remember, that we have (hypothetically) abolished the income tax
entirely, so all that money is back in your pocket).

Although there is bound to be disagreement (this is what social debate is for),
some value judgement on taxable items is better than a "tax all" or "tax none"
pole (tax none, I assume, puts us back into the "income tax" regiment).

[Platt]
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.              

[Arlo]
This makes no sense to me. So let me ask more precisely, do you favor bankruptcy
for individuals (and, if so, why did the conservatives pretty much gut it), and
do you favor bankruptcy for companies?

"Contracts", as you call them, between buyers and sellers depend on social
enforcement. How well would your "free market" work if the government (police,
etc) refused to enfore the contracts people make in the market. If I called
Citibank and said, "you know what, I've decided not to pay you", who do you
think is coming to my door? A policeman with a warrant.

When a company files bankruptcy, it really means only that the government has
agreed not to enforce their contracts with clients. In other words, it is like
Citibank calling me and saying, "you know what, all that money in your account
is gone." Typically, it is the government that ensures the protection of
savings from bankrupt banks. Tell me, should we abolish the FDIC? If your bank
goes bankrupt, do you favor simply saying "oh well, my money is gone."

All I am saying, is that if individuals are required to honor their contracts
(for example, under new conservative legislation, I can't claim bankrupty from
credit card contracts. Which means I have to continue working and paying and
honoring those contracts.), shouldn't businesses be forced to do the same? Or,
if you favor bankruptcy, why do we hold individuals accountable for their debt,
but not companies?

[Arlo previously]
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?

[Platt]
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?

[Arlo]
Evasive. But let me say it this way, is there anything you agree with on Pirsig,
that Limbaugh would disagree with? Or do you feel that ZMM and Lila are simply
books arguing for conservatism?

I've already mentioned all the things you actively dismiss, all of which you do
so because they do not support conservative orthodoxy. From the 98% of his
writings on Indians, to his entire first book, to the peyote ceremony, and to
the emergent nature of the MOQ levels (where individuals collective activity
gives rise to the next level "up"). 

[Arlo previously]
Are there any "Victorian values" that are "unfitted for modern life"? Which
ones?

[Platt]
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."

[Arlo]
Ignoring the expected ad hominem, why should I spell out "Victorian values"? You
have a copy of Lila, do you not? You were quick to respond that some "Indian
values" were unfitted for modern life. Do you feel the same way about Pirsig's
descriptions of "Victorian values"?

[Arlo previously]
Is giving tax relief to corporations to develop alternate fuels "Marxism"?  

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

[Arlo]
Glad to know you support Bush's Marxist energy policies, then.

[Arlo previously]
And this, is giving tax relief to the wealthy to encourage investment "Marxism"?

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

[Arlo]
As I said, I favor no tax (income) at all. But, under the present system, we do
tax income. Reaganomics was based on the notion that tax cuts to the rich would
"trickle down" (hence the name) to the poor, by encouraging investment and
spending by the wealthy. Is this Marxist?

Now, I'm not arguing for Reaganomics here. Of course, I already said I favor
abolishing the income tax for everyone outright, and adopting a consumption tax
plan as laid out by the folks at Forbes.

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

[Platt]
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. 

[Arlo]
Ignoring the yet-another "fear-ad hominem", doesn't "bankruptcy" and
"intellectual copyright", not to mention "property rights" require "police
powers of government"? 

"That liberty suffer in the process makes no difference to you."... a new low,
even for your fear rhetoric, Platt. What's next, "Arlo wants to rape your
daughters"?

[Platt]
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. 

[Arlo]
I'm glad you agreed that trickle-down economics is Marxist. Someone please call
Limbaugh and tell him his here is a Marxist!

Ignoring, again, the propagandic distortions of "intellectuals" (as what Pirsig
calls "just right wing politics"), I'm forced to ask. Who should govern our
society? 

As for "ever since FDR", well, again, I'm waiting for you to make the argument
that everyone was better off in 1890. As for your case to "abolish government
interference" in the market, I assume you still want to keep such interference
as "intellectual copyright" and "bankruptcy", not to mention using the
government to enfore "property rights", yes?

[Arlo previously]
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.

[Platt]
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?

[Arlo]
Throw mud? All I've tried to do Platt is get you to answer questions and make
legitimate arguments, rather than rely on the typical "fear, distort, ad
hominem, Wurlitzer" that has been pretty much all you've been doing. As for
"demonizing your opponent", I can't imagine anyone who would know better than
you. 

But here we see another great radio tactic, I call it the Pee Wee Maneuver.
You'll see Platt use it alot, and its always funny to see. It basically goes "I
know what you are, but what am I?" That is, demonize, demonize, demonize, and
then complain about being the victim of demonization.

So, let's add that to the Party Jester repetoire, eh. Fear, distort, ad hominem,
Wurlitzer, Pee Wee. You made some strides in this post, Platt, at actual
substance. Let's stick with that and drop the Party Jester thing, eh?

Arlo