[MD] On Indian Values (Part I?)

[Platt Holden]

[Arlo]
 
> 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.

More innuendo, insults and childish cheap shots.

> [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.

Fear label? Aren't you proud to be a Marxist thinker? In some circles, 
especially in academe, to be labelled a Marxist is considered a badge 
of honor (though I admit some will deny their political agenda since 
the fall of the Soviet bloc.)

> [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. 

Gee, thanks.

(skip - I favor cutting all taxes, income, consumption or whatever.)
     
> [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?

No. Do you?

> "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.

A legitimate use of police powers is to enforce contracts since a free 
market, property ownership and individual freedom depend on performance 
of contractual obligations. 
 
> 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."

I favor private insurance to protect my assets.  

> 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?

As said, I don't favor bankruptcy. I favor private insurance to protect 
myself from a company's or a bank's defaulting on promises to pay me. 

> [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?

ZMM and Lila are books about Quality, or didn't you noticed?

> 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"). 

What is "conservative orthodoxy?"

> [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"?

Evasive. 
 
> [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.

I don't.
  
> [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?

Tax cuts are not Marxist. Tax increases are Marxist.

> [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"? 

Police powers used to guarantee individual property rights on which 
liberty is based are legitimate.

> [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!

Tax cuts are anti-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? 

We the people with a minimum of government interference..

> 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?

Using the police power of government to insure liberty is legitimate.

> [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?

More innuendo, insults and childish cheap shots.  The Marxist thinker 
just can't help himself. I look forward to his next slander.

Platt