[MD] Ham unlike you I will not create false idols

[Platt Holden]

> [Arlo challenged Platt]
> Can you tell me ANY issue where you break with party obedience and side with
> liberalism?
> 
> [Platt]
> Offhand I can't think of any. Perhaps you'll suggest some? Anyway, as long as
> Professor Platt is allowed the same access to students to express his views as
> Professor Arlo, intellectual diversity will be served. ... I reject the
> implication that to be regarded as intellectually competent you 
> must find some good in everything. Reminds me of intellectuals who admired 
> Mussolini because he got the trains to run on time.
> 
> [Arlo]
> So, when these "intellectuals" find nothing to admire in "conservatism", they
> are not in any way close-minded, blinded or hypnotized? And, here, you don't
> seem to care that any given professor expounds nothing but support for
> liberalism, you want more "conservative professors"? This runs counter to your
> claim that you want "conservative views" accepted in the classroom, since you
> show no interest in having "liberal views" accepted in yours. Seems to me
> Professor Platt would epitomize everything he condemns in "others". 

Last time I was in college we had more than one class, and more than one professor. I
couldn't change a liberal professor into a conservative if I wanted to. What I object
to is no conservative professors in the liberal arts section of many universities,
including those state universities directly supported by taxpayers whose views are
not given a fair hearing. What's your objection to having diversity of views on
campus anyway?

> [Arlo previously]
> As for what are greater considerations, for one I'd say protecting and 
> preserving natural resources for others and for future generations.
> 
> [Platt]
> So to you we owe our lives to others? Why am I not surprised?.
> 
> [Arlo]
> "Owe our lives to others"? Why am I not surpised that any mention of
> responsibility to others, past, present and future, is such an "evil" in your
> wholly selfish world. Why am I not surprised that you can't envision a world
> that is both self-ful, and dutiful, rather than paint the world as entirely
> self-centered or self-less?

Because you and your fellow travelers always appeal to the heavy hand of government
to fulfill your agendas. I have no objection if you want to protect and preserve
natural resources for future generations. Just don't think you have a monopoly on
good works so that you feel justified to impose them on me.  That's Rigelism -- full
of ideas how others ought to behave at no cost to themselves. 

> [Platt]
> My wife would object to your characterization of menial labor as low quality as
> would Buddhist monks.
> 
> [Arlo]
> I don't think "menial labor" is "low quality". And I do believe, as I've said
> repeatedly, that the lack of identification and care must be tackled in part by
> the individual. But there are also structural elements that can work against
> this, that must be addressed in the organization.
> 
> To this end, you have to contrast Walmart's "menial labor" with what labor the
> presence of a Walmart destroys. Without the presence of a Walmart, maybe your
> wife could be working for a neighbor's family, helping them grow their
> entrepreneurial endeavor. The potential for more rewarding activity is
> destroyed when Walmart moves into an area. It limits choice, by relying on mass
> production in overseas markets, and as other business go under, and more and
> more Walmarts are built, the opportunities for employment that can lead to
> greater wealth, not to mention more fulfilling careers, are destroyed. 

Nonsense. The more Walmart saves it's customers money, the more that money can be
spent on what you would consider more "worthwhile" endeavors.  

> [Platt]
> And I don't understand why funnelling wealth out of the local economy is
> immoral.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Really, drive around America and take a look at what happens to local
> communities when money is siphoned out. As for it being "immoral", I can't say,
> but it sure is "stupid". But, hey, the great part of freedom is the freedom to
> act stupidly. We'll reap what we sow. Indeed, we are... hence the success of
> American Idol. "America, Where We Value Money Over People". 

Let's bring back those Western gold mining towns, the Pittsburg steel mills and the
buggy whip manufacturers. Really Arlo, sometimes your wish to turn back the clock
appears ridiculous. Why just today it was announced that the unemployment rate in
America is the lowest in years, which by your lights must be the result of "valuing
money over people." Yeah, right.

> [Platt]
> So how would you propose to bring about "greater equity in incomes between 
> those who produce and those who manage? (Note the premise: management doesn't
> produce anything.)
> 
> [Arlo]
> I never said management doesn't produce anything, I used the word in the sense
> of actual materials building. Ideally, I would love for a culture where you
> would say "you know what, an extra 10 million in profits for me isn't worth it
> if it means the people on my production line don't have adequate health
> coverage, or aren't earing enough to be able to start saving and enjoying the
> benefits of society like I am". But that won't happen in our mercantilian
> world. So the only recourse is for labor to demand more equity in pay. Or for
> people to start thinking about more when they shop than "saving myself a buck",
> like whether or not the business pays a fair wage, or offers health coverage.
> But I don't think that will happen in our mercantilian world either, at least
> not a large enough scale to make any impact. 
> 
> In short, we need to value "people over money". Something I wonder if I'll see
> in my lifetime.

If America wants to keep its high standard of living and remain open to innovation,
we need to viligently protect the free market from those who think they know how to
spend someone's money better than she does.  

Platt



-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/