[MD] Intellectual activity

[aesuszynski]

[from Alice to Platt]

Hi Platt,

You may find that I am not as polite as you are imagining. But I figure it's 
best to enter the room with some humility.

"What wonders might have arisen from millions left free to
market the fruits of their individual intellects can only be imagined."

And I am actually wondering just how wonderful that would/would have been. I 
know that those who extol capitalism, believe that things could only be 
better if capitalism was given its free reign. But does that actually 
follow? Is more always better? I know that in the case of cooking one needs 
to be careful of how much salt one introduces because certainly more salt 
could make the dish inedible. So maybe, just maybe, since we do enjoy such 
an edible existence, this is just the right amount of capitalism to have in 
operation.


"This is emblematic of the battle between conservatives and liberals
> today. If individual "rights" are dependent on a vote of the majority
> (others agreeing to it), then they are subject to change at the whim of
> the mob. By contrast, if rights are "unalienable" (right to Life,
> Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness) as claimed in the Declaration of
> Independence and come not from man but from man's Creator, then they
> are immutable. The question then becomes, "Under which idea would you
> rather live?"

So it would seem that you believe that for one to claim such a thing as an 
"inalienable right" one would have to believe in a diety. I think I agree 
with you and that is actually the problem I have with the idea of 
inalienable rights. For me, rights are not inalienable. They are agreed upon 
by the society in which one lives. Now as you allude to, I would much rather 
live in a society which offered more rights than less. And I would like them 
to be written down and arguable.

The idea of  "rights" has in my estimation, evolved. It was not so long ago 
that "the divine right of kings" existed. How can this be so? Did God change 
his mind?

" The liberal view that objective truth doesn't exist leads inevitably to
 an attitude of all-embracing tolerance. When one truth is as good as
 another and the only thing you really believe in is the other guy's
 right to believe and do what she wants, then you exhibit a superior and
 enlightened attitude. It also means you have no beliefs worth
 defending. So we see appeasement towards law breakers, both here in the
 U.S. and internationally. Can anarchy or totalitarianism be far behind? "

This puts me in mind of the current debate over illegal immigration. I fall 
sharply and overwhemingly on the side of "ship em back", largely because as 
a California taxpayer I am legally bound to provide health, education and 
welfare to people I consider to be lawbreakers. But the debate is complex 
with libertarians siding with the idea of open borders. At the end of the 
day it will probably become a matter of practicality and expediency and 
politics, which have really nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness or 
"truth" of the issue.
>
And I will read Lila. I wouldn't feel right to be involved with your 
discussions if I didn't.

Alice







_discuss_archive/
>