[MD] Neoconservatism

[Platt Holden]

Gene:
 
> Platt, you misunderstand me. I think people should be allowed to own
> lots of things. Televisions, automobiles, guns, underwear, all kinds of
> consumer goods! An economy is a fine thing. I just don't see why we
> can't guarantee, food, water and shelter to the entire population of our
> ridiculously rich countries? I'd like very much for this thing to occur
> without government intervention, but we really need someone to plan the
> whole thing, it's a rather large-scale problem.

Thanks for clarifying your position. A couple of more questions. When 
you say "guarantee food, water and shelter to the entire population of 
our ridiculously rich countries" do you mean the "rich" countries ought 
to provide food, water and shelter to all the "poor" countries in the 
world, or just to the poor within their own borders? Do you see any way 
to accomplish your objective without "government intervention?" After 
witnessing the massive failure of government planning in communist 
countries (not to mention their horrible gulags), the last thing we 
would want to try again is someone to devise a master plan for 
redistribution of income on the basis of "from each according to his 
ability, to each according to his need."  We need another alternative, 
but I don't see anything better than free market capitalism. 

> I simply question the need for a 30,000 square foor house for any
> individual. It'd be nice if they would be prepared to sacrifice some of
> their own wealth for the good of others. I admit I'm not particularly
> interested in forcing people to give up their things, force is a
> terrible solution to any problem. I must say I have no real viable
> solution at the moment, just a problem.

I think most of the problems of poor countries can be attributed to  
corrupt governments. 

> I honestly can't imagine any difference between a cat peeing on a tree
> and calling it theirs, and a rancher putting up a fence and calling That
> theirs. People are generally too attached to their money in my opinion,
> and we should as a species move away from such things. Move towards
> higher goals, like social and intellectual patterns. This biological
> urge to territory and mastery of our environment is getting kind of
> silly, don't you think?

Mastery of the environment is necessary for human survival. So I don't 
consider it "silly" at all. Various social level arrangements have been 
tried regarding the use of real property required to grow food for 
human consumption and acquire the minerals that support civilization, 
something cats need not be concerned with. In the feudal system the 
land belonged to the king, in the communist system to the state. The 
best social level system found so far in terms of providing a superior 
standard of living for the greatest number has been private ownership.

I guess all of us would be open to suggestions whereby the "losers in 
life's lottery" would be fed, watered, housed and have their other 
needs, like health care, comfortably provided for. The only place I can 
think of offhand where such a situation exists is in our prison system 
although in  U.S. and other Western countries, the "poor" are well off 
compared many other countries. 

For me, individual liberty surpasses individual sacrifice -- sacrifice 
defined as giving up of a higher value for a lower one. When some 
politician calls for sacrifice, run for your life.

Platt