[MD] Sin

[Case]

[Platt]
When it comes to the economy (the production and distribution of goods 
and services) what would you suggest take the place of a numerical 
value on values? A government bureaucrat perhaps? Or you?

[Case]
There is more to the economy than you suggest. Government expenditures and
public investment are also part of the economy.

You use the term government bureaucrat disparagingly. Do you seriously think
the private sector has no bureaucrats? Ever tried to get an invalid charge
taken off your credit card or an adjustment made to your phone bill? Ever
called tech support?

As for me setting values, I appreciate the vote of confidence but that is
not my area of expertise. I do believe our elected officials should play a
role however. And the fact that you, like most of us, are so cynical about
this points to a serious failure in our system. I think elected officials
should be held to high standards of professional conduct and I think public
service should be a matter of pride. But I also think that the fact that it
is not is more a matter of rhetoric than of fact.

[Platt]
The concept of private property, the basis of capitalism, is in the U.S.
Constitution.

[Case]
Concepts regarding private property are common to all economic systems.
Capitalism is not unique in this.

>[Case]
> There is nothing in it that supports the
> worship of the individual you preach here either.

[Platt]
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created 
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable 
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness 
-- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men..." 

They weren't talking about collectives!

[Case]
Ahh but they were! You bury the collective under your three dots...

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form
of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying
its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as
to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Note the collectivist terms:
Government - Men (plural) - consent of the governed - Right of the People -
organizing its power - their Safety and Happiness.

But the Declaration was never the law of the land. After sad times under the
Articles of Confederation the writers of the constitution were a bit more
specific about their commitment to collective duties and responsibilities:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common
defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to
ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for
the United States of America."

The very first words are straight from the leftist play book: WE the people.
Then they offer up this string of collectivist terminology: perfect union,
common defense, general welfare, ourselves and OUR posterity. These are
collective social concepts. I suggest to you that denouncing them is
outright Anti-American.

[Platt]
Wealth comes from creation and production. Thank God our founding 
fathers put very few checks on entrepreneurial liberty to create and 
produce goods and services, but put a lot of checks on that other power-
-government.

[Case]
The cynical among us might note that the founding fathers were wealthy. But
I think Jefferson and others including Adam Smith were highly suspicious of
the very concept of a corporation. The idea that a social institution can be
granted personhood under the law is scary. I don't believe they foresaw just
how scary it is.

[Platt]
Except for the police and military, all other occupations you mentioned 
would be better performed by private enterprise. The waste in 
government is horrendous. Compare FedEx with the U.S. Post Office.

[Case]
Your first statement is just wrong. Research and the pursuit of intellectual
excellence are not driven by money they are driven by curiosity and passion.
Those areas have suffered under the current philosophy of injecting them
with profit motivation. Regulation of business and inspection of
construction projects should also not be left in private hands. Management
of public parks and lands. Administration of the court. Collection of
Revenue. Government accounting. Maintenance of infrastructure. Air traffic
control. Pretty much everything it does and then some are not activities
well suited to private interest. Nearly everything the government does is
not profitable if it were it would already be done privately. 

Again the private sector is not immune from waste. Look at the salaries and
golden parachutes offered to corporate executives. Look at the salaries paid
to athletes and entertainers of all sorts. The very notion of profit is
waste by definition. It is a cost paid in excess of the cost of production.
I am not saying that waste doesn't exist or that profit is bad or that
people shouldn't squeeze whatever they can out of the system. But waste is a
fact of life not the ultimate evil.

As for FedEx versus the Post Office, FedEx took only the most profitable
portion of what the Post Office was charged with doing. They are totally
incapable of daily delivery of 35 cent envelopes and tons of junk mail to
every single structure in this country. By skimming off the portion the
actual was profitable one could argue that they actually forced up the cost
of the public system. On the other hand the competition they provide has
resulted in a better system and the US postal rates for overnight delivery
are currently lower than the private sector and with comparable levels of
service.

[Platt]
Chaos and chance doesn't regulate a free market. Thousands of 
individual value judgments do. I think someone called it the "invisible 
hand." 

[Case]
The invisible hand is exactly as you describe it. It is the law of large
numbers. All those individual judgments can be plotted into probability
curves. Those curves are valuations of chance. Businesses use them to
predict trend and product placement and the shopping habits of their
customers. 

Governments can, do and should do the same thing to formulate public policy,
to stimulate economic activity in some areas and discourage it in others.

[Platt]
Left to starve? If you want to know about starvation, check out 
communist Russia. 

[Case]
This was not a discussion of the Sins of others. I was hoping for an honest
assessment of where WE miss the target.

[Platt]
The principle of equality before the law was established by the 
founding fathers. You should thank them.  

[Case]
I do but I think you also should admit that the constitution had to be
amended four times to make it crystal clear that they were serious about
that principle.

[Platt]
The entrepreneurial free market allowed industry to invent methods that 
turn waste into useful, profitable products.

[Case]
Only after rivers caught fire and the air became so thick with waste it was
barely breathable at times. Only after whole communities had to be abandoned
when young and old contracted cancer. That legacy of shame is the product of
your pure free market. You should thank your elected officials these
practices have at least been slowed down. 
   
[Platt]
What beggars the imagination is the naive idea that this country has no 
enemies and that we could do away with the military. 

[Case]
What is sad is that we seem to have so few friends. The sincerest form of
flattery would be imitation. Do you see a world envious of us and plotting
to steal what we have? I see a world resentful of us for pushing them around
and trying to exploit them.

The military is built into our system but we have always been rightly
distrustful of its use.

Why are you so fearful, Platt? If your government promotes policies that
cause you to be afraid shouldn't you question what they are doing? I don't
minimize the tragedy of 9-11. But I have seen no evidence that it was the
act of a foreign government. It fact I don't recall seeing definitive
evidence proving we know much of anything about who did it or why. It
appears to have been the work of a relatively small group of criminals and
tracking down criminals and bringing them to justice is not what the
military does. 

> [Case]
> I don't blame capitalism I blame you; you personally, for
> sanctimoniously proclaiming that a man who can not work because he is
> distracted by unwelcome voices in his head is unworthy of compassion. I
> blame you for judging a woman raped by her uncles at the tender age of
> 10 for having low self esteem. I blame you saying tough tittie to anyone
> who's Value does not measure up to your standards.

[Platt}
I blame you for being a hypocrite because you talk the talk but don't 
walk the walk like Mother Teresa.  

[Case]
You don't know me, Platt. We disagree but I have always respected what you
say and your role in this forum. Ham's comments on this matter have been
morally and intellectually repulsive. Are you seriously endorsing his smug
pomposity? Are you his lackey these days?

[Platt]
An apt expression of Marxist morality where the ethical paradigm isn't 
premised on right and wrong but concern with oppression, giving a pre-
emptive pass to anyone in a one-down position, regardless of that 
person's beliefs or conduct. Highest value is placed on victim status, 
particularly victims of "oppressive" American capitalism and 
imperialism, or in Case's case, a "perverse incarnation of Darwinism."

[Case]
Helping people who are down on their luck, protections of widows and
embodiments of Marxism? It seems to me these are central to all peoples of
faith, to all civilized nations. How we ought to act and how we ought to
treat others are THE central issues of all morality. To abrogate this is to
embrace immorality. It is true that there are those who can not be helped.
It is true that there are those who will take advantage or any system we
contrive. But to refuse aid to people who need it because some fraction of
their number will get more than their share is simply obscene.

Go visit your local United Way. Volunteer at one of the agencies they
support. Just as an exercise apply for food stamps or any public benefit. Go
with a woman needing day care for her children and see what kind of
facilities and resources are available to her. Calculate for yourself how
much money you would get on your social security benefits and a part time
job and see if you can find housing that fits your budget.

If you think "victims" in this country are wallowing in wealth at public
expense you just not informed. Under what circumstances would you be willing
to take your grandchildren to a public soup kitchen? How bad would things
have to get? How unpleasant do we need to make it for a young mother to
diaper her baby before you are satisfied that she is not a communist?

This isn't about political ideology. This isn't about some abstraction. This
is about how we treat our fellow citizens and how we would hope to be
treated if our situations were reversed.

If you are telling me that common decency is the exclusive concern of
Marxists then I have been sorely misinformed on what it means to be an
American.