[MD] Sin Part 1

[pholden at davtv.com]

Case:

To keep things manageable, I've split my response into two parts.

[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.

[Platt]
Government cannot spend what it hasn't borrowed, taxed or otherwise
fleeced from productive members of society.  

[Case]
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]
Do you want bureaucrats in the public or private sector setting values.
Or elected government officials? Not me. For example, elected officials
determine the value of money. Look what has happened to its value in
the last 100 years.

[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.

[Platt]
There are various totalitarian regimes whose economic systems
do not recognize the concept of private property, communism being the
most recent.  

>[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]
You omitted the part in the Declaration about the right to overthrow
the government (anti-collectivism) when it fails to secure and promote
the individual rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
And, as the preamble to the Constitution states, the proper function of
government is to "secure the blessings of liberty." Liberty from what?
You guessed it -- a government that becomes destructive of individual
rights!  Leading me to suggest you leftist collectivist leanings are
outright Anti-American. So there.    

[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]
Scary? If it wasn't for the concept of a corporation you would be still
be digging potatoes like most of the peasants throughout history.

[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.

[Platt]
Then how come researchers and academics are always begging government
for more handouts?

[Case]
Those areas have suffered under the current philosophy of injecting
them with profit motivation.

[Platt]
How so?

[Case]
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.

[Platt]
Ever hear of private non-profit organizations?

[Case]
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.

[Platt]
So now you are anti-profit, too? Why don't you just admit you want
to live in a communist state and be done with it?

[Case]
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.

[Platt]
Oh, so now you realize the hole you were digging. Now profit is a "fact
of life" -- right? I wonder if "facts of life" can be considered
immoral. Interesting question don't you think? How does the MOQ answer?

Regards,
Platt



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