[MD] Fw: Sin

[David M]

 I'd like to thank Case for his series of quality posts.

 David M

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Case" <Case at iSpots.com>
> To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 8:16 AM
> Subject: Re: [MD] Sin
>
>
>> [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.
>>
>> moq_discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>>
>