[MD] Sin Part 1

[Platt Holden]

> [Platt]
> Your "horror" was overwhelmingly approved twice by "we the people." Then
> you conveniently forget that the growth in federal debt ended the Cold
> War, and Reaganomics led to a surplus in later years.
> 
> [Case]
> Or perhaps the end of the Cold War was hastened by Russia's nine year
> war in Afghanistan. So does that mean we are almost half way to the
> point where the last super power stood before it decided to fold and
> cash in for good?

We're folding pretty fast as a result of our cowardice, if that's what 
you mean.

> [Platt]
> I have no problem with waterboarding to elicit information that will
> save lives.  
> 
> [Case]
> And five years later you would still deny him the right to know the
> charges against him. You would continue to interrogate him without
> benefit of council. You have such disregard for individual rights you
> would take them away from a man's completely for five years? If you
> agree that the government has the right to do that to That Man it has
> the right to do it to you. I do not think the constitution grants it
> that right. I certainly didn't sign up for that. 

Anyone bent on destroying us forfeits any rights to our Constitutional 
protections. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

> [Platt]
> As for enslavement, keep in mind taxes are a form of slavery in that you
> are forced at the point of a gun to turn over to others the product of
> your work.
> 
> [Case]
> No one is forced at gun point to pay taxes. In fact no one has to pay
> taxes at all. You pay taxes on what you own and what you earn. Owning
> and earning are fruits of the capitalist system. Taxes are your ante
> into the game. If you don't want to ante up don't play. There are plenty
> of wide open spaces left for now. Take a hike if you really want to walk
> the walk.

So let's make taxes voluntary. OK?

> If you want to exercise your property rights you must do your civil
> duty. That is the deal and no one is forces a free man to play. The
> Amish don't play. I am willing to bet there are people living in the
> woods within 50 miles of your house right now. And if there are not you
> could make camp yourself. But if you want to participate in the system,
> taxes are the ticket.

Again, you say the government grants property rights. I say nonsense. 
Property rights come from intellect that demands freedom to keep the
products of your labor so you can participate in the free market and 
help in flourish.

> [Platt]
> Conservatives criticize the court when it fails to do its duty in
> protecting individual rights, like the abominable decision to allow
> government to take private property and hand it to private developers in
> order to raise the tax base.
> 
> [Case]
> What they said was the states have the right to determine this. It
> should be a decision made closer to the people it effects. Several
> states have amended their laws to reflect public attitudes on the
> matter. The court was protecting individual and state rights as opposed
> to federal rights. 

Protecting individual rights to dispose of private property as one sees 
fit? You're kidding.

> [Platt]
> I'm in favor of laws that free people from the heavy hand of religious
> and barbaric secular laws. So you favor such laws?   
> 
> [Case]
> I am in favor of letting people establish their own laws. If it is a law
> affecting me, I would like to be let in on the deal. I pay my taxes
> after all.

I assume if a freely elected legislature passes a law affecting you, 
you would obey it.

> [Platt]
> Again I remind you that for the founders the rights to life, liberty and
> the pursuit of happiness came from God, not government. Today, we know
> those rights come from intellect, not government. (See Pirsig) 
> 
> [Case]
> Yet, in violation of the constitution you would allow the your
> government to take them away from That Man. Funny his god made him the
> same deal and see how it's worked out for him. Your rights as a citizen
> of this country are granted in the constitution. It was written by
> intellectuals. You seem to distain both.

See above about forfeiting rights and suicide pacts.  

> [Platt] 
> A few bad apples and you condemn the whole barrel. Your life depends on
> corporations from the food you eat to the computer you use to attack
> corporations.
> 
> [Case]
> Since my government grants the same rights to corporations as it grants
> to That Man I would have to say no. I would want That Man to have more
> rights that a legal construct. Lot's more. I grant you that Capitalism
> does work well. But I don't think that is the reason why.
> 
> Consider this. In the 1500's one of the sins a That Man could be
> tortured to confess was Usury. We are not talking about loan sharking we
> are talking about very reasonable rates. In fact any rate was too much.
> It could be argued that this was just another way to mess with Jews. But
> it was also true that usury was considered evil and damned in the
> Christian Bible, the Koran and everyone from Shakespeare to Dickens.
> 
> It is still not used in Islamic banking. At Islamic banks they do not
> charge interest. The bank loans you money for a share of your profit.
> With mortgages the bank buys a house and sells it to you for a profit. 
> 
> 
> One reason usury has been condemned is certain place and at certain
> times is that people wanted a stabile economy. Lending at interest
> requires growth and surplus. To allowing debt allows That Man to consume
> more that he produces and there just isn't that much to go around.
> 
> But what my ancestors thought was sin, is now the foundation of my
> country's economic system. It works fine though. In fact you hold it in
> the highest esteem. 
> 
> But the defense of capitalism on moral and pragmatic grounds is starting
> to fray at the edges.  While capitalism is great and moral for
> distributing scares goods, how does it manage if goods can be
> manufactured and distributed for free? Right now the force of government
> is being employed by economic interests to enforce scarcity. 
> 
> Take satellite television for example. At this moment satellites are
> directing all kinds of signals at you in digital and analogue. There are
> bouncing through your body. You can buy equipment to receive them off
> the shelf. But we have corporations who make money by preventing you
> from accessing these signals right out of the air. They encrypt their
> signals and even if you can figure out how to decrypt the signal the
> corporation can send armed police officers into your home if they catch
> you doing it.
> 
> This same principle applies in variations to every form of digital
> information. Napster and RIAA are the stuff of modern legend. It is as
> though a corporation manufactured cars, gassed them up and left them on
> the street with the keys in them and expected the government to cover
> the security costs of stopping people from driving off in them.
> 
> But you say, "Oh my god who is going to produce music and movies. Who is
> going to maintain the satellites if no one pays?"
> 
> I say that is kind of a problem for capitalism isn't it? 
> 
> Capitalists invented the term intellectual property rights. They claim
> we can fence in ideas. That we can charge people to think our ideas. We
> are now granting patents on life forms. There is something wrong with
> these concepts. This is essentially allowing a social level entity to
> claim a whole species; all those present and all their descendants.
> 
> Our founding fathers were aware of the some of these difficulties and
> addressed them specifically in the constitution. 
> 
> "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
> limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
> respective Writings and Discoveries."
> 
> There are two qualifications on this "right". The purpose must be to
> promote the progress of science and arts and the protection offered is
> of limited term. Both of these stipulations get eroded every time Mickey
> Mouse is threatened with falling into the Public Domain. Steamboat
> Willie may have outlived Uncle Walt but keeping him in private hands is
> not stimulating Disney's ability to create.
> 
> Jack Vallenti of the Motion Picture Academy has argued that 'limited
> times' for copyrights should be limited to forever minus one day.
> 
> Every time congress extends copyright terms it robs the public of
> knowledge and the right to expand upon past works. Lawrence Lessig's
> books on this and his Creative Commons offers options.
> 
> This failure of capitalism has even pissed off the librarian's and
> placed them in the court with the government. It is a sad state of
> affairs when the force of the government is used justify restraining the
> ideals of Public Library. Gulag Libros at taxpayer expense?
> 
> Now I could say something like, here is an economic system born in sin
> and currently aimed at killing libraries but that would be harsh. I
> think I will retreat to what I said at the outset, "The defense of
> capitalism on moral and pragmatic grounds is starting to fray at the
> edges." 

Gee. You lost me back in first paragraph. I just keep thinking about 
all those Mexicans who have this idyllic country that they can't wait 
to leave in order to participate in nasty, rotten, dirty  old 
capitalism. If you want to argue the finer points of loan costs and 
copyright etc., let's make it another thread.

> [Platt]
> I pray you never need the products of the drug companies.
> 
> [Case]
> In all seriousness, I wish you good health as well, my friend.

Yes, friends in spite of our differences. Intellect bless America. :-)

Platt