[MD] Sin Part 1

[Platt Holden]

> [Platt]
> [Case]
> I think you confuse cowardice with insanity. Insanity is doing the same
> thing over and over and expecting a different result. After Korea,
> Vietnam and the Russian experience in Afghanistan you would think we
> would learn.

Learn what? To cut and run?

> > [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. 
> 
> [Platt]
> Anyone bent on destroying us forfeits any rights to our Constitutional
> protections. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
> 
> [Case]
> No it is a pact between the government and it's citizens and it
> guarantees all who come under its domain the protection of due process.

No. You wrote the key word -- "citizens." Not "all."

> What is suicidal is compromising that sacred pact for any reason. If we
> can do it to That Man we can do it to Any Man. If terrorists are guilty
> of something then let's charge and punish them. The law provides for
> that.

If terrorists are guilty of something? A wonderful oxymoron.

> [Platt]
> So let's make taxes voluntary. OK?
> 
> [Case]
> Or move to New Hampshire. Or vote for people who share your views. But
> enough of this talk of slavery and being forced to pay them at gun
> point. You know what the rules are, it's your free choice to play the
> game. 

I do vote for people who share my views. But, you failed to address the 
question. If taxes aren't collected by the threat of force, why not 
make them voluntary?

 > [Platt]
> 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.
> 
> [Case]
> You have said that the government can and should strip That Man or Any
> Man of all of their rights.

The government that protects and preserves intellectual freedom has 
every right to protect itself from those bent on destroying it. .

> If it can strip them a way then the only
> reason you have them is that it does not. The government grants you
> property rights because although it definitely can it rightfully does
> not strip them away.

"Rightfully does not" strip away property rights? What's to stop it?.

> Capitalism is just the system our government currently uses to
> redistribute wealth.

You can't redistribute what hasn't been created.  Capitalism is a great 
creative system. What gets "redistributed" under capitalism is done 
voluntarily between traders. When government gets involved in 
redistribution, out come the guns. 

> [Platt]
> Protecting individual rights to dispose of private property as one sees
> fit? You're kidding.
> 
> [Case]
> Not at all. I believe the court said simply that issues of eminent
> domain should be decided at the state rather than the federal level.
> This pushes the decision making process closer to the people it affects.
> You would prefer to have federal bureaucrats making such decisions?

I would prefer not giving government officials permission to 
"redistribute" my property to benefit another private party for the 
sake of increasing the tax base. That's obscene.  

> [Platt]
> I assume if a freely elected legislature passes a law affecting you, you
> would obey it.
> 
> [Case]
> No. Just like everyone else I do what I want and what I can get away
> with. I do a risk to benefit analysis before brushing my teeth every
> morning.
> 
> Passing laws that can not be enforced only fosters disrespect for all
> laws. It creates economic niches that bring out the worst possible
> traits in citizens. It exhausts the resource of the state on
> foolishness. Almost any law banning individual behavior begs to be
> disobeyed so when we pass one, we should have a damn good reason.

I think we agree. 

> I apologize for posting this long passage but it is one of the Koans
> that has affected my life most profoundly. I think it suggests that if
> you want to hit the mark you should be thoughtful about what you are
> aiming for. 

[clip]

My favorite is the Emperor Has No Clothes.

Platt