[MD] Sin Part 1

[Case]

Arlo,

Yeah I am just a simple caveman unaccustomed to some of these things of
which you speak. But there was a radical shift in public discourse some
years back. People actually bought the idea that government is the enemy and
that some how tax dollars are just removed from the economy. Public service
has been devalued to the point that people do not respect their leaders or
public employees.

Here in the MoQ we have one faction talking about essentially anarchy and
every individual for him or her self. Any minute I expect an impassioned
defense of monopolies. Then two threads over they are spinning utopian
fantasies about free lunch for everyone. I predict one or the other will
take place about the time the 100th monkey flies outta my butt. 

For me the biggest disappointment is that politically speaking most of the
national dialogue seems so irrelevant. It is short sighted and focused on
personal scandals and fear. 

With regards to the discussion at hand I would like to ask Platt what really
is the issue. Are you seriously questioning how the constitution works or
merely the policies that have been set in place? It is one thing to say that
rights are granted by God and government is usurping God's gift. It is
something else to say we have a wonderful system in place but policy is
being administered poorly.

Case




[Case]
Just to keep it a three way here, let me point out that you guys are
addressing:
what should be taxed and how. These are issues for legislative bodies to
debate. I think they are worth discussing but only if we are considering the
pragmatics of taxation.

[Arlo]
Agree, Case. I know we've talking about taxation "points" before. I do not
feel
taxation is either immoral or illegitimate. As I've said repeatedly, I am
happy
to pay taxes for the infrastructure I have at my disposal. Platt has said
that
the military and police are the legitimate functions of government, and I'd
argue the reason is they are concerned primarily with protecting property
rights. Platt needs a man with a gun to protect his property, but school
lunches or public parks or libraries don't matter because they are not
"his".
(You see the effects of mercantilism here, no?)

I've made the argument (won't rehash it entirely) to the effect that access
to
information underscores intellectual-level growth, and basing access to
information on social-wealth, restricts (and kills) dynamic intellectual
evolution. Hence, public libraries are a legitimate function of government.
Now, I do not argue that all books should be free, along with all Internet
access, but reasonabley available (per social negotiation) to those without
social means of acquisition (libraries with public internet terminals, for
example). I _WANT_ as many people as possible accessing as much information
as
possible. If my money goes to that, I am happy. And I benefit because my
society improves, because intellect improves.

The bottom-line question is this. What goods (if you commodify everything)
should only be available to people with social-level means of acquisition?
What
do we commodify and sell in the marketplace, and what do we not? Or, if you
follow the mercantilistic discourse, do we commodify everything? Is
"healthcare", for example, a good that should be bought and sold only to
those
with financial means? The neocons position relies on social-Darwinism,
namely
that the poor are "lazy and stupid" (witness Ham's recent post on why people
are poor), and commodifying healthcare is a way to "let the unproductive die
off".

Anyways, I think we should let Platt try to spend a year paying for
privately
what he gets through governmental taxation, and lets see what he says when
he
has less money than he does now. God forbid he needs EMT services, and can't
find his credit card when they get there...


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/