[MD] Intellect battles the [immigrant] barbarians

[Platt Holden]

Hi Ant,

> Platt stated to Ham October 30th:
> 
> The barbarians that destroyed Rome are now at our gates. The rise and
> acceptance of "anything goes" values (witness the lack of moral backbone
> even to support laws against indecent exposure) are sapping our strength
> from within so that West's willingness to fight to protect and preserve its
> civilization from its plainly dedicated enemies is in doubt. Today
> governments of the West won't even stand up for free speech rights for fear
> of reprisals from the barbarians. Can total collapse be far behind?
> 
> Ant McWatt comments:
> 
> Platt,
> 
> I’m afraid to say that Bush and Blair (the contemporary representatives of
> the Barbarians of the West) are already past the “gates of Rome” and are
> now destroying the cradle of civilisation (i.e. Iraq).

So I gather you would rather have Saddam in Iraq preserving "the cradle of 
civilization." by tossing dissidents into wood chippers forcing women into 
veils and virtual servitude without the right to vote or appear along in 
public. Yes, by all means let's return to the Dark Ages.

> Platt then noted to Ham October 30th:
> 
> Case's accusations against capitalism are right out of the left's
> book of talking points. It would be nice if they would talk about hard
> work, personal responsibility, individual initiative, delayed
> gratification, self-discipline, openness to competition, etc. etc., but
> don't hold your breath. It's "the system" that's always to blame. And, of
> course in the twisted morality prevalent today, it always pays to be
> "oppressed."
> 
> Ant McWatt comments:
> 
> Tell that all to a starving child in Darfur.  What use is “openness to
> competition” to them?   Capitalism doesn’t work for a substantial
> proportion (if not the majority) of the world’s population.

It seems to be working well for many Asian countries who were as bad off 
as Darfur not long ago. So why not Darfur?   

> Platt continued October 30th:
> 
> To these folks even the environment suffers from oppression.
> 
> Ant McWatt comments:
> 
> You know the States has about twenty years before the relative lack of
> global oil supplies will really hit it – hard.  The future doesn’t look too
> bright in Europe either even though it has a slightly better awareness of
> renewables and the environment.  I know you’ll probably be dead by 2030 but
> don’t you have grandchildren to be concerned about?

There's plenty of oil to last for the rest of this century and beyond. A 
new field was just recently discovered in the Gulf of Mexico, not to 
mention untapped reserves in Alaska. In the meantime, capitalist 
entrepreneurs (perhaps one of my grandchildren)  will come up with viable 
fuel alternatives.
 
> Platt continued October 30th:
> 
> The left is a religion, and like all religion impervious to rational 
> argument.
> 
> Ant McWatt comments:
> 
> I thought the Left in the States was the natural home of academics and
> therefore rational thought?   Doesn’t Pirsig doesn’t call universities the
> Church of Reason?  Moreover, isn't it the conservatives who have been
> recently allying themselves with the Fundamentalist Christians (the natural
> home of the non-rational and the crank)?

If academics are the home of rational thought, how come they haven't 
understood and celebrated the MOQ for the philosophical breakthrough that 
it is? As for "cranky," academics are hardly noted for their sense of 
humor, probably because most of them are secularists who describes humans 
as descendants of a tiny cell of primordial protoplasm washed up on a 
empty beach 3 1/2 billion years ago in an empty corner of a meaningless 
universe completely without purpose and not sure why they exist at all.  
 
> Platt concluded October 30th:
> 
> Rand elevates the individual. So does the MOQ by making intellect and art
> the highest moral levels. Societies don't think or paint landscapes. Only
> individuals do.
> 
> Ant McWatt comments:
> 
> This paragraph is circular in its logic unless intellect and the individual
> are different entities.  If you replace the term “intellect” with
> “individual” in your paragraph, it becomes clearer why this is the case
> i.e.
> 
> “Rand elevates the individual. So does the MOQ by making the individual and
> art the highest moral levels. Societies don't think or paint landscapes.
> Only individuals do.”

I fail to see the circularity. Rather I see a fitting analogy.

> Individuals also say “excuse me” for sneezing in public (social value
> level), eat food (biological value level) and need rocket ships to overcome
> the Earth's gravity (inorganic level).  As I have noted on a number of
> occasions on this Discussion group the human individual in the MOQ is a
> combination of the four static levels, not just an equivalent of the
> intellectual level.  But hey, I’m only a doctorate in the subject so I
> could be wrong!

Yes, doctorates can be wrong like me and everybody else. Glad you agree. 
Regarding the levels,  I suppose you never heard of one level dominating 
the others, as in the intellectual dominating the social? How do you 
suppose that happens if all levels that comprise an individual are always 
equal?

I eagerly await your reply.

Best regards,
Platt