[MD] Quality decline in U.S. politics

[Platt Holden]

Keith,

[Keith]
> It seems we have significant areas of agreement. Your positions sound much
> more specifically libertarian to me than just "conservative".
> 
> Just as you seem to hear 'communist' when the word "liberal" is used, I
> hear 'religious social conservative' when I hear the word "conservative".
> That's why I don't think those labels are terribly useful to productive
> dialog.

"Productive dialog" always depends on defining one's terms. Most arguments 
are about such definitions, as for example the meaning of "global warming" 
and  the "war on terror." 
 
> -----Platt, Mon 2007-07-09 10:02-----
> I share your goal, but don't think due process rights accrue to those who
> deny rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. -----
> 
> But these "enemy combatants" have not been shown to actually be terrorists
> by any competent court. That's why they need minimal protections of due
> process. If they are terrorists, they should be punished according to the
> relevant laws. However, that guilt must be shown first. The GTO scandals
> demonstrate the flaws in the current approach.

GTO scandals? What are they? No need to "show guilt" of combatants caught
during battle, nor do masked non-uniformed combatants hiding in the civilian
population qualify for protection under the Geneva convention..   

> -----Platt, Mon 2007-07-09 10:02-----
> The ACLU promotes many liberal causes such as affirmative action. 
> -----
> 
> Precisely my point. Here's a "liberal" group that also consistently defends
> Constitutional freedoms, such as the First Amendment.

Point taken. But at times the bad outweighs the good, or the "defense"
can be taken to extremes so as to become ridiculous, like banning
prayer in team huddles at school football games..

> -----Platt, Mon 2007-07-09 10:02-----
> Like all abstractions, it has it uses and its shortcomings. Generally it
> points to the distinction between those who look to the government to solve
> problems and those who prefer the dynamism of the free market. ------
> 
> Perhaps a valid generalization, but that certainly doesn't make the case
> that "liberals" don't defend freedoms.

Using government power other than to defend intellectual freedoms usually  
involves a loss of freedom. Liberals are more inclined than conservatives 
to use government to attain their social ends, such income redistribution. 
.  
 
> -----Platt, Mon 2007-07-09 10:02-----
> I'm not a free speech scholar but I think there's a restriction on speech
> that incites violence. Flag-burning may come under such a caveat. ------
> 
> The proponents of flag burning/desecration amendments seek to eliminate the
> practice because it's offensive. I see this as overreaching government
> meddling. An individual can certainly control him/herself if another is
> demonstrating by burning a flag or a Bible or a Koran, even if those are
> cherished symbols. That's very different from spuriously yelling "fire" in
> a crowded theater, causing panic and harm.

Would you apply the same standard to  a burning a cross on the front lawn
of a black family's home? 

> -----Platt, Mon 2007-07-09 10:02-----
> Just as you have pointed out certain threats to liberty by those on the
> right, I point out threats to free enterprise by those on the left. I think
> your definition of communism needs correction. Communism = state ownership
> of all property. Socialism = state ownership of the means of production.
> Mixed economy = socialized capitalism. -----
> 
> Point taken; Thank you. However, this definition makes your assertion that
> liberalism == communism even more scurrilous. I'll admit to plenty of
> socialized capitalism tendencies in liberal thinking, even some socialism
> on the extreme left in the U.S. I see no evidence of liberals seeking to
> make all property communal.

Every imposition of a tax is a move towards making property communal.
Liberals always seek higher taxes, and aim to redistribute income in the 
name of "equality," a communist goal. I put communism and socialism under 
the same umbrella as Pirsig -- attempts at intellectual control of 
society.

> -----Platt, Mon 2007-07-09 10:02-----
> I agree there needs to be laws enforce contracts,  protect against fraud
> and provide recourse for damages to one's self and property. But that's
> about as far as it needs to go. -----
> 
> I argue it needs to go one step further: There are such things as commons
> that don't fare well under a pure market system. Government is needed to
> make externalities part of the economic equation, which requires targeted
> taxation and/or regulation:
> 
> <http://www.gametheory.net/News/Items/073.html>

Shall we begin a battle of articles supporting our views?                  
                       
> -----Platt, Mon 2007-07-09 10:02-----
> I disagree that CO2 emissions are a problem or that global warming is
> a crisis like  Al Gore and other fear-mongers make it out to be. But 
> that's neither here nor there. Generally, we agree on the approach you
> outline. -----
> 
> I don't have time to argue for the reality of anthropogenic global warming
> or its potential consequences, but the case is accepted by the scientific
> community. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:
> "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal." "World temperatures could
> rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 °C (2.0 and 11.5 °F) during the 21st century."
> " Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 cm (7.08 to 23.22 in)." "There
> is a confidence level >90% that there will be more frequent warm spells,
> heat waves and heavy rainfall. "There is a confidence level >66% that there
> will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides."
> 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#IPC
> C _Fourth_Assessment_Report:_Climate_Change_2007>
> 
> Take a look at the relevant and troubling worldwide environmental
> indicators on the Earth Policy Institute Eco-Economy Updates site:
> 
> <http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/index.htm>

Again, is a battle of articles what you really want to get into? I'm not 
inclined to argue about this subject either, primarily because I've made
my case on this site before.

> -----Platt, Mon 2007-07-09 10:02-----
> Don't think so. The Fair Tax is a reasonable way to fund the courts, 
> police and military to prevent anarchy. As for a return to the biological
> code we see that happening  now in pop culture. -----
> 
> I'm not familiar with "The Fair Tax". (I hope it's not a euphemism for a
> flat tax.)

It's basically a sales tax with some interesting innovations.

> -----Platt, Mon 2007-07-09 10:02-----
> I think we basically agree that the intellectual rights outlined by Pirsig
> must be defended at all costs. Would that all could be convinced likewise.
> -----
> 
> Agreed, though I would hesitate to endorse "all costs", as I don't think
> the Good is served by protecting these rights by sacrificing our own
> essential liberties or violating our own highest moral codes.

If you defend freedom by joining the armed forces, you temporarily 
"sacrifice" a number of essential liberties in order to meet the enemy on 
his own terms. Also during war, the civilian population is sometimes of 
necessity called upon to sacrifice some essential liberties. For example, 
during WW II, free speech was curtailed -- "Loose lips sink ships."  We 
see in England the use of cameras that some call an invasion of privacy 
but necessary to deter terrorism.  Finally, did you have in mind other 
"high moral codes" besides those intellectual codes we've been talking 
about?