[MD] Quality decline in U.S. politics

[Keith A. Gillette]

-----Platt, Tuesday, July 10, 2007 08:34----
"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." 
-----

Surely true, which I think reinforces my point that the labels "liberal" and
"conservative", as commonly taken in this country, are too broad for much
constructive dialog. If you want to redefine those terms to mean "communist"
and "libertarian" when you use them, that's your prerogative, but I think
that just using those more specific terms would be more useful.

-----Platt, Tuesday, July 10, 2007 08:34----
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. 
-----

Most "liberals" AND "conservatives" seek to use government to attain their
social ends. Yes, many liberal Democrats tend to seek income redistribution
in order to provide a safety net for the poor. However, many religious
social conservatives seek to use government to enforce their social values,
such as preventing homosexuals from being recognized in the same ways as
heterosexuals, teaching "Creation Science" or its latest incarnation,
"Intelligent Design", in schools, rolling back abortion rights, etc.

-----Platt, Tuesday, July 10, 2007 08:34----
Would you apply the same standard to  a burning a cross on the front lawn
of a black family's home? 
-----

A provocative question that made me think. I support the Supreme Court's
ruling in Virginia v Black, which protects cross burning prima facia, but
makes it criminal if intimidation is proven.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._Black>

-----Platt, Tuesday, July 10, 2007 08:34----
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.
-----

Then shouldn't you support communism & socialism? As "Pirsigians", aren't we
FOR intellectual control of society?

Personally, I'm not for economic equality, I'm for economy opportunity. I am
against letting people suffer & die due to lack thereof, however. I think a
social safety net is a necessary social good that's been implemented in too
heavy-handed a fashion.

I don't understand your assertion that taxation = communal property. Paying
a sales tax on my bicycle doesn't make my bicycle part yours or state-owned.

-----Platt, Tuesday, July 10, 2007 08:34----
Shall we begin a battle of articles supporting our views?                  
-----

I have no wish to "battle" with our without supporting articles. I provide
links to relevant references in an attempt to substantiate and support my
arguments, rather than making proclamations without adequate evidence or
reasoning. You may choose to read them or not, but I offer them as a window
to understanding the positions I advance. I unfortunately don't have the
time to recapitulate lines of reasoning and supporting evidence that others
have already stated far better than I could.
        
-----Platt, Tuesday, July 10, 2007 08:34----
It's basically a sales tax with some interesting innovations.
-----

I'm skeptical because I support progressive taxation (to prevent the
concentration of power in the hands of the few, among other reasons), but
I'd be interested to learn more about the "interesting innovations". Do you
have any references I could review?

-----Platt, Tuesday, July 10, 2007 08:34----
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?
-----

Those very intellectually freedoms, yes, and those yet undefined moral
imperatives given Dynamically.

I am agreed that many sacrifices are necessary during a war. I don't buy the
"war" on terror, though. If we were battling a state, then those essential
liberties would be logically reinstated when the enemy state was defeated
and the war ended. In a "war" against terrorism, the threat is diffuse &
never-ending. When will essential liberties sacrificed in this "war" be
re-instated? I fear an Orwellian government taking away liberties in the
name of protecting its citizens, but, in a state of constant war, never
actually giving them back.

That said, I recognize the need for some concessions of privacy to improve
security in an age of terrorism. The loss of privacy entailed by
surveillance cameras and telecommunications monitoring only bothers me when
the power of surveillance goes unchecked. I believe that Big Brother
initiatives such as Homeland Security's Total Information Awareness and the
NSA's warrantless wiretapping program represent dangerous concentration of
power. I agree with David Brin's analysis in *The Transparent Society* that
any loss of liberty in this sense must be countered by reciprocal
transparency in order to prevent government abuse.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society>


--Keith