[MD] Quality decline in U.S. politics

[Keith A. Gillette]

Thanks for the replies, Platt.

-----Platt, Wed 2007-07-11 10:05----
Another way to look at your examples: using government to enforce a social 
contract between a man and a woman, ensure the freedom of elected local 
school officials to decide on their school's curriculum,  and protect the 
lives of the unborn. As I noted previously, I consider these legitimate 
uses of government power -- protecting lives, ensuring individual 
freedoms, and enforcing contracts. I guess whether this view is 
libertarian or religious social conservative is up to you to decide. 
-----

I agree in the abstract that protecting lives, ensuring individual freedoms,
and enforcing contracts are all legitimate government functions.

I see and empathize deeply with the argument for protecting the unborn. I
think abortion is one of the profound & divisive unresolved metaphysical &
ethical questions of our time. I don't happen to believe in the metaphysics
of "ensoulment" or even personhood at conception, though, so I think there
is a window in which abortion (as well as embryonic stem cell research) is
acceptable, where social considerations outweigh biological patterns. After
all, a fertilized embryo can split into twins after 2 weeks of cell
divisions, so how can we call an embryo a person? At some point in fetal
development, obviously, abortion becomes unacceptable. Where is the line?
Carl Sagan & Ann Druyan lay out some interesting perspectives on that
question in their essay "Is it possible to be both 'Pro-Life' &
'Pro-Choice'?" <http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml>.

I can also see the federalist argument behind allowing school officials to
decide on the curriculum for their own schools. However, I think the
relevant issue in the particular case of "Creation Science" or "Intelligent
Design" is not local control but the separation of church & state. Teaching
religious doctrine as science is the problem here & that's the ground on
which higher-level government intervention is justified.

I have far less understanding for the "gay marriage" ban and other religious
social conservative anti-gay legislation, however. Perhaps you can tell me
how allowing same-sex civil unions undermines contract law for
heterosexuals. Prima facia, I don't see the problem. I'm not even sure that
marriages are best thought of primarily as contracts ...

-----Platt, Wed 2007-07-11 10:05----
Yes, but current intellect is devoid of values and thus incapable of 
proper control. "But having said this, the Metaphysics of Quality goes on 
to say that science, the intellectual pattern that bas been appointed to 
take over society, has a defect in it. The defect is that subject-object 
science has no provision for morals." (Lila, 22) 

This is an important conclusion of the MOQ that I don't think too many 
here are ready to accept. Nor in the ten years this site has been open do 
I recall it being thoroughly discussed. I get the distinct impression that 
most contributors here believe that if only we could rid the world of the 
supposed "who-whom" game of oppressors and oppressed  we could attain 
Utopia, appealing to the  authority of historical figures like Marx, 
Jesus, and the Buddha for moral guidance rather than the more realistic 
rational morality proposed by Pirsig. 
-----

I don't follow you here, unfortunately. You agree that communism & socialism
are intellectual patterns trying to control society, but ... are defective
because (like science?) they don't include values? Those two political forms
value human equality almost above all else, right? I'm not a proponent of
either communism or socialism, but I just don't follow your line of
reasoning here.

-----Platt, Wed 2007-07-11 10:05----
You paid the sales tax with your previously owned money (property) which  
becomes the communal property of the state. 
-----

OK, I can see that. I think this level of "communism" is unavoidable since
we need somehow to carry out the functions of government & the money has to
come from somewhere to pay for that. I don't see a slippery-slope from
taxation to state ownership of either the means of production or all
property, though.

-----Platt, Wed 2007-07-11 10:05----
Since you asked:   http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer
-----

Thanks for the link! At first glance, this looks very promising. I'll have
to research it more deeply.

You may see this as government meddling, but I support environmental
tax-shifting <http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PB2/PB2ch12_ss2.htm> as one
market-friendly way to remove the externalities that lead to the economics
of environmental degradation. The combination of the progressive FairTax
with the full-cost accounting of environmental tax shifting would likely
reduce government bureaucracy, decrease the need for heavy-handed
environmental regulation, and spur sustainable economic development.

-----Platt, Wed 2007-07-11 10:05----
Generally agree. It's difficult to be "transparent" about some operations 
against terrorism without revealing techniques that if exposed would kill 
the operation.  A difficult balancing act to be sure.
-----

To be sure!