[MD] Heads or tails?

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting Heather Perella <spiritualadirondack at yahoo.com>:


>      Again, what is robbing?  Taking something of
> somebodies elses, right?  Without their permission,
> right?  Cultural bounds of property rights, right? 
> What of a flower a bee uses for honey?  Are we bound
> to respect this flower as the bees property?  How
> about in the case of humans?  Is all war theft and
> robbery?  We may need to admit that cases of
> intellectuality may allow for robbery and/or theft. 
> As David M. pointed out, what of Robin Hood?  Do we
> need to weigh out who is more corrupt from the other,
> before we take from them, such as land (Amerindians,
> etc...)?  Are we obligated to give back what was
> stolen?  What of ideas?  Some fight that music is not
> to be burned on CD's from computer programming, and
> yet, township (public) libraries hand out free books
> and videos - our taxes and gifts support such free
> hand out's.  Should authors and movie producers go
> after these places?  The line is not so rigid, as
> usual.
>      By the way, the above quote does not say include
> the word robbery.  That's why I said it generalizes.  

As I said, if you will check the context you will understand that
Pirsig calls robbery a biological pattern. Robbing is the act of taking
what belongs to another by force. Any time force or deception is initiated,
biological values are involved.


>      [Platt quotes]
> > Example:
> > 
> > "Second, there were moral codes that established the
> > supremacy of the social order
> > over biological life — conventional morals —
> > proscriptions against drugs, murder,
> > adultery, theft and the like." (Lila, 13) 
> 
>      
>      Sure, and this was my original point.  We, this
> social order, have declared what is theft.  The court
> system and legislation system and at times the
> executive branch is involved in deciding any new
> issues that may arise.  For one, theft and killing is
> illegal, but war is not.  Christianity says turn the
> other cheek, but at times finds war justifiable.  I'm
> not saying these are clear-cut wrong and/or right,
> just the opposite, I'm saying we get these ideas and a
> society of people, especially in a republic such as
> the U.S., gets together somewhere and decides upon
> these matters according to their own interests. 

Do you think a society would last long if robbery was
permitted?

> To
> the other tribes the Navajo were probably rude and
> bad, to the Navajo they themselves did a good serve
> for their own people.  The U.S. not only raided these
> tribes, but they cut their hairs and said talk
> English.  Now-a-days we recognize what the U.S. did
> was bad, right?  But during those times, the
> persuasive people said 'a good indian is a dead
> indian'.  As I said, Star Trek might be a brujo saying
> we don't need $, yet, now-a-days $ seems to be the
> best option in handing out the spoils or are spoils
> called goods or rights of a hard working business suit
> character - in another country, New Guinea, if you
> have a lot of pigs in your care, well, your the Big
> Man.  Hey, if we all turn in our paper and get pigs we
> could be Big Men.
>     So, who's the bad guy?  Who's the right guy? 
> What's the right way?  I think it has something to do
> with the question mark.

Pirisg wrote the MOQ to help us decide who's the right guy and what's the right
way. Follow the MOQ and your questions will be answered. 

  

-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/