[MD] Value and the Individual

[Platt Holden]

> [Platt]
> Dynamic liberty doesn't mean you have the right to disturb the peace 
> at will. Why do you suppose cars are required to muffle their motors?
> 
> [Arlo]
> I would think the true Liberty person would see this as an 
> opportunity to call for more freedom regarding car mufflers. And who 
> are you to tell ME what is "disturbing the peace"? And let's get away 
> from the potential "majority rule" thing for just one moment, why do 
> YOU think its okay for YOU to USE the guns of government to FORCE ME 
> to conform to YOUR ideas on "peace"? Do you then also think I have 
> the right to use government to force you to conform to my ideas on peace?

I asked you a question. Your answer is more questions. So I ask again, 
Why do you suppose cars are required to muffle their motors?
 
> [Platt]
> Peace and quiet is required for full functioning of intellectual values.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Is it only sound that effects the functioning of intellectual 
> patterns, or do other sensations (such as smell and sight) also 
> effect this functioning?

Depends on what smells and sights you have in mind. Sometimes perfume 
distracts my intellectual patterns considerably.

> [Platt]
> Otherwise, why not allow libraries to broadcast Nascar races over 
> giant TVs in reading rooms?
> 
> [Arlo]
> You are also not allowed to smoke in public libraries for this same 
> reason, it disturbs others. So following your logic, we should then 
> ban smoking in public as well.

Not the same reason at all. For many, smoking enhances intellectual 
activity.  

> [Platt]
> "Things like sex and booze and drugs and- tobacco have a high 
> biological quality, that is, they feel good, but are harmful for 
> social reasons. They take all your money. They break up your family . 
> They threaten the stability of the community." (Lila, 13)
> 
> [Arlo]
> Explain to me how allowing women to choose to go topless "takes all 
> your money" or "breaks up your family" or "threatens the stability of 
> the community". Do you think bikini tops do this as well, or only 
> fully naked breasts? Your logic, then, is that you can show as much 
> of the breast as you want and "your money" and "the family" and "the 
> stability of the community" will be okay, but show the nipple and 
> WHAM! people lose their money, families break up, and the stability 
> of the community collapses.

Nice try using the camel's-nose-in-the-tent fallacy. Tell me: how far can 
your hand go up a lady's leg before it might be considered rape? An inch 
above the knee, two inches, three? Of course, we all know now you have a 
fetish about female breasts and would love to see them everywhere. 
 
> Also, I note the inclusion of booze and tobacco here. Since women 
> (using this quote) can be forbidden from exposing their breasts in 
> public, does this quote support forbidding drinking and smoking in 
> public as well? Or can we skip the "booze" and "drugs" and pick out 
> the part of the quote we personally find distasteful?

What do you think Pirsig's point was? (I've leaned from you to answer a 
question with a question.)

> [Platt]
> Please define what you mean by Social Darwinism.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Simply that the wealthy are wealthy because they are smart, 
> hardworking and industrious, while the poor are poor because they are 
> stupid, lazy and parasitic. "Survival of the fittest" in this regard 
> is simply nature's way of elevating those with value and leaving 
> behind those without. Since anyone with any real value will rise, 
> those who do not can be dismissed as chaff that can be discarded with 
> no real thought or concern.
> 
> The miner's at Hawk's Nest, for example, need not concern us because 
> they were obviously too stupid to do anything else, too stupid to 
> pick up and get jobs elsewhere, too stupid to learn a better trade, 
> and so the fact that they were killed is no reason to demand 
> regulations on the mine industry, and punish the producers and 
> shakers for the loss of a few losers.
> 
> As Krimel quotes Raygun is a recent post, the homeless choose to 
> sleep on grates, so that's their problem.
> 
> [Platt]
> ... and why you find the concept objectionable when evolution is 
> considered by many intellectuals to explain much of human behavior 
> including our moral sense.
> 
> [Arlo]
> I find the concept objectionable because the potential contributions 
> to intellectual evolution are not determined by social-status 
> birth-rite or achievement. To allow social-level success to determine 
> the value of the individual (which then determines her/his access to 
> education and medicine) undermines the potential evolutionary 
> trajectory of the intellectual level. This holds true for ANY social 
> system where potential intellectual achievement (of the individual) 
> is preceded (and determined) by social status or social power.

By that argument then workers and loafers are morally equivalent because 
all are potential contributors to evolution, thus justifying forcible 
redistribution of income to assure "economic justice" and equality. Right?