[MD] Value and the Individual

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Platt]
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?

[Arlo]
Um, because statist-socialists have infringed on our freedom. I 
thought that answer was obvious. I mean, loud cars do not "take you 
money, break up your family, and threaten the bonds that hold society 
together", do they?

[Platt]
Depends on what smells and sights you have in mind. Sometimes perfume 
distracts my intellectual patterns considerabl

[Arlo]
So, if the government can regulate noise because excessive noise 
interferes with functioning of intellectual values, then it should 
also have the authority to regulate smells, such as perfume? What 
about my really smelly neighbor's BBQ? I can't think when he's 
grilling. Should I call on the government to regulate how much smell 
he can make?

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

[Arlo]
Riding a loud motorcycle enhances my intellectual activity. So there 
goes that argument.  Guess the government shouldn't regulate bike 
noise after all.

[Platt]
Tell me: how far can your hand go up a lady's leg before it might be 
considered rape?

[Arlo]
I think that's for the lady to decide, isn't it? Or are you 
suggesting that government has the authority to tell a woman when 
she's been raped?

[Platt]
Of course, we all know now you have a fetish about female breasts and 
would love to see them everywhere.

[Arlo]
So a freedom is a "fetish" when you don't want it, but a "right" when 
you do. Go figure.

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

[Arlo]
I think Pirsig's point was that when it can be shown that a 
particular biological activity does "threaten the bonds of society", 
it is moral for society to regulate it. I've given this example 
before (you had brought the topic up), "public fornication". I think 
its quite simple to see how this could lead to the unwanted 
transmission of disease, and so would render our public places 
unsafe, hence society has every right to regulate against fornication 
in public spaces (the same would hold true for "bottomlessness" in most cases).

Same with drinking. Most of our drinking regulations are designed to 
ensure the safety of our public places, for example, laws against 
drinking and driving. Others are ridiculously outdated and need to be 
dropped, for example, there is a "law" in my town, albeit seldom 
enforced, that makes me walking from my house across the street to my 
neighbor's while carrying an open bottle of ale illegal. I recall so 
happily being in Europe and having the freedom to walk down the 
street drinking an Tuborg Gold in the warm summer sun.

But there is no "law" against being an "alcoholic". Or do you think 
there should be? And I'd say that "alchoholism" is the biggest threat 
to "your money" and "your family" that can derive from drinking. This 
is something society has opted to deal with socially, rather than 
legally, by interventions, counseling, AA, peer support, etc.

[Platt]
By that argument then workers and loafers are morally equivalent 
because all are potential contributors to evolution...

[Arlo]
Workers and loafers? But yes, all human beings are morally equivalent 
regarding their potential to contribute to evolution. Let's remember 
that your lauded Brujo was a drunk and  peeping Tom. Hardly an 
"upstanding, law abiding "worker". Indeed, sounds like he was quite 
the "loafer"! And yet he was the catalyst for evolution!

[Platt]
thus justifying forcible redistribution of income to assure "economic 
justice" and equality. Right?

[Arlo]
Thus justifying society's right in maximizing everyone's access to 
realize their potential. And this is the balancing act. To create a 
system where the greatest number have access to fulfill their 
potential, regardless of "wealth" or capistocratic birth-rite.