[MD] Value and the Individual

[Platt Holden]

> [Platt]
> You may be right. But I doubt if Pirsig would support the left's 
> general concept that when people have low quality experiences that 
> more government regulation is the answer.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Of course not. Who has said that "government" is the solution to everything?

Obama, Hillary and other representatives of the left.

> [Platt]
> Government is neither "evil" nor "bad" nor "malicious" in carrying 
> out its legitimate function of protecting society. ("Inept," 
> "bungling" -- yes.) The answer to your questions is contained in 
> Lila. The fact that you ask them at all is explained as follows:
> 
> [Arlo]
> If the government is inept and bungling, why should I believe them 
> when they tell me "the nation is at risk!". And further, why should I 
> believe that they would have the best solution to that problem?
> 
> Is this just a matter of if the man says "I'm from the government and 
> I'm here to help... protect you from terrorists", we should 
> uncritically accept the risk and unquestioningly accept that it 
> demands "bombing them" as the only solution, but if the man says "I'm 
> from the government and I'm here to help... protect you from 
> pollution", we should dismiss him as a whack-job bureaucrat who can't 
> be trusted?

No one (yet) in the U.S. is forcing you to trust the government. However, 
in matters of national defense, I defer to the government. I see no other
reasonable choice. 

> Let me ask you a question. Most days on the Hannity and Levin shows 
> (I don't listen to Limbaugh much anymore), there is the constant 
> complaint about how the "mainstream media" focuses exclusively on the 
> "failure" of the military, and how this undermines moral and weakens 
> our ability to act. We are told that, sure there have been mistakes, 
> sure there were miscalculations here and things would could have done 
> better there, but the media should focus on what we have done right, 
> where we have succeeded, where the effort has produced things we 
> should be proud of.
> 
> Okay. Now don't you think the "right-wing media" is guilty of the 
> same rhetoric over "education". Every day I hear "our schools have 
> failed", and I think, "wait, I spend a lot of time in our schools, my 
> daughter and her friends all go to our schools, and that's not the 
> case. Sure there have been mistakes, sure we can and should improve, 
> but overall is it an abject "failure"? Why doesn't Hannity or Levin 
> ever talk about the public schools that are successful, about the 
> successes (and there are many) our children accomplish and the 
> innovative and motivating and terrific teachers we have? Do you not 
> think the constant drumbeat of "our schools have failed" undermines 
> the achievement of those very schools?

That government schools have generally failed is demonstrated in 
comparisons to other countries -- as you have pointed many times. 

> Should bumper stickers that say "Support Our Troops!" be side-by-side 
> with bumper stickers that say "Support Our Schools!"?

No one (yet) in this country prevents you from printing bumper stickers 
that say "Support Our Schools."

> [Platt]
> So maybe you prefer "Mercedes Marxist?"
> 
> [Arlo]
> The problem here is that once you start defining even someone who 
> believes in pollution regulation or child-labor laws as a "Marxist", 
> the label really has no meaning.

You have a point. Likewise  with "neocon" applied to someone who desires 
lower taxes and less government interference in people's lives.