[MD] Value and the Individual

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu>:

> [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?

I can see you again avoid answering. I wonder why. Could be that you
don't want the justification for mufflers applied to motorcycles and
care nothing about disturbing others? 

> [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?

Sure. Aren't you in favor of pollution controls?

> [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.

You have a point. But I doubt if you have painted a picture, composed a symphony
or written the great American novel while polluting the peace. 

> [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?

So if a lady accuses you of rape if you touch her knee, you'll go to
jail willingly?

> [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.

No up to me. If it was up to you, though, copulating in public would be just
fine
 
> [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).

So OK to fornicate in public so long as it's regulated?

> 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.

Society tried to ban alcohol. Didn't work. Same for the "War on Drugs."
Another government boondoggle. 

> [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!

Ah, so the individual is what moves the world after all! Thanks for making
my point that you keep objecting to. 

> [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.

Access to what? They sure aren't getting the education they ought to. 




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