[MD] Shouldn't we be, like, revolting ?

[Woods Woods]

Ham:
Platt, how is it possible for Chris to use Pirsig's philosophy to support 
Marxism, while you use it to support Capitalism?  It just goes to show that, 
like statistics, a quotation in the hands of a clever politican can be 
construed to justify any position.


woods:  I agree with you here, but... yes, but... that's the point of the 
moq, which I've said to you before, but gave no response back.  Let 
Capitalism and Marxism clash here in the forum.  Let' each be exposed 
through and through.  Leave it up to the people to put forward ideas 
and then let's discuss those ideas.  What we have to also keep in mind 
is the dynamic.  Creative ideas may arise but if we've already set in 
stone the way things ought to be, then we bind our hands to anything 
creative, to any new ideas, to free thinking, thus, to argue against 
these ideas being given a chance to debate each other is to take away 
basic freedoms that keep us open minded.  If we lock ourselves into a 'way
it ought to be' type stance, that you seem to be projecting here, 
then again your saying somebody decides for us.  We can't decide for
 ourselves.  This is what you don't like about poetry.  You said poetry 
allows people to decide on their own and you don't like that.  Do you really 
want to keep up this line of argumentation Ham?


Ham:
Both of you might find F.A. Hayek's 'Road to Serfdom' of interest.  (Platt, 
I know you're aware of this book, published in 1944, because you mentioned 
the title a few days ago.)  I'll be running a condensed version of Hayek's 
chapter "The Great Utopia" in next week's Values Page.  You could almost 
imagine he was talking about the bailout in this excerpt:

"Democratic assemblies cannot function as planning agencies.  They cannot 
produce agreement on everything - the whole direction of the resources of 
the nation-for the number of possible courses of action will be legion. 
Even if a congress could, by proceeding step by step and compromising at 
each point, agree on some scheme, it would certainly in the end satisfy 
nobody.

"To draw up an economic plan in this fashion is even less possible than, for 
instance, successfully to plan a military campaign by democratic procedure. 
As in strategy it would become inevitable to delegate the task to experts. 
And even if, by this expedient, a democracy should succeed in planning every 
sector of economic activity, it would still have to face the problem of 
integrating these separate plans into a unitary whole.  There will be a 
stronger and stronger demand that some board or some single individual 
should be given power to act on their own responsibility.  The cry for an 
economic dictator is a characteristic stage in the movement toward planning. 
Thus the legislative body will be reduced to choosing the persons who are to 
have practically absolute power.  The whole system will tend toward that 
kind of dictatorship in which the head of the government is position by 
popular vote, but where he has all the powers at his command to make certain 
that the vote will go in the direction he desires.  Planning leads to 
dictatorship because dictatorship is the most effective instrument of 
coercion and, as such, essential if central planning on a large scale is to 
be possible. ..."       --[F.A. Hayek: Road to Serfdom]


woods:

     Exactly Ham!  Aside from what I said above, which I find if you bring up stuff like this here, then I MUST not be getting what your really trying to say deep down.  For what you say here quoting F.A. Hayek is exactly what's happening.  Paulson will be the economic dictator, which Hayek points out as a first step in a government that is moving towards total political dictatorship.  This economic dictatorship brings up labels such as fascism.  But to move on, what I find very dishearting is McCain wanted to bypass Congress after the House didn't pass the Bill on Monday.  McCain called on the President and the Treasury to put bailout money into the market with executive powers and bypass the Congress.  Of course, the president didn't do this, but why is McCain calling for this.  This is unconstitutional.  The bailouts of AIG and Bear Sterns were uncontitutional according to Ron Paul.  I'm trusting Ron Paul right now.  Here knows his stuff from what I understand.  I'm not going against McCain cause I like Obama more.  I don't think Obama does not that much about what is going on in the bigger scheme of events.  I don't like that Obama voted for this bailout.  I'll come clear.  I like Obama more than McCain because McCain is too war like for me.  I like Ron Paul more than either, and I like Russell Means more than all of them, but at this moment I don't know how big of a difference there is between Ron Paul and Russell Means.  This seems to glimmer what Pirsig mentioned when he pointed out that Europeans thought Americana were too wild, but Americans thought themselves orderly and it was the Amerindians that were too wild.  Ron Paul and Russell Means are too wild for the European type ways of Obama and McCain.  So we'll find more and more order overlapping over and over again from Obama and McCain for their going to try to control the wild horse and whip the wild horse instead of gaining the trust of the wild horse and letting the wild horse decide to let the rider on the horses own terms and decision. 


Thanks Ham,
woods

_____________________________________________________________
Shoes! Shoes! Shoes! You can never have too many shoes....
Kinky Boots & Bits has a huge range of exotic shoes, sandals, boots, costumes & corsets at the lowest prices you will find in Oz. http://www.kinkyboots.com.au