[MD] How far do you go to preserve individual life?

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 15 Sep 2010 at 11:26, Andre Broersen wrote:

>   Platt to Andre:
> 
> This makes sense to me. I personally hope that through the mechanism of 
> politics our society decides to not regress to failing socialist health 
> programs but rather encourage evolution through responses to Dynamic 
> Quality a free market provides.
> 
> Andre:
> Hi Platt. I am glad my post makes sense to you. I cannot, however, make 
> much sense of your concluding remarks. I am not sure what you mean by 
> '[failing] socialist health programs'. Do you designate a culture which, 
> through its political processes, provides affordable basic health cover 
> to all its citizens, as being 'socialist'?

[P]
Can we agree that any central government program that controls the production 
and distribution of goods and/or services is "socialist."   

> I am aware that many Americans have, traditionally, had a love/hate 
> relationship with the Federal principle (as Northrop calls it): He observes:
> 'It is to the moral,the religious, and the political consequences of 
> John Locke's philosophical conception of man and nature that Thomas 
> Jefferson gives expression in the Declaration of Independence. In short, 
> the traditional culture of the United States is an applied utopia in 
> which the philosophy of John Locke defines the idea of the good.
> 'Locke's political philosophy made the preservation of private property 
> the sole justification for the existence of government, thereby 
> rendering unconstitutional any majority legislation which curbed working 
> conditions or business practices in the interests of human rights or 
> social needs (p71)
> 
> 'Similarly, the laissez-faire economic theory prescribed it to be 
> unsound to prevent in any way the free play of individualistic action 
> regardless of the social consequences, and required that laborers be 
> treated, not from the standpoint of their value as human beings, but 
> from the standpoint of the exchange value of their labor in a 
> competitive free market'( The Meeting of East and West p 136)
> 
> It is against this background that I understand your position. You are 
> placing working conditions and business practices (and their interests) 
> and individualistic action above human rights and social consequences 
> and needs. This view sees human beings as commodities whose value is 
> determined by their exchange value. This, Platt, sounds like you render 
> full support to the mechanisms of the Giant.

[P]
No, the basic human right I support is individual liberty. The Giant treats 
individuals as commodities to be used for the greater good of the Giant 
(society). As Pirsig, wrote: "But the superorganism, the Giant, who is a 
pattern of values superimposed on top of biological human bodies, doesn't mind 
losing a few bodies to protect his greater interests." (Lila, 17) Sounds like 
socialism to me, you know, the system justified by the slogan used by every 
despot in history, "For the public good."

> (have you already forgotten the Lehman Brothers, to name just one of 
> many enlightened banking institutions, ...as responsible for the 
> world-wide financial crisis...except China?)

[P]
I'm afraid you have omitted the real reason for the financial "crises" -- the 
burst of the housing bubble due to the central's government's demand that banks 
offer home mortgages to deadbeats.  
 
> It explains your earlier response a bit better. It seems the 
> preservation of human life, for you, is predicated upon the value of 
> their possible intellectual contribution or on the value of their 
> re-cycle-able parts. Commodity exchange and not the simple value of the 
> fact that they are human beings being human.
> 
> Seems to me that Obama's program, with its careful restrictions, is an 
> attempt to assert intellectual values as guiding social ones instead of 
> letting society be guided by mindless traditions. (LILA,p224)
> 
> By all means have free enterprise, but let this enterprise be dominated 
> by human values (not capital values) and let Dynamic Quality reign. (I 
> didn't put this very well but you get my sentiment, I hope).

[P]
"Human values" sounds like what Pirsig said about human rights: "What passed 
for morality within this crowd was a kind of vague, amorphous soup of 
sentiments known as "human rights." You were also supposed to be "reasonable." 
What these terms really meant was never spelled out in any way that Phaedrus 
had ever heard. You were just supposed to cheer for them." (Lila, 24)

To me, the highest human value is individual liberty. Millions have died 
defending that value in the U.S. since the American Revolution, including 
millions who gave their lives to free Europe from the boot of Nazi Germany.
During the Cold War, some thought,  "Better Red than dead." But, I'm with 
Patrick Henry -- "Give me liberty or give me death." Seems to me the choice is 
basic to a moral life. I have no objection whatsoever to anyone who voluntarily 
chooses to help anyone they consider as having a "need." But, I do object to 
having a gun at my head with the demand, "Give me your money because I need it 
more that you do."      

> Amen....imho of course.

[P]
And imho, too, of course. Thanks for the exchange.