Subj: In Re A is A Date: 6/7/99 8:46:40 AM EST From: Woodward To: [email protected] Perhaps it is simplicity on my part, but your capitalist apologetics do not persuade. They do not, in fact, even address the fundamental question. I was not raising the possibility of a "level track" (to accept your Pauline metaphor of "running a good race"), for Infant B, by the very nature of his severe handicaps, is agreed to be uncompetitive. The question, Dives, is how will your capitalist ethic provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. Will the physically and mentally disabled, the aged and infirm, and the abandoned infant merely be left to "run the good race," or does your ethic accept that the social order has an obligation to right the vicissitudes of nature? The question is rhetorical, for if the social order does not right the caprice of nature, insofar as it is able, then what good is the order? Or how does it differ from nature? The answer in the "Community Rule" of Qumran, by the way, was that every member of the congregation (or assembly, if you will) was required to donate two days of his labor per month to the community treasury for the express purpose of caring for widows, fatherless children, the aged, and even "the maiden for whom none cares." Not a "level track," but the Essenes at least acknowledged the problem.... Also: if Infant A is the heir to $80 million, say, would he be unfairly burdened by a reduction of that sum to $40 million? Or $20 million? And how is Infant A, with his 80 million inheritance, different than the would-be surfer you scoffed at in your Nozick/Rawls' memorandum -- if Infant A's wealth serves only the amusement of Infant A? Subj: If A is A, then a rose is a rose is a....? Date: 6/7/99 12:47:57 PM EST From: Woodward To: [email protected] Why, if I may pose a further question, are conservative-leaning capitalist ideologues so offended by the concept of a redistribution of wealth that involves "giving to the poor" but yet so positive of its justice when it comes, say, to the procurement of national defense and law-and- order? Or once exempt from all usurpation of personal property and income by taxation, how will your "free-market" pay for a standing army, civil police and fire departments? Also, if your objection to redistribution is one only of individual liberty and conscience, how is Infant A (our heir) more offended by the redistribution of $20 or $40 million of his $80 million inheritance than I, the working-stiff, who am compelled to pay a tax to support a military intervention that I deem unconscionable or state sponsorship of some policy such as pro-choice, say, that I deem morally reprehensible? Subj: No, no, no! A is A as in there is objecitve truth and reality! Date: 6/8/99 2:09:03 AM EST From: RGZiegler To: Woodward Jeff, You keep utterly missing the entire point. Who do you want to pull this thing you want to have done off? The government? Which level of government? There are legitimate functions for government, and they may extend to some sort of provision for those who cannot care for themselves. But the question of equality it not the same one as that. They cannot be provided for 'equally.' And in fact it was in the hey day of laissez faire that private institutions developed to provide such functions. The argument always comes down to a desire to have government have more power and control over people, as if it can do a better job that they can of running their lives. And the animus you display toward the wealth of infant A is also a missed point. Depriving him of half of his $80 million would have catastrophic effects on wealth creation if it were taken and redistributed or given to the government to run some bureaucracy or whatever. There are opportunity costs involved, and sometimes such decisions must be made. We may prefer to sacrifice some development in some effort, but the choice should be clear and not veiled. The opportunity cost you want to make so much of a burden, that of defense, is hardly that at all. It may not be as productive all the time as some investments, but it is generally quite wealth generative, and much more so that other governmental operations. Just think of all the new technology that has been developed on military expenditure, and the jobs, income, and living standard impacts of that. And, of course, it is a valid consideration as to what is done with that power. Fifteen years ago it helped bring down the Soviet empire, whereas now its remnants are devastating Belgrade and building up Chinese nuclear capabilitites. On your reasoning, I can think it is unfair that because Shawnia Twain can sing and I cannot, and she can sell millions of albums and the Armpit cannot. Something should be done to even that out. If government does not wish to force people to buy Armpit albums, then they should buy up millions of them, to promote fairness and help make up for the errors of nature in shortchanging me in my vocal skills. Hell, I suggest it is unfair that she is so well rounded in appearance. What about the rest of us? The problem is that I have no idea what kind of governmental policy could work to rectify such problems. Maybe mandatory plastic surgery and liposuction? You can have development and rights or you can have governmental growth and entitlements. The one is the negation of the other. And it always comes down to the vision of man held by those advocating one position or the other. You shall know the truth, says Jesus, and the truth shall set you free. Ron Subj: There's the rub! Date: 6/8/99 9:30:09 PM EST From: RGZiegler To: Woodward I am thoroughly at a loss as to how to respond to you. Everything I say just goes right passed you as if it was never said. Government can do very few things at all, and none of them well. How can you conclude that it has any right or idea how to do the kinds of things you want it to do? Defense is a necessity and the job does not have to be done efficiently in economic terms. But you miss the whole importance of that as well, in defense and economic terms. I am not a libertarian, per se, although some of what they say is interesting. They take positions which are hardly very inciteful on many issues. I personally see a lot of room for promotionalism, although Hayek and Mises have been very critical of any slippery slope. But running throughout your commentary is an underlying assumption that somebody has the right and duty to make decisions for other people, and that they can do that well, and that is folly. It can neither care for the sick or the otherwise inept, but they want to extend the definition to those they think need its assistance. And there's the rub! The practical side of the issue becomes that government must be reigned in from its expansive roll of recent decades. It is not an all or nothing prospect. That is probably regrettable, but it is reality. What we get at every turn, is its malignant growth, sucking the lifeblood out of our economic prospect. In your most frequent reform, the only response can be that government cannot do what you want it to do, and its attempt to do it will only harm all. The social contract is a fiction anyway, but it is useful only to the extent that it is applied to those things that can be effectively performed within its scope. Hence the ridiculous refernces to Shania Twain, et al. As you know, I have serious reservations about the ability of people to do what they need to do on grounds of weakness, but on what basis can we think that government can do for them any better? Indeed, all it will do is destroy the general will and expand the despotic regime of governance. Ron Subj: In Re Objective Reality Date: 6/8/99 9:27:51 AM EST From: Woodward To: [email protected] So I "utterly" miss the "entire point," eh? You say: "There are legitimate functions for government, and they may extend to some sort of provision for those who cannot care for themselves. But the question of equality is not the same one as that...." Now where, precisely, did I raise the issue of equality? True, I did pose Marx's dictum as "preferable" to your capitalist ethic, rhetorically, but.... You say: "The argument (that is, of those not party to your "gospel of wealth") always comes down to a desire to have government have more power and control over people." And then further on you say: "The opportunity cost you want to make so much of a burden, that of defense, is hardly that at all. It may not be as productive all the time as some investments," and blah, and blah. Now certainly the govt. should NOT have the power to tax me to feed, clothe and house the aged and disabled, but the govt. SHOULD take the "opportunity" and "invest" in defense. In either case, am I not taxed and the government empowered? The Libertarians, whatever else one may think of them, have the virtue of consistency, at least, on this point. Also, you make such shibboleths of "opportunity," "investment" and "wealth." Is every opportunity and investment, is all wealth then, ipso facto, good and acceptable? What about the "opportunity" for an "investment" that is socially damaging? For example: genetics. Now there is no question tht genetic research has been beneficial and a creator of wealth in many areas, but what about the proposal, now debated and entertained, of the possible production of clones ONLY to harvest organs? Certainly that "opportunity" would produce wealth. But is it acceptable? Further example: Kevorkian. Why shouldn't his little suicide device be patented and he be allowed to enjoy the fruits of the free-market? Or would his medical practice be socially damaging? No, the question I posed was not one of equality or of a level playing-field. What I asked was: is not the social order obliged to right the "wrongs" of nature? Govt is a social contract, yes? And if the contract does not improve upon nature (the absence of the contract), then how is govt justified? Finally, your Shawnia Twain/Armpit illustration is beside the point. I was asking WHERE, within the parameters of your "free-market" ethic, there was a recognition of the existence of persons unable to compete, due to physical or psychological disqualifications, and WHAT the ethic would do, beyond abandoning them to the "good race," in terms of their care. Subj: Aye, There's the Rub! Date: 6/9/99 7:50:24 AM EST From: Woodward To: [email protected] You say: "...running throughout your commentary is an underlying assumption that somebody has the right and duty to make decisions for other people...." No, the underlying assumption in my commentary is: 1)that there exist persons that are incapable of choice (the severely disabled, the orphaned infant, etc.) but that they have a RIGHT to life; 2)that an enlightened society has the DUTY to provide for their care. Underlying your arguments however is that a "free-market," one completely free of any restraint, answers every problem and every objection. I only wanted to know HOW this ideal free-market fed the orphan. Or how it paid for defense WITHOUT resort to taxes. Or why Kevorkian shouldn't be allowed to patent and profit from his suicide device. Or why the geneticists shouldn't be allowed to harvest organs from clones. Subj: Free Market Date: 6/9/99 8:25:32 AM EST From: Woodward To: [email protected] Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how I understand the commandments of your ideal free-market: 1)thou shalt levy no tax (i.e., no redistribution of wealth from private hands to a "public sector"); 2)thou shalt place no restriction upon "economic opportunity" (i.e., investment). Is that accurate? This is why I assume that in your ideal free-market: 1)the orphan feeds himself, because we have no tax; 2)each man provides for his own defense, because we have no tax (and no government to procure "munitions"), i.e., Lockheed builds whatever high tech weapons it pleases upon the calculated risk of how many persons may actually purchase, say, an Apache helicopter, a nuclear warhead, etc.; 3)Kevorkian is allowed to pursue the economic opportunity afforded by the patent of his suicide machine; 4)the geneticist is allowed to pursue the economic opportunity of harvesting organs from clones for sale to medical institutions. Subj: Man vs. the State Date: 6/9/99 8:16:40 AM EST From: RGZiegler To: Woodward In the case of the orphan, or similarly deprived person, the point is that while society may indeed have a duty in this regard, does government? And, if so, precisely how? Society is not the equivalent of government, and may be its undoing in such matters. Civilization vs society or society vs community -- geshellschaft vs gemeinschaft. A good question is how society becomes community, something I have spent a good deal of effort exploring as part of my doctoral dissertation, if you want to hear more than you ever wanted to know about Toennies and Schmalenbach and the like. Government may have a duty to act in cases such as those related to Kevorkian or clone harvesting, etc., but it is a rather different sort of question. It would involve governmental prohibition rather than state sanction, although it certainly could, and frighteningly so, involve the later. But the folks from Sears just drove up to install a new water tank, so I'll be back later. Ciao belle, Ron Subj: In Re: Man vs the State Date: 6/9/99 8:36:17 AM EST From: Woodward To: [email protected] Okay, I've been using the terms "society" and "government" all together too casually, you're right. I do recognize that society and government are two different things. A "society" is something like the Shriners, right?, which you joined voluntarily. A "government" is something like a "secret society," right?, whose existence you are vaguely aware of, whose motives you have come to suspect, and whose banquets are never open to you. Subj: Transubstantiation Date: 6/9/99 12:17:56 PM EST From: RGZiegler To: Woodward At last, Jeff, I am beginning to feel that we are on the same page, at least. This distinction between society, community, and government is the essential point I have been trying to make. A further aspect of this consideration which may well be of interest is the process by which society becomes community. It may have a very religious or spiritual element. It is a transubstantiation which Schamlenbach curiously enough refers to as 'communion.' Now put that in the context of your thoughts about Christianity, etc. The notion of an orphan feeding itself also fits in here. Of course, he cannot. But neither can or should government do that. It just cannot do it well. Just look at the public schools, if nothing else. But saying that he must be provided for through taxes is an acceptance that no one else can do it. In fact, to the extent that we tax to supposedly do that, we are going to do it more and less well. I find your comment on our self-defense interesting from another angle, although it is related. The government does not really protect us. The police power has its job to do, but it is not really to protect us. When people violate the public trust, then the police must act to apprehend them and begin the legal process pursuant to such acts. But they cannot ''defend'' us. They simply cannot do that. If people were so bad that we had to rely on that, we would have a police state. The general will would have completely dissipated. We must defend ourselves to the extent that society does not provide a general will moral compass, or it is violated on occassion by some. That is one of the key reasons for the 2nd amendment. Now, how would you classify the Qumran (?) group? Society, community, government, what? Religion indeed may inform the policy of government, perhaps in good part through the 'communion' process, but it must also supercede it and reach far beyond its perimeters. Render unto Ceaser the things that are Ceasar's and to God the things that are God's. We have a real problem with government today wishing to opt itself into positions from which it can better control people by attempting to subsume the general will and community. That is the anti-geist of communion and the destruction of both the geist and of community. Ron Subj: Qumran Date: 6/9/99 12:36:47 PM EST From: Woodward To: [email protected] Qumran described itself as a "community" -- well, "Assembly" would be a closer translation. Qumran was a religious sect, with Messianic expectations, a belief in the resurrection, and so on. Admission was voluntary and there was a probation period. During the first year, the provisional members goods were placed in the assembly's treasury but not touched. If the would-be Qumranite was adjudged suitable after his year's probation, then his goods were transferred over to the General Fund for the use of the community. Interestingly enough, the would-be member could not sit at the sacred meal until the completion of a three-year probation. But the members at Qumran proper were the elite who were living in a form of monastic withdrawal from the "world." The assembly also had members in the "camps," i.e., in Jerusalem and other urban centers, and these members were not monastic, were not celibate, nor did they relinquish all "to the Poor." They are the larger group of Essenes -- perhaps they could be described as "lay members"? -- to whom was applied the rule about giving "two or more days' labor" per month to the community for the care of the aged, infirm, widow, fatherless and the "maid for whom none cares." But beyond the sectarian position of Qumran within Judaism, the apocalyptic and Messianic cast of the sect also meant that they were a kind of "shadow government," or an opposition "waiting in the wings." Hence, the "War Scroll," which depicts their battle formations, strategies and so on, for the Messianic War they anticipated. Return
