From: Dan Glover (daneglover@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Jul 12 2004 - 18:54:34 BST
Hello everyone
>From: "Arlo J. Bensinger" <ajb102@psu.edu>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>Subject: Re: MD the metaphysics of free-enterprise
>Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 11:06:21 -0400 (EDT)
>
>Mel, Dan...
>
>Obviously the question was "loaded". Let me address your responses, and
>then I'd
>like to bring some discussion back to labor alienation and ZMM.
Hi Arlo
I'm not sure my response pertained to ZMM nor will this one. LILA is what
we're discussing, right?
>
>
>Explain to me how slavery "at that time" had socially low value in the
>south? I
>think the "system" had very high social value. Did not Thomas Jefferson own
>slaves? Also, take this above comment and change "slaves" to "labor in
>Tijuana". Explain how this shifts the sentence from a "intellectually low
>quality" to an "intellectual high quality" statement, or from an
>intellectual
>to a social moral concern?
First off, slavery isn't an economically viable system. It depends on the
unremunerated labor of individuals unwilling to do the work in the first
place. How many spit-laced meals do you think those slave owners consumed
without knowing? Second, Jefferson not only owned slaves, he fathered at
least five children with at least one of his slaves. I think we could see
this as biological level workings. From what I've read of Jefferson's
writings, the concept of slavery troubled him intellectually, especially as
he grew older. I think he freed his slaves evenutally, right? Or maybe not.
Maybe he just considered freeing them. I'd have to look into the matter
further.
I don't think the workers in Tijuana are slaves in the same sense as in
Jefferson's time. But again, I've never been there so I can't form a
qualified opinion.
> >
>
>No doubt. Would you not say Quality is lower from the Tijuanese workers
>point of
>view? Why should we "care" either way (slave or Tijuanese worker) if the
>market's highest Quality is measured by profit?
I don't know whether the quality is lower for the Tijuanese workers. Maybe
it is. But one difference between them and the slaves is that the Tijuanese
can leave their jobs there and search for better conditions, legally. The
slaves in Jefferson's time had no such recourse other than to illegally
leave their owners and trust in systems like the underground railroad to
deliver them into a better environment. If they were caught they would be
hamstrung or worse. Not so with the Tijuanese. If they come north illegally
seeking employment and are caught they may face deportation but we certainly
don't hobble them, at least not to my knowledge.
I think there is a problem with your statement "the market's highest Quality
is measured in profit." You're subordnating Quality to profit. In the MOQ
and in my experience it's the other way around. The market's highest profit
is measured by Quality.
>
> >
> > >1880's I suspect the owners my have found lower social value and
> > >higher intellectual value (having to deal in a NEW WORLD)
> > >Share croppers may have similarly found a lower dynamic quality
> > >biologically as they were finding survival tough somewhere in that
> > >time, but social and intellectual quality was certainly higher, more
> > >dynamic, they even had participation in government for a short time.
> >
> > I expect that until the law came along and mandated an equal playing
>field
> > that there were certain groups who received preferential treatment and
> > others who were on the losing end. The same thing happens today but it's
> > more covert than overt.
> >
>
>Is creating a "level playing field" a layer of "stifling social
>regulations" or
>is it a moral issue on the intellectual level?
The second.
>
>Did abolishing slavery fully create this level playing field?
No. That process is ongoing.
If not, and if
>creating a level playing field is still moral, why are discussions
>surrounding
>it reduced to "pesky social regulations"?
Maybe they are pesky, until you need them to protect you. I suspect most who
find them pesky are wanting to take some advantage that is being denied
them.
>
> > >
> > >Today, we see the old southern plantation as a straw man, rightly
> > >or wrongly. (from oversimplification)
> >
> > Well it depends. There are still pockets in the south that are "old
>south"
> > but with the Interstate highways' homogenizing effects you're right.
> >
>
>It was intended as an oversimplification, to ask why it is "intellectually
>moral" to free someone from slavery, but only a "social moral issue" to
>keep
>the Tijuanese labor force impoverished (evidence: rates of pay so low
>families
>can't afford clean water).
So was my answer. The "old south" didn't die with the end of the Civil War.
Those social patterns still exist although not as blatantly as once. Those
patterns are what is keeping the Tijuanese labor force impoverished but they
will fade away in time. IMO.
>
>Are guns the only weapon the intellectual level as weapons that can
>keep others enslaved?
No. But the MOQ says the pencil is mightier than the pen.
>
>
> > > > By the current capitalist dialogue, and everything you have said
>thus
> > >far,
> > >they
> > > > maximized profit and contributed to many plantation owners "personal
> > >freedom".
> > > > It boosted the economy of the area, raised many whites out of
>poverty,
> > > > bolstered the foreign trade and brought work to many tangent
>business
> > > > operations (shipping and fabric dying).
> >
> > Hmm, now. But it did so on the back of an oppressed people. You neglect
>to
> > mention that.
> >
>
>I did mention that, it was my point. So is maximizing profit on the back of
>an
>oppressed people intellectually morally wrong? How is that not what Coke is
>doing in Tijuana?
It may have been your point but it seems to me that you're picking and
choosing your poison. It may be a terrible thing what's happening in
Tijuana, I don't know. But I suspect it will not change until the workers
there unite and force the owners to pay them more.
>
>
> > >
> > > >The "immorality" or "morality" of
> > > > slavery is a static social issue, is it not?
> >
> > No. Slavery would seem an affront to the intellect, social, and
>biological
> > slave. Slavery would seem to be an affront to the conscientious owner as
> > well, though perhaps only socially and intellectually. That biological
>drive
> > though...
> >
>
>Of course if would affront all levels from the slaves point. But here you
>make a
>curious statement. "Conscientious". Two points:
>
>(1) It seems to me some have argued that "conscientious" is a stifling
>social
>layer of out-dated morality. Why is being concerned about the treatment of
>the
>slaves "conscientious", but concerned about the treatment of the Tijuanaese
>"socialist"?
It is not.
>
>(2) Explain why we should have restricted the personal freedom of those who
>did
>not feel slavery was a social or intellectual affront. I would guess this
>was
>the majority, or else the system would have collapsed from within, no?
I'm not sure what you mean. I was using the MOQ to attempt an analyzation of
slavery. The MOQ didn't exist a hundred and fifty years ago. The system DID
collapse from within if you think about it.
Thank you for your comments,
Dan
_________________________________________________________________
Get fast, reliable Internet access with MSN 9 Dial-up – now 2 months FREE!
http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 12 2004 - 19:25:38 BST