From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Tue Jul 13 2004 - 16:27:08 BST
Arlo,
> No, they are not your terms Platt, they are my labels for your dichotomy.
Your labels don't jibe with my meanings. You assume what's not in
evidence.
> Since I've claimed repeatedly that I favor free-enterprise, this leads me
> to believe that you absolutley equate the ideal of free-enterprise with
> whatever-we-have-now. The two are indistinguishable and inseparable for
> you. If this is a mischaracterization, please explain how.
Free-enterprise or capitalism as I use it means "an economic system
characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by
investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices,
production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by
competition in a free market." (Merriman -Webster Online Dictionary)
That is NOT what we have now. We have a "mixed economy" in which
government interferes in private ownership, private decisions and the free
market. But, compared to socialist countries in Canada, Europe and
elsewhere, what we have now offers more freedom from government intrusions
than the alternatives.
> (2) Pirsig comments on "socialism" saying, "But what the
> socialists left out and what has all but killed their whole undertaking is
> an absence of a concept of indefinite Dynamic Quality You go to any
> socialist city and it's always a dull place because there's little Dynamic
> Quality."
>
> I think this is quite obvious that he's talking about easter-bloc socialist
> countries. How could he possibly been talking about, say, Montreal or
> Muenchen or Kobenhavn, or Malmo... or Madrid, Quebec or London. I can tell
> you firsthand, I've been to all these cities... they are not "dull places",
> they are very vibrant and alive. Denmark's economy is hardly "all but
> killed".
I've also been to many of those places and in my experience they are
definitely "dull" compared to NYC. Anyway, Eastern-bloc countries were
communist, not socialist, unless you consider the two terms
interchangeable.
> Kindly explain to me how you are more free than a Dane? Or a Canadian? I am
> truly interested to know. What is it that you can do here, that you could
> not do there?
I'm able to keep more of my own money.
> > > Because I am critical of your unrestricted personal freedoms to
> > > maximize profit at any cost, I am critical of freedom in general. I
> > > support the laws that restrict my ability to kill, drive drunk or
> > > slander others. Does this make me any enemy of freedom too?
> >
> > No. It makes you an enemy of biological values.
> >
>
> Do you support removing these regulations from society then? Or are they
> necessary?
There's a distinction between laws and regulations. I'm in favor of
removing most regulations, but realize it will never happen so long as
people look to others to solve their problems, refusing to take
responsibility for their bad decisions..
> Soooo... being for a level playing field means I don't really support
> free-markets? Do you mean that it's better to be simply straight for "free
> markets" whether or not the playing field is level or not? Is that what you
> are saying?
I've asked you to define "level playing field" and how you would accomplish it.
Until we have a common understanding of that, a discussion would be fruitless.
> But, I think a better way (perhaps ideal) to work towards a system that is
> not regulated by social codes, is to bring "what is good" into the
> dialogue. These "regulations" are only necessary because the dialogue does
> not consider the question "what is good?". If business did "what is good"
> before "maximizing profit", I bet these regulations (or most of them) would
> be fairly unnecessary. But since "doing Good" threatens "maximizing profit"
> (which has been mischaracterized as "earning profit" elsewhere), those who
> seek only money wish it's pursuit to be above "doing Good", and oppose the
> dialogue being expanded. Correct?
You can "expand the dialogue" all you want. I've no objection. Most
corporations can easily rationalize that they are "doing Good." Otherwise,
they'd be out of business. Governments also claim they are "doing Good,"
even as they slaughter millions. The difference is governments can and do
deliberately slaughter millions in the name of the public Good,
corporations can't and don't.
> As for other suggestions, such as improving labor to bring activity and
> product into relation, I advocated the Harley-Davidson example as a point
> to consider. I suggested offering financial incentives (the language you
> speak) to businesses that would restructure to provide a more involved
> labor force. I suggested possibly thinking of a way to promote the adoption
> of tying labor to profit, so the employee "earns" as the business earns
> (and does not when the business does not). And I've suggested that if the
> playing field were equal, then Pirsig's "more moral" employee-owned
> companies would be competitive and would be something we could promote.
You can promote "profit-sharing" all you want. I've no objection. But
again, I wonder what you mean by "level playing field" and how you would
accomplish it without regulations.
> And you mine. If you are against the "BUTS...", I take it would agree with
> the statements:
I'm not against the BUTS. But, they would clarify your position.
> Finally, you ommitted an answer to this question. I am curious...
>
> (1) Are you in favor of unrestricted free-enterprise, or do you feel there
> should be some social regulations, which many impede any one individual's
> personal freedom, but promotes a level-playing field for all? And, is there
> a line where your "personal freedom" to hurt, exploit or enslave others to
> "maximize profit" becomes unacceptable?
I'm in favor of free enterprise governed by the common law against lying,
stealing, cheating, killing and other biological-level behavior that if
left unchecked, can destroy society. I'm also in favor of constitutional
law that guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of the press, trial by
jury, private property, free markets and other protections for the unique
U.S. and Western culture. I enthusiastically endorse Pirsig's view that
"It's the freedom to be so awful that gives it the freedom to be so good."
(Lila, 17)
Platt
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 : Tue Jul 13 2004 - 16:25:41 BST