From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Mon May 16 2005 - 13:21:44 BST
Hi Mark,
Working through some of your points. I'm going to try and be ruthless about
snipping points that I don't think are crucial. If you disagree, please
raise a point again and I'll deal with it.
> msh says:
> There's also a difference between Rand/GWB and Chomksy in that
> Chomsky is clearly further along the path to being a fully-realized
> human being (FRH). And, for clarification, I see no problem with
> small-scale "for-profit" operations, the corner mom-and-pops whose
> influence does not extend beyond the communities they serve. Such
> stores tend to be responsive to the needs of their communities
> because, if they are not, they will go out of business. These I
> exclude from my definition of capitalism.
I'll deal with the FRH questions separately (although Matt has been making a
number of points that I agree with). Where we are going to be going around
in circles is about your definition of capitalism, which excludes the
'corner mom-and-pops'. I've given an understanding of capitalism, derived
from de Soto, which I think is a) detailed and coherent, b) maps onto the
MoQ quite nicely, and c) includes mom-and-pops, shanty towns and IBM. Can
you please expand on your definition of capitalism, so that we can engage in
some comparisons under those three areas. Otherwise we're just being
rhetorical, in a bad way.
> sam:
> The Randian point of view would, I think, envision capitalism
> differently, and more along the lines that de Soto describes. In
> other words, capitalism is the product of a congruence of laws and
> customs that enable free and stable transactions to take place. So,
> private property first and foremost, but also the various legal
> protections for contract, the practice of civility and trust, civil
> society as such, all these things form the context within which
> capitalism can develop.
>
> msh:
> This again is an unrealistic understanding of how and why capitalism
> works, and for whom. Furthermore, it forgets the role of the FRH.
> Although the "congruence of laws and customs that enable free and
> stable transactions to take place" might be necessary for a smooth-
> running society, these things do not axiomatically give rise to
> capitalism. Many non-FRH must be in positions of influence in order
> for capitalism to arise, AT ALL.
Well, this all depends upon your definition of capitalism (as yet undefined
publicly) vis a vis the one that I have shared. I don't think we're getting
anywhere with that.
> sam:
> Now from what you have said recently and in the further past, (and
> from Chomsky) I would guess that the political questions are foremost
> in your mind. In other words, if we allow the unrestricted freedom to
> trade etc, then we are fixing the division of property that exists at
> the present moment, and therefore entrenching an inequality that was
> built upon violence and exploitation in the more or less recent past.
>
> msh:
> Yes. Except that I believe that capitalism would not arise in a
> world of mostly FRH. So, IMO, the FRH would not be interested in
> fixing the current inequities, in order to turn capitalism loose,
> thinking that pure capitalism would then keep things on an even keel.
> An FRH understands that exploitation of inequality is built into the
> nature of capitalism and, therefore, that capitalism is hopeless as
> an FRH-sponsored form of socio-economic organization.
I think we need to keep in mind a distinction between the "original sin" (eg
of enclosures) and the nature of the present economic order. So, to use one
of de Soto's examples, a person who builds a house (on public land), and who
then runs a business from it - whilst they might have some sort of 'genetic'
taint coming down to them from whatever sins were committed a few hundred
years previously, is their present work something to be repudiated as built
upon exploitation?
> sam:
> Thomas Sowell, a writer I've mentioned to you before, wrote a book
> called 'The vision of the anointed' looking in some detail at this
> conception, and contrasting it with what he called the 'tragic
> vision', which sees human nature as irretrievably compromised.
> So the political contest is between those who would change human
> institutions in order to remove barriers to human self-realisation
> and expression, and those who wish to preserve human institutions due
> to a desire to respect their hard-earned workability in the light of
> human experience.
>
> msh says:
> Oops... may be a bit of Freudian slip showing... Who's hard-earned
> workability is being questioned: the institutions, or the humans who
> favor them? The viability of most powerful institutions is highly
> questionable, except to the humans who benefit from them.
The rule of law, first and foremost, as the 'human institution' which
safeguards the weakest members of society. Platt listed various elements of
those institutions a while back, a post which seems to have been generally
agreed with.
More concretely, there is a network of institutions relating to habeas
corpus and the right to trial by jury etc which are currently being
undermined in the UK, because of various "good ideas" in the governing
class. Those are what I'm talking about.
Sam
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 May 16 2005 - 14:31:27 BST