From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Wed Dec 03 2003 - 15:22:34 GMT
Hi Mark,
> Hello Platt,
> As a socialist myself, it may surprise you to hear that i agree with
> what you are saying. As a capitalist yourself, i feel sure you find
> those who kill in order to make capital abhorrent? How do capitalists
> kill? Well, if we multiply all those who died in the Twin towers by a
> factor of 100, then we arrive closer to the sum of people who died from
> smoking related diseases every year for the last couple of decades due
> to the capitalist exploitation of biological value. i.e. Tobacco.
>
> Also, the first crop to be genetically modified in order to enhance its
> yield was in fact tobacco (in the US); not to feed people, but to
> satisfy the production of capital. Yes, Hitler was off his chump, but
> surely capitalism persuades people they want something they don't need,
> traps people who need what they don't want, and then sells it to them!
>
> It is easy to identify a socialist killer, but rather less easy to
> identify a capitalist legal purveyor of harm maybe?
Consider the aesthetics of the following scenarios:
Scenario 1: You walk into a store, buy a pack of cigarettes, light up,
inhale the smoke and enjoy a pleasurable experience.
Scenario 2: You're taken from your home in the middle of the night,
thrown into a boxcar, forced to strip, pushed into a shower room,
inhale poison gas and suffer termination of all your experiences
forever.
The scenarios illustrate that there isn't a single capitalist who has
the power of the lowliest government bureaucrat because, as Mao
observed, "Political power growns out of the barrel of a gun." Until
capitalists can force you to buy their products by putting a pistol to
your head, the aesthetic comparison between socialists and capitalists
is like comparing an M240B machine gun with a Michelangelo.
Socialists and other proponents of big government do a splendid job of
covering up the brutal nature of their power by hiding it under the
cover of "doing good." Without exception every authoritarian ruler
gained control by appealing to the "public interest" or the "greater
good of all." But on an aesthetic scale, the collective interest is
nothing compared to individual liberty. As Pirsig so rightly points out
in describing Dynamic Quality, "Its only perceived good is freedom and
its only perceived evil is static quality," reflecting his later
explanation of why socialist cities are "always dull" places.
You and I are champions of the aesthetic nature of the MOQ. Neither of
us would tolerate some no-nothing bureaucrat hired under an affirmative
action plan telling a Jamie Wyeth what he should paint, or a Yefrim
Bronfman what piano works he should play. So the question is, why
should we tolerate any bureaucrat or politician telling you or me what
to do or how we should spend our money? Why should we allow anyone to
violate our aesthetic natures? Or, our next door neighbor's?
So I appeal to you on aesthetic grounds to renounce the whips, guns and
concentration camps of socialism and instead turn your considerable
aesthetic and intellectual powers to promote Dynamic Quality freedom.
And thank goodness you don't have to wait around for any
"intersubjective agreement" to make the change. As Pirsig said, "A
tribe can changes its values only person by person and someone has to
be first." In other words, individuals change things for the better,
not street mobs.
Best regards,
Platt
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 : Wed Dec 03 2003 - 15:22:25 GMT