From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Sun Jul 11 2004 - 07:30:58 BST
Hi Dan,
> Thank you for taking your time to explain your position. My point is more
> along the lines of the road to hell is paved with good intentions. While a
> Christian might, I'm not sure a Buddhist would agree with you that doing
> good is something to be proud of. It's just the natural order of things.
> Addtionally, money is not what drove Mr. Fuller to comtemplate suicide. It
> was the loss of his dreams.
>
I know what you are saying, Dan. And I agree with Pirsig, and Platt, that
although more "moral", socialism- as it was instantiated- smothered DQ with
"good intentions".
But I do not think that is reason to remove "good" from a bottom-up discussion
of improving modern captitalism. That is, although "good" is problamatic when
imposed top-down, it is just as important in structuring the dialogue
bottom-up. Here I think I am full agreement with Pirsig.
I'm unsure as to the details of Fuller's life. Could he not have "done good" and
still been profitable enough to go on? I know "friends of friends" that
volunteer their labor and materials to help poor families build homes. At the
same time, they stay in business, and treat their employees (who are in some
cases their old classmates) decently. The decision they make, consciously, is
that "maximizing their profits at all costs" is secondary to doing community
work. Many small, local businesses do this. Certainly there is room for "doing
good" and staying in business?
> I think one alternative could be called middle class living. Mexico is the
> 10th largest economy in the world. As it grows even larger, eventually the
> factories doing business there will be forced to raise wages and something
> like the middle class that we have here in the US will emerge.
I appreciate your optimism here. I'm going to get back to you on this as it will
entail a longer writing than I am able to do at this late hour.
> Yet human nature seems to dictate that there will always be inequality.
Agreed.
Some
> want more than others. A Buddhist would say they are trapped in the temporal
> materialism that seems to run rampant these days.
>
How far we go with "wanting" to pursue material objects (including money) is a
personal, and should be- spiritual decision. How far I am able to hurt, enslave
or exploit others in pursuing my material desires is just what we are talking
about here.
> I happened to read an article about a fellow http://www.golfmongolia.com/
> who's golfing across Mongolia. He mentions how poor the people are there and
> yet how happy.
Golfing across Mongolia?! How interesting. I will definately check this one out.
By the way, if you've not read "Investment Biker", I'd recommend it to you. I
disagreed with the author (Jim Rogers) in many cases, but given your
inclinations I think you'd find it a worthwhile read. In IB, Jim and his
girlfriend Tabitha tour the world on some BMW machines, and along the way talk
economics. Anyways...
I bet (and I'll read the article tomorrow) they are happy because they are
involved in their own labor (likely agricultural), are able to participate in
community and local-cultural events, and feel like valuable contributors to
their local communities. Certainly I would agree that citizens of agrarian
cultures could be quite happy. Even without accumulating wealth.
So perhaps the problem with Coke doing business in Mexico
> isn't a matter of just money. Perhaps there are other factors to consider.
As I've suggested, ownership of one's labor and/or connection between one's
labor activity and product, being a valued contributor to one's local
community, through physical and/or intellectual labor, pride of one's work and
involvement in one's community, and a few to consider.
All these things are important to consider when pondering Mongolia, Tijuana or
any other area.
>
> I know you weren't indicating that I wasn't reading your posts. It just
> seemed to me that you and others aren't treating another member of the forum
> with the respect he deserves. I'm not sure what progress you hope to make
> but good luck and thank you for sharing your thoughts.
>
The only frustration I've had in the dialogue with Platt has been that many
things I've re-articulated across many posts seem to ignored (I've mentioned
several). I don't think I've disrespected him, and if I have then I publically
apologize. I enjoy the disagreements, it helps me solidify my thoughts and
opens my thinking to new ideas. But having to reclarify basic positions
(favoring free-markets, supporting wages being tied to labor practices, earning
money is ok it's just not the highest good, balance not socially regulated
uniformity...) because these positions did not seem to fall neatly into a
"modern capitalism" versus "evil" dichotomy was becoming unenjoyable. The
complete recasting of my comments on the Monomyth was about as far as I could
taket the reclarifying. It was frustration, not disrespect. At least it was
intended as such.
Arlo
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 : Sun Jul 11 2004 - 07:32:31 BST