Hi Marco:
Our posts crossed in the mail, so I owe you a reply first.
> The superiority of capitalism over communism resides in the dynamism ensured by
> capitalism at the social level. So, I think it would be moral to have a dynamic
> form of intellect (more dynamic than SOM), as counterpart of the social
> dynamism, that, I'm pretty sure of it, causes also terrible damages, especially
> to those population that are not enough intellectually equipped to tame the
> capitalistic beast.
Beast? Since work performed by individuals and businesses furnishes
the funds to support socialistic programs through involuntary taxation,
the question of which system is more "beast-like" is debatable to say
the least. (About my gun comment--I ask you and Elephant what
happens to someone in your respective countries who gets caught
evading taxes? Isn't it a game in Italy to avoid taxes?)
> Only when the individuals (every single individual) will have the possibility to
> say "NO!", and the sageness to know when it is better to say "YES!", the
> intellectual level is established.
This sounds to me as if you know better than others what is "sage" and
what isn't. I'm sure you don't mean that, but many intellectuals,
especially in the academy, have this notion that they know better than
the average person what's good and what isn't. Such elitism can lead
to trouble, especially in a centrally controlled socialist system. The lust
for power is not found among capitalists alone. I fear social control
much more from intellectuals in positions of power in government than
from the creators and producers. Government, stripped of it's
benevolent clothes, is legalized force. Microsoft cannot torture people
or send them to the gulag.
> Platt wrote:
> > You propose that everyone "claim care." I know of no way to acheive
> > that goal without imposing force on someone. The beauty of the free
> > market is that if you are not getting the "care" you want from one place,
> > you go to another. Or start up your own business to provide the "care"
> > you can't get anywhere else.
>
> Yes, I think the individual has to claim care. Of course, care can't be really
> achieved imposing force. But also, I think it's really hard to BUY care with
> money. The excellence you can buy costs a lot, and it is high standard, not
> really excellence. As long as the logic is market driven, the main thought will
> be to keep low costs.
You can't buy excellence? And here I've been fooled into thinking my
Ferrari was an excellent car. Guess I'll dump it for a Yugo. And that
Renoir painting I bought. Out it goes Into the trash because it's "high
standard, not really excellence." You can tell I miss your point, Marco.
Can you rephrase it?
> Of course, if you are not getting the care you want, you can change the
> provider. This is the dynamism of the individual-buyer, and it's part of the
> solution. On the other hand, we have corporations, or governments (Giants), and
> they have completely different (economic and/or politic) purposes. The
> individual/giant struggle is evident *within* those giants. In too many cases,
> the member of the giant is a number, a piece of the puzzle. Good as long as
> useful for the goals of the giant. So there are low payments, minors working,
> death over the job, political corruption....
>
> How do we escape from all this? It's hard to say.
If you don't like your job, quit. Show a little gumption. In a free market,
that's possible. In a controlled economy?
> what I suggest, claiming care is not simply to oppose the menace to change the
> supplier. For example, we use to ask "How much does it cost" and not "What is
> the value of your solution". We are very glad to know we got a good vote at
> school, but we are not very used to ask our teachers for "What did I learn".
>
> These kind of questions shift the focus from the objective measurement of the
> product/service we are buying, to the quality they are giving to us. There's in
> them the power to *force* the other individuals to consider themselves as
> aRTists, more than members of a giant.
Please give more examples of the kinds of questions we should be
asking. I always thought money is a fair measure of quality in the
marketplace. If I value this product over that, or this school over that, I'm
willing to put my money where my mouth is. Do you propose a different
means of ascertaining and demonstatring individual values?
> After all, my utopia for the intellectual era is a world of artists.
Yes. And double yes. But I get real aesthetic pleasure from my Ferrari.
In fact, most of the products and services I buy from the grubby, selfish
capitalists contain an aesthetic element. I delight in the aesthetics at
the local supermarket--all those bright, attractive displays and
packages. I love to see all the alluring goods in the stores in the mall. I
thrill at the sight of skyscrapers and huge oil tankers and humming
electrical generating plants.
Yes, Marco. Let's push the aesthetic. On that we fully agree. When
something works well, you can feel it; there is a sense of rightness
about it. I call that rightness beauty. The people I admire most are
those who are obsessed with it.
Platt
P.S. I really don't own a Ferrari. Or a Renoir
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:20 BST