Hi Marco:
> Marco:
> Sorry, but would you like to quote where I've written that someone has the right
> to claim "a portion of the productive work of another". That's incredible!
> Unless you think that taxation is a always robbery.. (anyway in this case
> there is no "someone").
You keep talking about providing "equal opportunity" as a way for
intellect to dominate society. Perhaps you would like to tell us exactly
what you mean by equal opportunity and how you propose to bring it
about without forcing anyone to do anything. Any scheme to take
money from one group to provide equal opportunity to another group by
means of taxation is thinly disguised robbery. The fact that a majority of
people vote to line their pockets from a minority of wealthy people
doesn't change the basic theft involved. What I fear is that you want to
use the legal force of government (i.e. police) to back up your
intellectually driven Utopian plans for society. Just assure me that all
your plans for the intellectual dominance of society will be voluntary and
our debate will be ended and we can join hands to go forward together.
>> The only rule that holds in a
> > free market, whether a market of goods or of ideas, is freedom from
> > government interference. That's the definition of "free market."
> And your definition of free market is IMO absurd. Example. We make a deal: you
> sell me your Ferrari in change of 100,000 USD. I pay you with false dollars. You
> denounce me and I rightly get enclosed in a Siberian Gulag :-) Is this
> application of the law an immoral influence of the government? The market is a
> set of rules, written or not it doesn't matter. An unruled market is a nonsense.
> Then, we can argue to what extent the static rules have to influence the
> dynamism of the market. The perfect balance of static and dynamic is not very
> easy.
By "government interference" I mean government stepping into to say what
kind of cars Ferrari can build, who can buy them, what the price should
be, etc. But punishing you for robbing me is a legitmate function of
government, although I must say I might be too embarassed to call in
the Feds for being so stupid to take counterfeit money from you without
knowing where you live--if you get my drift.
> Marco:
> > > Everything gets more clear. That's why you take money as the only parameter.
> > > Actually, I say "equal opportunities" and you read "equal salary"; I say
> > > "colonialism" and you read that I suggest that the natives should
> appropriate
> > > the property of another. I say it is a sort of MOQ blasphemy to state that
> > > money can measure art, and you don't answer.
> Platt:
> > When we're speaking of markets--the buying and selling of goods and
> > services--I know of no other medium of exhange besides money that
> > preserves dynamic freedom. What's the alternative? A government
> > bureaucrat determining that the food I've worked hard to put on my
> > table belongs to somebody else? I don't know where in the MOQ you
> > find the basis for distributing the products of intellect and labor by
> > government edict. As I've asked before, how to you propose to provide
> > "equal opportunity" by means other than force? Do you think it's
> > possible to persuade the masses to become Christian monks and
> > nuns?
> I don't deny the role of money. It's the blood of the Giant. It ensures the life
> of the society. But, also, I don't think that taxation is a rubbery. IMO a
> taxation IS moral, up to the extent it does not destroy the market, and IF the
> government uses money to ensure equal opportunities (not equal salary, read well
> please! ) to people. An example of equal opportunity is a free school for all
> the children. Free does not mean necessarily public. It can also be a private
> school, so there can even be competition and pluralism; but IMO it is moral that
> the nation pays the school (in part, at least) for all the children,
> independently of the richness of the family.
Yes, we can agree that taxation for the purposes of providing free
education, public and private, is necessary to maintain the social level
although education is no guarantee of a quality society, witness the
Hitler Youth. (Did Mussolini have a similar cadre?) The real question is:
what will the government system teach? Probably that government is
wonderful. And therein lies the danger, as I'm sure you know from Italian
history.
> > As for the value of art, I value a crayon painting by my grandchild as
> > priceless. But you wouldn't give me a Europenny for it. So the market
> > value of that particular piece of art is zero. Money measures the market
> > value of an artwork, not its value to you or me personally. If you ask me
> > what's the value of painting by Jasper Johns, I would say two cents
> > whereas in the market his paintings are worth millions. But by what
> > right do I have to impose my art valuations on others through some tax-
> > supported government art council? None that I can find in the MOQ.
> > Do you think the MOQ decrees that government should support the
> > work of some artists and not others?
>
> Again the fixation of the government! I have said, and I repeat, that in order
> to be artist, money can't be the main goal. I've said that by means of money you
> can possess a masterpiece (and there's nothing wrong in it), but you are not an
> artist.
Ah, but I am. I have sold some of my paintings. I'll be glad to show you
some of my work by attachments to personal e-mail if you wish.
> Ok. A SOM based intellect is a danger. Nazism and communism are a danger. What
> you are failing to see, IMHO, is the simple fact that Nazism and Communism are
> mainly social patterns. Right, Communism arises from the intellectual idea of
> equality, but then it became merely another social pattern. I read here a
> certain confusion between intelligence and intellectual level. Of course Nazis
> and Marxists were intelligent, but it does not mean that Nazism belongs to the
> intellectual level.
>
> But, if you agree that market is a social pattern (and, by definition, a free
> market is more dynamic than a controlled market), I really don't understand why
> ANY hypothesis about an even weak intellectual control over the market is wrong
> per se. Like to say that to build a city is immoral if you destroy a jungle.
> Society over biology is moral, if only the society does not destroy the
> ecosystem; similarly, I guess the intellect over the social (market included)
> can be moral, if only it does not destroy the economic system.
As I said above, I have no problem with intellectual control over the
market so long as it's voluntary and does not use the police whose
basic and legitmate moral function is to keep the biological level at bay.
While I'm sure you think I'm paranoid about government, I would think
you and others calling Europe their home would be even more so after
living through (and seeing millions slaughtered) in recent history.
We here in the states are very conscious of what governments are
capable of doing in the name of "the public good," especially after losing
so many of our own in two world wars. The joke here is "I'm from the
Internal Revenue Service and I'm here to help you." To remain free, and
avoid the wars that bloodied the 20th century, we must be ever vigilent
against government incursion into our lives.
I will now climb down from the pulpit and wish you fortuna.
Platt
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 - 16:01:21 BST