Hi Rog,
glad to see your response.
You noted I had written,
> ....(snip).... One primary reason (not the only
> one) for the negative sentiment is the gross imblances that I had
referred
> to in my prior post.
>
> ROG:
> Back to my metaphor, you clearly do not approve of rape. I see this. But
> you do blame the woman for bringing it on. That is what I said, and that
is
> clearly what you repeat above.
At least you see I don't approve of rape (I was getting worried). A woman
who dresses provocatively can arouse men, but the man can choose from
several options. If, God forbid, he 'chooses' rape, the woman is certainly
not to blame for his actions. Similarly, if America is causing gross
imbalances and terrorists choose to murder, America is certainly not to
blame for the crimes.
But the analogy breaks down. A woman dressing provocatively is certainly not
causing harm whereas American activity that brings forth gross imbalances
can be a source of harm, at least in my view. Let's continue with the
analogy, as there are portions that hold well, so I can better clarify my
position.
The rapist can be stirred by the provocation and to suggest this is not the
case would be absurd. Equally absurd is suggesting she brought it on; what
brought it on is a severely unfortunate choice made by the rapist.
The terrorist can be stirred by the gross-imbances and to suggest this is
not the case is certainly arguable, but in my view it is at least an
important factor. To suggest America brought on the murders because of the
gross imbalances is a defective argument. What brought it on was a severely
unfortunate choice made by the terrorists.
It is here that the divergence in the analogy becomes important. On one hand
the manner of dress causes no harm but on the other hand the American
activity that helps create gross-imbalances arguably can. This American
activity can arguably stirr terrorists but does not justify terrorist
activity. In that the activity that leads to gross imbalances, in my view,
is not necessary to our pursuit of freedom I don't see why we don't work to
reduce the imbalance, especially when the reduction might very well enhance
freedom.
> ROG:
> The success of modern society is fueled to a great extent by the unlimited
> freedom to succeed as long as it stays within the prescribed bounds (the
rule
> of law). I agree that gross imbalances can foster very unhealthy power
> imbalances that can lead to exploitation. I also agree that the weak must
be
> protected from the strong and that some of the wealth of the rich can and
> should be used as a social safety net for all.
OK, but the rule of law has some limitations. The bounds need to also come
from within. Right now I think we are out of bounds.
> However, I don't think the problem is success, it is failure. My goal --
and
> one that America in general tends to try to practice -- is to export
recipes
> for others to create similar wealth, freedom, health etc. (However, I am
> sure this would just be used by forum members to prove our arrogance. We
can
> either keep fishing ourselves and be more successful than others and get
> their resentment, or we can teach them to fish and get accused of
arrogance.
> Such is life.)
I don't sense we are quite that kind, except in using cheap foreign labor.
And the exportation of our industrial recipes are a recipe for an even more
polluted world. Al Gore's Earth in The Balance discusses some of these
issues wherein countries who attempt greater industrialization begin with
inefficient factories and continue with such due to economic pressures to
compete. The cost is to the environment. At the rate of current resource
consumption and with another 3 billion babies to add to our current 6
billion over the next 50 years, we cannot possibly sustain this current
industrial model.
>
> A fundamental point that you seem to ignore is that wealth, health,
> technology and knowledge are not (primarily) re-apportioned, they are
> CREATED. The solution to imbalance is to show others how to create it. If
> they choose to not follow the recipe, and they very well might not, they
> better be prepared to live with the results though. You seem to preach
> equality by bringing everyone down to a common denominator. Platt and I
> preach bringing everyone up.
I don't recall preaching equality by bringing everyone down. No, I agree
with bringing everyone up. Greater balance will engender greater freedom for
everyone.
>
> Please clarify the platypus, and whether it is ours or a problem of that
> silly collectivist theory. (That has been buried, to paraphrase GWB , in
an
> unmarked grave of discarded lies. But perhaps you missed the obituary?)
I'm afraid I missed the birth and the obituary, I'd have to learn what is
meant by this collectivist theory (point the way and I'll read up on it).
The platypus is the gross-imbalance-elephant sitting on top of the beautiful
ideas of freedom. He's munching on something ... can't quite make out what
it is...
>
> As for the environment, I assure you that I am extremely concerned with
> environmental destruction and depletion. This must be solved. I reject
> economic suppression as a solution, of course. Lets not go off on that
> tangent though.
Agreed. I'm curious, how do you see environmental destruction and depletion
in an MOQ context?
>
> ED:
> My argument is not that economic inequality is justification for mass
murder
> (not that you necessarily suggested mine was), but that gross imbalances
are
> not necessary to the pursuit of freedom and may actually serve to reduce
it.
> It is certainly not our role to succumb to blackmail, but rather to
promote
> greater balance. I don't think we can easily ignore this issue.
> Why not reduce these tremendous imbalances? It may be a quality activity
> that promotes greater freedom.
>
> ROG:
> I agree if it means teaching others how to fish. What do YOU MEAN?
Good question. Teaching others to fish is certainly a primary part of it.
But my concern is also the model we are currently using, as I alluded to
above. As a start, on an economic perspective, would be the Small is
Beautiful - Economics as If People Mattered book I referred to previously.
And the MOQ may be able to help prioritize how we apply our resources; I
think what we are culturally trained to value will differ markedly from what
the MOQ might suggest.
Ed
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 - 16:01:31 BST