Dear Wim,
WIM:
You write "Not sure if I agree with the international
exploitation concept as primarily an issue of 'receipt of stolen
goods'." What do you think international exploitation is then?
For me exploitation is mainly local/national and international
exploitation is mainly a result of unfavorable terms of trade for
the South. These terms of trade are accepted by our trade
partners in the South because they can shift the burden to those
they exploit. This burden consists of working hard for miserable
wages and being at the mercy of world market conditions for
uncertain and temporary employment (as land and other means of
subsistence are monopolized by the elite).
ROG:
I believe, all things considered, that globalism is beneficial to all
parties. You already know my worries about the dangers of gross power
imbalances, but overall international firms in 3rd world countries pay more
on average than do local firms, they create jobs at a faster pace, and they
improve the lot of workers (per OECD studies). The people that get hurt are
those that are bypassed by globalization. BTW, I also support grass root
efforts to demand better wages and working conditions out of these
"sweatshops". (They do need to be cautious though, as higher than
competitive wages can force companies to avoid investing in 3rd world
countries and to reconsider which factories they keep open.)
As for "being at the mercy of market conditions," I would rather be at the
mercy of free enterprise and various (though limited) competing options for
employment or self employment than at the mercy of a government bureaucrat
forcing me to take it or leave it at the point of a gun. Wouldn't you agree?
WIM:
You wrote 17/9 21:15 -0400 "we are a very wealthy people .... due
to our values of ... freedom and creativity".
I suggest alternatively that you naturally value freedom and
creativity as you historically are a selection of greedy and
resourceful people from everywhere and that your wealth is simply
due to your flocking together AND to your valuing of wealth over
a lot of other things (a characteristic commonly called greed).
Maybe it is only natural for immigrants from mainly very poor
conditions given the opportunity to start a new life in a new
country to go on (over)valuing material wealth for a couple of
generations after having beaten their poverty and collectively to
create a pattern of values in which wealth is more central than
at average in the rest of the world.
I don't understand why you react facetiously to that suggestion
with "Yea, and teaching someone to fish can be called
'propagandizing youth to destroy the lives and freedom of our
gilled friends.'".
ROG:
A casual student of history would note that progress -- including
technological, health, wealth, intellectual, etc -- invariably comes out of
free and competitive environments where people have property rights and the
rights to their labors. Alternatively, centrally commanded, non fragmented,
non competitive societies invariably atrophe. This is, by the way, a central
concept of Jared Diamond's (and I notice of The Wealth of Nations -- I just
got my copy today). Your hypothesis that successful economies arise from the
flocking of the greedy seems kind of silly, though I am sure their must be a
bit of truth to it.
I continue to imagine Marxist leanings in your attempt to undermine the
freedom to pursue ones interests as one sees fit by labeling it as GREED.
The word implies unnatural, harmful or excessive focus on self over others.
This completely distorts the true value of free enterprise, which is that to
make money, you basically have to offer your self to the service of others.
You have to make something or do something that others value and will pay you
for. Free enterprise requires people voluntarily cooperating with each other
in ways that benefit both parties.
I work 40 hours because I value the reward more than my time.
My company pays me because they value my contributions greater than the money
My company makes products (with my help) that consumers value more than the
cost they pay for it
So on and so on...
The brilliance of free enterprise is that it uses a distributed control
process that is extremely dynamic and responsive to local conditions and
values. Free enterprise does assume people know best how to establish values
and goals, and it is extremely opposed to INTELLECTUALS that purport to know
better than everyone else what is the correct and incorrect amount of self
interest.
Dismissing drive and ambition and success as GREED is a frequent Marxist
technique to lull the supposedly dumb masses into agreement (Greed is bad!
Let's get the greedy ones!) prior to removing everyone's freedom to establish
their own values. And this gets right to the heart of why the MOQ, and
Pirsig, rejected Marxism. Collectivism forces the individuals to discard
their values and freedoms and intellectual creativity in subserviance to the
unquestionable master plan. Furthermore, collectivism is an utter and
complete failure. It has worked nowhere. Therefore it fails another critical
measure of value... empirical validation.
Sorry if I am rambling, as I notice that YOU aren't actually suggesting any
of these things that I am getting riled up over.... Do forgive me.
WIM:
Game theory (as far as I know it) only presents models for
biological patterns of values. As long as the possibility to
identify with a group isn't part of a theory, it can't be a model
for a social pattern of values and as long as the possibility to
identify with ideals or systems of ideas isn't included, it can't
be a model for an intellectual pattern of value. Game theory as a
basis or morality (which you -I'm glad- don't propose) implies
gross reductionism.
ROG:
No, actually game theory (created by Von Neuman and others) was designed to
help model social and economic and military strategy. As for your statement
that it can't be a model for an intellectual pattern of value, I would
counter that it is BY DEFINITION an intellectual pattern of value. That's
what strategic models are.
The point of Tit for Tat is that you should try to cooperate and encourage
cooperation, and try to discourage exploitation. It does seem to be inherent
in our biological values of sense of justice and sense of fair play, and it
does seem to be manifested in social norms and mores such as "treat others
like you want to be treated" and "an eye for an eye." I don't see how game
theory as a basis for morality implies gross reductionism. I agree that
setting morals based upon what is biologically or culturally ingrained in us
is would imply THE NATURALIST FALLACY. However, the theory (established by
Axelrod) isn't that we should do it because it is ingrained in us, it is that
we should strongly consider doing it because it works so well, and that we
should indeed expect to see it evolve naturally in complex biological and
social creatures such as ourselves. In other words, the value of Tit-for-Tat
is in its simplicity and effectiveness at making the world a more cooperative
place. Its value is a moral value.
With greetings back to you!
Rog
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 - 16:01:32 BST