Platt and MOQonomists:
Platt said:
You might start the conversation by specifying those human rights that
are not already protected by U.S. law.
DMB...
Maybe its better, in this context, to talk about rights as a principle.
Besides, the rights already protected by law are adequate. I only wish they
were more rigorously and consistently protected in real life, as it really
goes down in the streets, so to speak. But for our purposes, to try to
imagine the kind of political economy that is agrees with and is consistent
with the MOQ, maybe we could just start by agreeing that rights can't be
trumped. Perhaps they have to be balanced out by other rights and
principles, but NOTHING from the third level of values can rightly be given
a greater priority or higher place. Maybe we can begin by agreeing that
rights have to come first because they protect the evolutionary process
itself.
Platt said:
Speaking of blunders and selective quotes, how come you saw fit to
omit what Pirsig pointed out was the defect in socialism?
"But what the socialists left out and what has all but killed their whole
undertaking is an absence of a concept of indefinite Dynamic Quality.
You go to any socialist city and it's always a dull place because there's
little Dynamic Quality." (Chap. 17)
DMB...
Since I selected no quotes at all, its completely unfair to suggest that I
was trying to hide something or be selective in any way. Besides, I have
used that quote here in recent weeks. On top of that I metioned this same
idea in my own words, saying that DQ was something "that economists never
really understood". It applies to both capitalists and socialists because
they're both tainted by a SOM understanding. They're equally materialistic
and therefore inadequate. Can we agree that the goal here is to try to
imagine a system that includes a concept of DQ? Can we agree that the MOQ
fixes the flaw that afflicts them both.
Platt:
I can readily accept why conservatives have no clue why capitalism is
so good, as Pirsig explains. But, perhaps you can't accept the pain of
knowing your precious socialism is fatally flawed and morally deficient.
But, if you look for relief from your pain in Canada or Great Britain under
their socialistic health systems, be prepared to get in line for a long
wait.
DMB says...
I have no trouble accepting or understanding the flaw, but again, the same
flaw afflicts them both. Still, one is better than the other because they're
not on the same static level. The equation is simple. Four is greater than
three. (4>3) If the SOM flaw remains the equation remains the same.
(SOM4>SOM3) And if the flaw is fixed the equation remians the same.
(MOQ4>MOQ3) No matter how you slice it Socialisms are morally superior
because they are intellectually directed. Now matter how you dice it
Capitalism is morally deficient because its not, its a third level creature.
Standing in line is a headache and an inconvenience but I hardly think that
its an inherent feature of intellectually directed systems. I hardly think
its a good enough reason to defy the logic of the MOQ. Ever stand in line at
the grocery store, an amusement park or a ball game? If you want to rely on
anecdotes... Last summer it took me 6 weeks to get an appointment, and I had
to make lots of noise to get it that "fast". They took pictures and asked me
to wait another three week. When I finally saw the doctor I found out they'd
lost the x-rays before he ever even saw them and I was frighten away by his
apparent incompetence. He admitted he didn't know much about my ailment and
never treated it before. McMedicine has its problems too. I should add that
you always get into MOQ trouble when you introduce these Limbaughesqe
talking points. There are very good reasons why such things don't fit. (4>3)
Platt said:
Also, ever since England banned private ownership of hand guns,
crime has skyrocketed. Will do-gooders ever learn?
DMB says...
I understand the reasoning behind these talking points, but you present them
as mere slogans. Again, this is what gets you in MOQ trouble. But I'll take
these points seriously for a moment... I've got no problem with the second
amendment. The trouble is with the more bizzare interpretations presented by
the gun lobby. There's an anti-government, "I'll take the law into my own
hands" kind of ideology that is strongly associated with organizations like
the NRA. There is even some overlap between their views and the neo-fascist
militia groups. These reactionary views are not consistent with the MOQ's
conception of rights. This mindset tends to value the law of the jungle over
the society's laws and is rabidly anti-intellectual to boot. So, in the real
world, the rights contained in the second amendment have been corrupted and
disorted into third and even second level value system. The anti-do-gooder
attitudes are equally tangled up in goo.
Thanks for your time,
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 - 16:02:01 BST