Hi David B:
> 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.
That's the best non-answer I've seen in a long time. How can we
possibly talk about "rights" until we agree on what we're talking about?
> 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.
Only one has a flaw--socialism. It doesn't allow for DQ. That can be
easily fixed by getting rid of socialism and supporting free markets.
> 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.
> 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.
The "flaw" is not lack of recognition or understanding of DQ in the two
systems. The flaw is the lack of DQ in socialism. As such, it is a
morally inferior system, at a lower level than capitalism which is DQ
inclusive, making capitalism the preferred system under the "rebel"
DQ/sq intellectual framework of the MOQ. If you choose to stick to the
SO intellectual level and find it morally superior to the DQ/sq level, so
be it. Some of us have moved up.
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 - 16:02:03 BST