Hey Squonk!
Thanks for the quick response. Oh! Before I forget, please get me your
input on my Middle East test.
>If you have a better alternative to free enterprise, please feel free to
>explain. But may I suggest you do it in ways that don't dismiss others'
>competence to decide for themselves. We aren't zombies, and we don't need
>intellectuals protecting us from our own will.
S:
You may be presenting the, 'Creative consumerism' stance here, or that of
the, 'active consumer.'
This basically says that although you can be fed consumer items it is up to
you how you utilise them.
Fair enough but you are still consuming.
R:
Nope, I am just giving the stance of someone that is familiar with how
economics works in the real world.
S:
Freedom to do X, Y or Z does not necessarily make X, Y or Z moral.
R:
Of course not, but you never presented any argument on why it is immoral.
Considering that you are the one that (apparently) wants to limit other's
freedom (to engage in free enterprise), I think the moral and intellectual
burden is on you.
>As for biodiversity, I am a fan of this as well. Modern
>economies and science are the only way to protect biodiversity from the
>ravages of 6 billion people.
S:
Well, it better get a move on because it does not appear to be working?
In fact, one may prefer to concede that Modern economies are doing the damage
in the first place?
R:
Nope. The modern cultures are able to invest in maintaining and protecting
their environments, and with replacing deforestation with renewable tree
farms. The biggest immediate problem is in the loss of our rainforests in
predominately underdeveloped areas. These are being clearcut for farmlandor
used for timber or firewood. We need to protect the rainforests from such
short term exploitation. (In a way, you are indirectly correct in blaming
modern society -- the overpopulation in underdeveloped nations came about due
to the dramatic drop in death rates -- without changing birth rates --
courtesy of modern medicine. Of course, i am sure you wouldn't offer child
mortality as a good solution to saving the wildlife). Interestingly, the
major mammalian/bird extinction of the past 20,000 years came when
hunter/gatherers crossed into new continents and islands.
>A tenet of higher level patterns is a little thing called empiricism. This
>means that we don't do any intellectual idea, we do SUCCESSFUL, PROVEN
>intellectual ideas. Bad ideas are discarded. True socialism is absurdly
>unsuccessful, and violates virtually all current theories on successful
>management of complex dynamic systems. If you want to argue as being on the
>side of intellect, I propose you get out of the 19th century and into the
>21st. Just a suggestion though!
S:
True socialism, as you call it, would be an ideal paradigm and i do not
believe we have yet to see anything closely approximating that as having been
attempted yet?
I am not sure if it would work anyway; people are not that benevolent.
R:
What are you suggesting then? Shouldn't you suggest a better solution,
rather than just say that we shouldn't buy and shouldn't harm mother earth?
S:
As for managing dynamic systems?
That's a contradiction in terms; dynamic systems can't be managed without
losing dynamism?
R:
You are a complex dynamic system. Our economy is one as well. Complex
dynamic systems indeed must not be overly managed, and they usually benefit
from distributed control rather than solely being under centralized command.
For example, most functions of your body work with no central direction (your
immune system, your liver, etc), however, there is a level of central command
for you to take higher level control. Similarly, Trenton, New Jersey alway
has food and water and other necessities without anybody coordinating the
overall economy. It is an emergent system based upon millions of independent
agents buying, selling, employing, etc along with a small degree of economic
oversight.
S:
I feel there may be a moral justification for 'dampening' dynamic systems if
in doing so one frees up a higher level of value. That's what socialism, for
me, is about.
R:
Hmmm. I suggest you study the field before tossing out half-baked ideas. I
DO agree though that unrestrained capitalism is disfunctional too.
Successful cultures invariably manage the economy in ways that focus on
protecting and even "turbo-charging"its dynamism, yet that also protect the
environment and the weak from exploitation.
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 - 16:02:10 BST