In a message dated 4/14/02 3:37:56 PM GMT Daylight Time, RISKYBIZ9@aol.com
writes:
<< Subj: Re: MD ignorance and the rule of emotion
Date: 4/14/02 3:37:56 PM GMT Daylight Time
From: RISKYBIZ9@aol.com
Sender: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
Reply-to: moq_discuss@moq.org
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Hi Squonk,
SQUONK:
Oh i see.
Economics works in the real world does it?
And what is more, you are familiar with it are you?
Like those who were familiar with it right up until the Wall street crash?
ROG
Yes, I can explain why it crashed too. It actually pertains to the
discussion
too -- once more proving that bad intervention can backfire.
You feel it may be possible to discriminate between bad and good intervention?
If intervention is out of the question then are you suggesting that economic
systems have a life of their own?
If one believes Humans to be of higher value than economic systems then one
may not wish to become a servile unit of an economy.
S:
I have tried to argue that economics is a social activity, and as such is
not
the highest value level in MOQ terms.
Reducing the real world to economics is a trend i find immoral.
R:
And your solution is 19th century "intellectually based" economics? You are
doing exactly what you say is immoral. As I pointed out earlier, you should
probably understand how complex systems work before you screw with them. The
intellectual level -- which has overwhelmingly blossomed in the very
societies which contradict your ideas -- emerges only out of a sound and
prosperous social level. Your ideas can actually undermine our intellectual
foundations.
Intellect emerges from curiosity and i would venture to suggest that
curiosity is not dependent upon economy.
Intellect did quite well for thousands of years before economic systems
developed and may have been more value centred at that?
One does not need a weather man to know which way the wind blows.
S:
It is a little arrogant of you to suggest that it was OK for the Forests of
the Southern US to be obliterated in order to develop but its not OK for
anyone else to do it?
R:
I don't know if it is arrogant, but I do Know I NEVER SUGGESTED such a thing.
I said that deforestation of rainforests harms biodiversity. I also said
that
advanced societies cultivate renewable "tree farms" that do not result in
deforestation. You were blaming free enterprise for declining biodiversity.
Truth is that it is some of the least developed, least free nations that are
doing most of the damage. However, to the extent that capitalism is
contributing to the problem (and i concede it is) then we need to address it
and protect rainforests -- and the people affected -- from clear cutting.
I, I, I?
I sometimes feel that is the calling card of US society: Me!
You decode texts with reference to your own ego and do not appear to value
your culture or society for there may be little there to admire?
S:
The problem is that [clearcutting]
was not such a good idea for the US to have done it in
the first place and its hardly surprising that the trend has spread with
alarming viciousness across the world as other nations have industrialised.
Food, shelter, family, love, care and a beautiful environment are life's
essentials don't you feel? Capitalists social structures have a rather
unpleasant way of removing these joys; life becomes a slave to the economy
with little time for enjoying life.
R:
Are you saying that there is less deforestation or harm to biodiversity or
environmental damage in socialist (or non-free enterprise) countries? The
Worldbank's environmental sustainability index flatly contradicts this.
Saudi Arabia, Haiti, Etiopia, China and India are much worse than Japan, UK,
US, Canada etc.
There are three types of lies:
1. Lies.
2. Damned lies.
3. Statistics.
As for your statement that free enterprise removes the joys of "Food,
shelter, family, love, care", I would like you to actually try to support
it.
Are you saying the old Soviet Union or Cuba or N. Korea rank better on any
of
these scales than the US or France? That must be why so many people are
trying to get into the latter surviving two. If you are instead giving some
type of "let's get back to nature and eat nuts and berries" solution, then I
challenge you to explain how to feed 6 billion people off hunting and
gathering. The result would be massive starvation, anarchy and again the
decimation of intellectual level. Or perhaps you mean something altogether
different? If so, please share...
My dear fellow, the world is full of starving and malnutrition while the
average American stuffs away so much excess food they wobble rather than walk.
You can sit there on your loathsome spotty behind with a smug grin on your
face, dude, but what about those dying for want of a bowl of rice?
Do you feel no shame?
S:
Environmental destruction is a serious matter.
R:
Yes, that is why you need to stop attacking the solution. I
repeat...intellectual solutions are EMPIRICAL. Your solutions are
idealistic
fantasies that blatantly ignore reality.
I am a bit of an idealist, yes.
That is why the world continually disappoints.
S:
With regard to socialism, i have merely suggested that planetary resources
are finite and require maintenance.
The details of that maintenance may involve a degree of restricted freedom.
R:
I am all for wisely and judiciously restricting behavior that damages our
environment. What does that have to do with socialism? What evidence do you
have that socialism even contributes to the solution? ('cause I have plenty
that it contributes to the problem)
History is full of mistakes, but that does not mean we may not be optimistic
about the future?
Trawling over what happened, when and why is useful to a degree, but are we
not better equipped now than ever before to learn and move on?
I would venture that socialism would perhaps only ever really work if society
stopped privileging the 'self' and began to realise that everything is
intimately, and possibly spiritually connected.
> Complex
>dynamic systems indeed must not be overly managed, and they usually benefit
>from distributed control rather than solely being under centralized
command.
S:
And those who cannot afford to pay their utility bills?
If basic utilities are so fundamental to the lives of citizens why make them
pay for them?
Why not put utilities under, errrr, central control?
R:
Because centrally commanding excessive degrees of a complex adaptive system
can lead to the system freezing up and grinding to a halt. Because extensive
centralized command assumes -- and effectively requires -- we all have the
same goals and values and requires the suppression of individual freedom
for
the collective goal. Because providing everything fundamental to individuals
eliminates much of their need to actually contribute to others.
Suppression of individual freedom is not such a dirty concept in my view.
If a collective goal was social welfare and happiness then we could get along
OK?
Squonk, you can't improve the world by repeating old mistakes. Please learn
about the nature of the thing which you are trying to improve. (and btw, in
the US, there are frequently rules on when you can and can'tt shut off
someone's utilities)
All this talk of adaptive systems and everything is all very well, but i am
not sure that adaptive systems should be allowed freedom to lock Humans into
servitude?
I suppose you're going to bang on about strange attractors, emergent
behaviour and Kosch curves next?
As for your rant on dynasties and toilet paper, you again miss the point.
The
issue isn't that free enterprise/democracy is perfect, it is that it is
better than anything else.
If you have any proof that another type of viable political/economic system
leads to more intellectually or emotionally fulfilled citizens, now is the
time to reveal it.
Tell all that to the Vietnam veteran sleeping on the street in California, or
the African Americans and Latinos being forced into the shitty jobs because
Mr. White dude's in charge?
Tell that to the women who never get to be president or have 50% of the vote
in the White house.
As for your comment that "people who have to work their lives away in order
to support them so a few greedy bastards can sit back and get to eat all the
pie?" I think it might help if I remind you that standards of living,
education, health, lifespan, internet connectivity, etc etc etc are all the
highest in the economies you criticize.
One cannot measure the quality of life by quantizing time and space.
And as a matter of fact, since you enjoy statistics so much, i feel it may be
valuable to consider how few individuals 'own' vast amounts of wealth?
Furthermore, class mobility is extremely alive and dynamic in these
cultures.
For example, did you know that 85% of the lowest income American families
(by quintile) moved up to a higher quintile class over a period of just nine
years? (and that 50% of the "fat cats" lost their position?) That the
families that gained the MOST from 1975 to 1991 were overwhelmingly in the
lowest starting quintile? That the average poor family in America has a car,
a washer machine, a clothes dryer, a microwave, a VCR and more than one
color
TV?
All this suggests to me is that the given definition of poor has the items
you mention.
It also suggests that the given definition of poor is a poor consumer; a less
poor consumer would have the choice to consume more.
Finally, what is so wrong with people working to support themselves?
Rog
>>
People do far more than support themselves; they work in order to consume
ever more resources. They work and live in a false consciousness that ties
them into a dreamlike vulnerable state of suggestion.
Leave the cinema show!
All the best,
Squonk.
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