Hi LilaQs,
3 weeks without posting anything must be something of a record for me.
I've been skimming through most of the posts, and quite frankly find it
depressing. I can't criticize the individual posts - mostly they compare
favorably with the best of what I've seen over the months. However,
collectively, we seem to have lost our way. Over in the moderated list,
I can't say that things are any better. It's much as I feared - since
the discussion split, things have definitely changed, and the old
dynamism has been lost. We're stuck somewhere in the Dakota prairies
with no sign of the mountains.
The recent exchange between Drose and Horse on libertarianism vs.
socialism gave me an angle to characterise what I perceive as a
collective malaise within the Lila Squad.
-----Original Message-----
From: Horse <horse@wasted.demon.nl>
Date: Mon, 22 February 1999 03:29
Subject: Re: MD Values within values
[...]
>Drose
>> I suspect we're getting into problems with defininitions. Socialism
is
>> antithetical to libertarianism, by any definition I of which I am
aware.
[Horse]
<<<
So what are Socialism and Libertarianism and why should they appear to
be in opposition
to each other?
Libertarianism is about the Rights of individuals in respect of
expression, association,
privacy etc. There's also the right to life, freedom, and freedom from
torture which are the
most basic of rights. Generally, Libertarianism involves the right to go
about your
business, peacefully, unobstructed by interference from others. The
other side of this is
that you exercise responsibility in ensuring that not only do you
refrain from infringing
others rights but that you actively ensure that the society in which you
exist also refrains
from infringing the rights of its members. >>>
What I see is that society sometimes limits my innocent and apparently
harmless behaviour.
I regard it as my right to take out my car onto the public streets
whenever I choose, provided I have paid the appropriate tax, have a
license, ensured the car meets usual standards etc.. Yet, in several
cities of the world, I may actually be barred from taking my car out on
specific days - to avoid overcrowding and pollution. Surely my one
individual car can have absolutely no noticeable impact on either count!
Another example is in the trading of stocks and shares. Individuals are
allowed the freedom to buy and sell at will, yet there are mechanisms to
CLOSE the market if everyone tries to sell at once.
Both my examples are examples where the innocent and normally harmless
action of the individual has to be restricted, because the concerted
effects of numerous individuals acting in the same way becomes harmful.
In an essay on my web site at
http://www.agri.huji.ac.il/~marder/Science_Philosophy/Causality.htm I
discuss how the random movements of individual gas molecules result in a
collective obedience to the Gas Laws.
Similarly, the unrestricted actions of the individual should not be
assessed only on the level of the individual, but also on the collective
level. To come back to the recent discussion within the Lila Squad
lists, the individual posts have been fine, the collective quality
lacking. We share a collective responsibility for this.
To fit Pirsig's MoQ into all this, his levels are a recognition that
value can be judged on a number of different levels. I fully agree with
him on this. Pirsig goes on to restrict this analysis to four specific
types of levels. I can go along with this only as far as it is useful. I
consider that in some cases, levels may be defined in different ways to
facilitate the analysis of different types of problems. (IMO this
happens unconsciously in almost any situation).
Now back to the passenger seat where I'll wait for a glimpse of the
mountains.
Jonathan
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:52 BST