From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Fri Aug 27 2004 - 05:51:15 BST
Dear David M.,
I wrote 25 Jun 2004 08:09:25 +0200:
'Moral principles and other justifications for behaviour are a whole
different (4th level) chapter and -in my opinion- not the subject of this
thread. Let me just say that progressive taxation is not perceived in the
Netherlands (by the majority) as a way to equalize wealth, but as the
fairest way of sharing the burden that we have taken upon us collectively:
the strongest shoulders should carry the largest part.'
You wrote 26 Jun 2004 13:47:09 +0100:
'I would like to see the case between equality and inequality argued from
both point of view. I think both are inadequate ways of thinking.'
3rd level patterns of value are (for me) patterns of behaviour. Our
descriptions of 3rd level patterns of value apply 4th level patterns of
value (ways of thinking). In this thread my goal would be to understand how
3rd level patterns of value maintain societies and how they evolve. Given
the presumption of the MoQ that evolution (at least in the long run) follows
the 'right' (moral) direction, 'towards DQ', such a description tells us how
DQ operates at the 3rd level.
An aspect of that description of how 3rd level patterns of value evolve
would be a description of how 4th level patterns of value influence this
evolution. In my opinion the MoQ assumptions about the relations between
levels imply, that this 4th level influence on 3rd level evolution is
marginal (it cannot speed up 3rd level evolution, which operates by creation
and copying of habitual behaviour), but essential (it 'embodies' for most or
all part how DQ operates at the 3rd level).
'Making a case for' equality or inequality is part of the (discussion)
process that determines which 4rd level patterns of value are in the best
position (being participated in by enough people) to influence 3rd level
evolution. It is about 'what direction SHOULD 3rd level evolution take' and
'what SHOULD we do to contribute'. As I said: in the Netherlands the
'strongest shoulders, heaviest burdens' idea is in the best position to
influence 3rd level evolution. The first idea you argued for ('everyone to
have basic provisions ... so that they can flourish and we can see what
quality they have to find in themselves and perhaps also offer society') is
also generally accepted in the Netherlands (it justifies our social security
system, one of the burdens we have taken upon us collectively). The second
idea you argued for ('we need to decide what we are going to do with the
extra
resources. At the moment we allow people to use them for all kinds of low
and high quality activity. Surely we
need to find a way of using our resources more for high tha[n for l]ow
quality activity?') is not. It justifies communist, state-directed use of
all resources, based on the assumption that all resources are collective (in
practice: state-)property. In the Netherlands all but a very small minority
assume resources to be individual property and the state to have only the
right (given by voters) to set a few preconditions on their use.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 27 2004 - 07:23:03 BST