From: ml (mbtlehn@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Wed Sep 08 2004 - 17:12:41 BST
Hello Arlo/Jon/all:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arlo J. Bensinger" <ajb102@psu.edu>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 8:16 PM
Subject: Re: MD The free market of thought
> Hi ,
Jon said:
> > The thing is, socialist societies aren't generally very exciting. The
> > exciting nature of capitalism inspires people to really utilize their
> Intellectual
> > Level.
>
Arlo said:
> I wouldn't put the medal exclusively around the economic free market.
Other
> "free" areas are needed (education, voting, art, etc.).
>
> If inspired, they WILL find a way to get exactly the kind of education
> > they want (not the kind society tells them they should want).
>
> Agree. Although, I do believe that exposure to areas where one may not be
sure
> one's interest would point is a relevant and important part to education.
>
> But another question emerges. If one sees history, politcal science,
American
> government and the "like" (from an American perspective) as irrelvant or
"not
> important", should it be "required" as necessary to function (and make
informed
> decisions) in our present system.
>
> I can tell you I am on the fence with this, but my feeling is that few
younger
> people see the importance of being educated in our (or international)
history.
> And yet this is "key" to functioning in a global society, or voting
> intelligently in local/federal elections.
>
> So, do we enforce certain aspects of the curriculae, or do we allow those
who
> choose to remain uninformed to have equal say in "the system"? I ask this
only
> rhetorically, to suggest a point.
mel:
ANY education that promotes critical thinking is
better than either, NO educaton, or indoctrination education.
Part of the reason that the American experiment worked was
that the settlers here were from places with a social imperative
of consensus rule at the local level. Look at the history of the
Celtic and the Germanic people. Despite the kings or lords,
the people operated largely on consensus from before Roman
times. Add to that the largely consensus oriented Indian tribes
and you found a strong start to braid a Democracy from.
(British/English are Celto-Germanic in my taxonomy. The
early German and Scotch-Irish added their values.)
To maintain the modern system's operability takes an
education in the values, rules, and processes. Just like
driver's ed, history, poitical sci, and Am gov't. IS important
to learn to a "sufficient" degree.
(The Beauty of the MoQ is that the "highest values" in the
SOM system's Rights of Man and Nobility of Mankind are
the same set, albeit for different reasons. Should not be
too earth shaking to fade or morph from one to the other
for most things. Might clarify a lot of agendas and cast
a new light on many folks' motives.)
>
Jon said:
> > And yes, in ways that help every one. See, capitalists *want* the
> > fruit of their intellectual level to be of use to everyone for a very
high
> > quality reason: more people will buy it! And then perhaps employ people
to
> > manufacture it, etc.
>
>Arlo said:
The problem here is that you have fully bought into the myth of "altruistic
> capitalism". Remember history, "capitalists" did not create a "better
society",
> they created Dickens-esque industrial, enslaved wastelands. The "free
market"
> you know today is the result of labor activists and regulations. Removing
them
> will not create utopia, it will slide us back to where we were (think
Gary,
> Indiana). E.g., the "employees" of Pullman (the railroad guy) were not
bettered
> (if so, how?). "Capitalism" is concerned only with the acquisition of
wealth,
> and the idea that "the market" or general altruism keeps the market "fair"
is a
> myth, evident to any student of history. Some may say "things are
different
> now, *now* unfettered capitalism won't do those things", I say hogwash.
mel:
Interestig that you should use the term "altruistic capitalism".
I had never run into that term in school, in fact it was pretty
graphically stated that it was all "nut sacks and knives" (only
in Arizona could a prof. get away with that one...)
Progress in human affairs, despite what historian would
LIKE to see, is more of a weaving drunken lurching path,
than a straight railroad track from hence to thither.
Social opinion of the excesses of the Robber Barons at
one drunken extreme was countered by support for the
work of Labor, which had it's own drunken extremes.
The evolution of the "economic ecosystem" of the diverse
markets encompasses both extremes and a whole lot more.
Ideas+money+effort are like plants that look for any
crack in the pavement of society to sprout. Some will
succeed wildly, others get pulled out.
(Software grew, 8-track makers don't, & selling slaves is rare.)
> Arlo said:
We need a "free market", most certainly, but we cannot depend on "the
market" or
> the capitalists themselves to keep it "free". I will no doubt be called a
> "socialist" for this (so be it), and I've discussed this at length with
Platt
> in posts earlier this summer. My belief is that the "free market" remains
"most
> free" only when there are safeguards, and that to trust "capitalists" as
> altruistic... well, I'd caution against it.
mel:
There had never been unfettered capitalism as a whole.
Some industries, especially when new or newly significant
have "bent" everything around them and invited social
responses, whether legal or competitive to rein in
their power. All part of the market system...
The markets exist within the social level, within society,
so the meaning of Free is not NO INTERFERENCE
WHATSOEVER, but little or no regulation within the
operation of the internal business of the market and its
members.
Obviously the Pedestals of transportation, communication,
agriculture, energy, strategic infrastucture, etc. are identified
as areas where the society wants and needs assurances
of operational standards. The market system evolves.
Jon said:
> Ultimately the problem with socialism is that they think dumb
> > people are morally obligated to do all the real work for smart people
(who
> need
> > to spend all their time thinking, rather than working).
>
Arlo said:
> Really? Interesting... all the socialists I know are laborers, not
philosophers.
> I think the problem with capitalism is that it assumes people can move
from
> laborer to capitalist freely (if the skill is there). The capitalists in
this
> country have gone to great lengths to promote this myth, but still the
rich
> tend to remain rich and the poor tend to remain poor. Capitalism
attributes
> this to laziness, or sloth, or some weakness. I believe it is more
attributed
> to entrenched hierarchy, or static social patterns.
mel:
ALL the socialists I know are college professors, trust fund babies,
hippie burnouts, and folks from Wisconsin or Boulder. (and one guy
from Arkansas, but he was just a nut who ran into a semi on a bike.)
Workin' folk tend to be pissed off at gov't interference, not inviting more.
Some rich remain rich, but old families often glide on trust funds and
the fortunes spread and dilute. Like sea snow, the individuals tend to
slip down the economic ladder in a few generations, unless the individual
is motivated to work hard and stay or climb.
Look at the ethnic demographics over time, each immigrant group as
time passes looks like a chromatography diagram, they spread upward
in the system until a measure of economic success and ethnicity
begins to depart from corelationality to cluster and finally to nearly no
connection. Rates vary, but the phenomenon seems intact.
Granted, some individuals just do fail to prosper.
>
Jon said:
> That's moral right?
> > Stupid people should work, smart people should think.
>
>Arlo said:
Isn't this what happens in a capitalistic society? Not that I believe any
one to
> be "stupid" (except right-wing radio pundits ;-)), but what alternative do
you
> see capitalism as affording?
>
mel:
In my circle of acquaintences, the number of hours per week of work
and the relative intelligence have a close correlation. Lots of folks in
my ken are entrepreneureal in inclination. The free markets offer
opportunity, much of it is not capitalist, though as it comes from
sweat equity rather than outside investment. Of course after they
grow to a certain size capital IS interested in participating.
(If anyone knows of a position where I can get paid to think
and not work...let me know. ;-)
thanks--mel
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 : Wed Sep 08 2004 - 17:44:50 BST