From: Ant McWatt (antmcwatt@hotmail.co.uk)
Date: Wed May 04 2005 - 15:02:03 BST
Ian G stated May 5th:
I already know Platt talks 99% twaddle, and I can't see you changing his
mind…
Mark Heyman stated May 5th:
Here I agree with you 100%, and will take your advice to heart. No more
wasted effort on lost causes.
Ant McWatt comments:
Ian, Mark, Platt,
Not too sure that I’d give up on Platt that easily. For a start, I
certainly think something of intellectual value can be elicited from Platt’s
posts on politics. Though I largely disagree with his political views and
there is the occasional “yah boo” element I find them useful – in the
occasional dose – as they represent the views of a sizable minority on this
planet.
I’ve come to the conclusion that the fundamental error that Platt makes as
regards his political assumptions is that he overlooks that the MOQ – being
a universal system - takes into account the freedom and interests of EVERY
rational, autonomous end chooser in the world (as regards free economic
markets) while in right-wing ideology, only the freedom and interests of
certain minorities (sometimes only one’s self!) are taken into account.
This is the essential difference that Platt overlooks and where problems
start to arise. For instance, the markets that North Americans and
Europeans bring into play are – in practice - protected trade areas and are
only free markets in name. As Sam Popkin, professor of political science at
the University of California, San Diego noted recently:
“The greatest crime committed against Third World nations is barriers to
trade, in particular agricultural subsidies in rich countries. It is a big
issue for both the US and the EU. (quoted in the “Times Higher Education
Supplement”, April 29th 2005, p.17, issue 1689)
In the long run I’m sure Platt being the rational person he is will take
this point on board and support the ideal of genuine, unfettered, free
markets that take into account the freedom and interests of all rational,
autonomous end choosers. As I noted before, in reference to Alan Gewirth
and his 1978 text “Reason & Morality”, it is irrational not to. In this
text, Gewirth introduces a moral principle (the Principle of Generic
Consistency or “PGC”), according to which all agents have inalienable rights
to the capacities and facilities they need in order to be able to act
successfully i.e. “Agents must act in accord with the generic rights of
others to (the values of) freedom & well-being as well as their own.” As I
mentioned previously, his defense of this principle is that it is impossible
to deny the principle without contradicting yourself (echoing Descartes’
idea that one cannot deny one’s existence because this very denial implies
one’s existence).
Best wishes,
Anthony.
www.anthonymcwatt.co.uk
_________________________________________________________________
Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters!
http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters
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 May 04 2005 - 15:06:36 BST