From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Fri Jul 01 2005 - 21:59:07 BST
MSH writes:
> platt:
> A selfish person places a high value on freedom for himself and
> others. .
>
> msh:
> Selfish people often claim to care about the rights of others, but
> their actions almost always belie their self-comforting rhetoric.
> Suppose someone patents a life-saving drug with the intention of
> maximizing profits for himself. In what sense does this person care
> about the freedom (to live) of people who cannot afford his price?
> What about a car company executive who decides to conceal known
> dangers inherent in his product (a tendency to explode on impact for
> example) because his actuarial accountants have assured him that
> settling lawsuits filed on behalf of the killed and injured will be
> less expensive than instituting a recall?
Freedom to me means the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights of the U.S.
Constitution, cited by Pirsig as intellect vs.society issues, i.e., the
individual vs. government. Freedom doesn't mean the right to medical care
provided at somebody else's expense nor freedom from the risks of driving
an automobile. Criminal neglect that causes injury to others can be
redressed in courts of tort law.
> > maxwell: I feel uneasy about owning anything that is simply
> > regarded as mine because i am at social liberty to
> > deny other people.
>
> platt:
> By owning things I don't deny others the right to own the same
> things.
>
> msh:
> This is simply false. If you own the water or mineral rights to all
> the land in your community, how can others in the community own those
> rights?
You got me there. What I had in mind is what most people have in mind when
they think of property -- houses, cars, furniture, clothes, lawn mowers
and such -- the artifacts of intellect.
> > maxwell: What i am aiming at is this: If we begin with
> > the assumption that anyone can and indeed does own
> > that which they can not have the time to form mutually
> > enriching relationships with, then it may be there is
> > a degree after which it becomes low quality to assume
> > you can posses things.
>
> > Once this degree is transcended, the best that can be
> > achieved may be the social power and influence one
> > gains over those who are denied. I think this relates
> > to the situation you regard to be immoral Platte.
>
> platt:
> The question I would pose is: Who decides when ownership becomes low
> quality?
>
>
> msh:
> If one truly embraces the Metaphysics of Quality, the decision is
> made by examining the moral hierarchy. Low-quality ownership is that which
> leads to the destabilization of society. See my examples above.
Do you know of case where the examples you give above destabilized a
society?
> If a
> society's ownership arrangements are such that large numbers of people are
> unable to afford basic services and products-- food, water, clothing,
> shelter, life-saving drugs-- then the society may be destabilized to the
> point of its own destruction. History is full of examples of such
> self-destruction.
If you're talking about revolutions, they have many causes. Our own had
nothing to do with basic services and products. It had to do with over
taxation by an oppressive government.
> > maxwell: I am happy you find Chomsky to be of some value.
> > Tobacco production, processing and proliferation by
> > legal marketing strategies creates jobs and revenue.
> > The fact that it kills millions of people does not
> > seem to be differentiated from legal revenue
> > generation and job provision by successive U.S.
> > governments in the way Chomsky and children appear to
> > understand.
>
> platt:
> Numbers killed by smoking pale in comparison to numbers killed by
> governments.
>
> msh:
> Your insistence on playing the "numbers killed" game is off-point and
> obstructive of honest discussion. Not to mention obscene. And, in this
> case, your numbers are simply wrong:
>
> "Tobacco is the second major cause of death in the world. It is
> currently responsible for the death of one in ten adults worldwide
> (about 5 million deaths each year). If current smoking patterns
> continue, it will cause some 10 million deaths each year by 2020.
> Half the people that smoke today -that is about 650 million people-
> will eventually be killed by tobacco."
>
> http://www.who.int/tobacco/en/
I hardly think the Tobacco Free Institute is a reliable source for such
overblown statistics.
> platt:
> Finally, there are a lot of people around who want to be admired for
> their selflessness, especially politicians who pride themselves on
> their "public service." It's not hard to detect the contradiction and
> hypocrisy in their "selfless" pose.
>
> msh:
> The only pose here is yours in pretending to know the motives of
> everyone who works for the public good. Besides, what matters is
> what people do, not why they do it. Ad hominem attacks on motives
> rather than analysis of results is just another way of derailing
> meaningful discussion.
That we can agree on. So from now on I know you will desist from ad
hominem attacks on your fellow MD contributors.
Platt
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 Jul 01 2005 - 22:11:26 BST