From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Sat Jul 02 2005 - 08:53:13 BST
Hi Mark --
I see you're still on the warpath for those greedy capitalists. If only you
could show as much passion for Philosophy as you do for socio-economic
issues!
> Is it your contention that all material possessions are acquired by
> virtue of one's labor, payment, or inheritance? If not, please
> reformulate your statement to reflect the reality of unearned wealth.
If they are acquired legally, yes. Otherwise, I don't know what the
"reality of unearned wealth" is.
> How is inherited wealth accounted for in terms of the recipient's
> willingness to work for what he gets?
Inheritance accounts for a minimal portion of U.S. wealth, as compared to
the UK and other countries with a class culture history. But would you deny
the heirs of a family the proceeds of an estate acquired through honest
enterprise? Surely people in a free country have the right to transfer
their assets as they see fit (though they're likely to be taxed by the
state).
> Suppose someone patents a life-saving drug with the intention of
> maximizing profits for himself. What contribution to society is
> made by denying the drug to people who are unable to meet his price?
Certainly a person whose work has led to the production of a beneficial drug
should share in the royalties or profits of the firm that markets it. There
are always people unable to meet a market price. I fancy having a finer
home and a flat screen TV, but I can't afford them. Does that make me a
"victim" of the realtors and TV manufacturers? Fortunately, when it comes
to life-saving drugs, most of us can now benefit from the Medicare/HMO
program which provides substantial price reductions on prescribed drugs as
well as medical procedures.
> What contribution to society is being rewarded when the holder of a
> community's water rights is able to extort top dollar from those who
> can pay while denying water to those who can't?
I'm not aware of any such problem, but I believe public water rates are
government controlled. I do know that our township would fight like hell to
correct what they saw as an exorbitant water bill. I expect your's would,
too.
> Suppose a CEO is able to secure a million dollar bonus because he
> reduced disposal costs by dumping toxic waste onto public lands. What
> contribution to society is being rewarded?
Now you're being asinine. Toxic waste dumping is illegal and is penalized
under the law. The company's board of directors would lose no time dumping
their CEO -- if he's not arrested first. Case closed.
Now comes the Inquisition:
> Please provide Chomsky quotes, with references to original texts, in
> support of your statement that NC is a nihilist. Where is it that
> you believe "Chomsky and his fellow nihilists" would like to take us?
> Please develop this idea, and provide textual support for your
> position.
Frankly, I haven't read much of Chomsky, but it's enough to understand his
position as a Leninist anarchist. Like most liberals, Chomsky avoids
stating his agenda in so many words; one has to surmise it from his reaction
to the comments of others.
I'm sure you know his position on governance and advocation of "liberal
reform" better than I do. But as you've challenged me specifically on
Chomsky's nihilism, I found this Z-net quote from 1998 in response to a
question concerning his views on religion:
"How do I define God? I don't. Divinities have been understood in various
ways in the cultural traditions that we know. Take, say, the core of the
established religions today: the Bible. It is basically polytheistic, with
the warrior God demanding of his chosen people that they not worship the
other Gods and destroy those who do -- in an extremely brutal way, in fact.
It would be hard to find a more genocidal text in the literary canon, or a
more violent and destructive character than the God who was to be
worshipped. So that's one definition. ...
"Looking beyond, we find other conceptions, of many kinds. But I have
nothing to propose. People who find such conceptions important for
themselves have every right to frame them as they like. Personally, I don't.
That's why you haven't found my "thoughts on this [for you] criticaI
question." I have none, because I see no need for them (apart from the --
often extremely interesting and revealing -- inquiry into human culture an
history).
"If you want to use the word "God" to refer to "what you are and what you
want" -- well, that's a terminological decision, not a substantive one. And
a bad terminological decision, I think, for the reasons just mentioned."
In short, he has no such conception because he sees "no need for them".
That may also be your position, but it's nihilism to me.
Oh, and there's this more recent comment by Fred Christie, one of Chomsky's
book reviewers:
At 12:07 PM 10/27/2003, Fred wrote:
> The simple fact is Chomsky derides all religious belief. He regards the
> faithful as intellectually inferior. He believes that the salvation of
> humanity rests with man. Man and his institutions trump the noblest
> aspirations of spirituality clothed in orthodox religion. Secularism is
> his god. He describes religion as *dangerous*. Chomsky is dangerous. He
> peddles a world view that undermines this country's foundation.
>
> Chomsky appears to believe that the belief in any supernatural force is
> irrational and that those who hold such views are by definition irrational
> themselves.
Will that hold you for awhile, Mark?
Peace,
Ham
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 : Sat Jul 02 2005 - 08:56:30 BST