From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sat Jul 02 2005 - 18:47:20 BST
Hi Ham,
Thanks for taking the time to offer a substantial response. I
appreciate it.
On 2 Jul 2005 at 3:53, hampday@earthlink.net wrote:
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!
msh:
I'm interested in developing the philosophical and then political
foundation upon which to build a more moral society. Why is it
important for you to separate Philosophy from socio-economic issues?
msh before:
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.
ham:
If they are acquired legally, yes. Otherwise, I don't know what the
"reality of unearned wealth" is.
msh:
So, for you, there is no difference between what is legal and what is
moral. Does this mean you agree with the Supreme Court decision that
is the original subject of this thread? If so, then you must agree
that material possessions can be acquired by means other than one's
labor, payment, or inheritance. No?
msh before:
How is inherited wealth accounted for in terms of the recipient's
willingness to work for what he gets?
ham:
Inheritance accounts for a minimal portion of U.S. wealth, as
compared to the UK and other countries with a class culture history.
msh:
Focusing on the amount of inherited wealth is non-responsive and,
anyway, highly debatable. In this country as well as in Europe,
super-rich families sit on immense and largely inherited fortunes
going back for generations: Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Ford, Mellon,
Morgan, Hunt, Harriman, Astor, Carnegie, Weyerhaeuser, and Robert
Wood Johnson, to name but a few.
Besides, whether or not inherited wealth is minimal, achieving a
high income is itself in large part due to inherited advantages.
(This is the point Arlo makes). Those who by pure chance are born
into wealthy households have a far better opportunity to maintain
their health and develop their performance; they are able to attend
superior schools, and receive advanced professional training; their
family contacts, and other forms of influence, provide tremendous
leverage in landing high-paying positions and future investment
opportunities.
In short, there is an obvious dissonance between earning one's wealth
and inheriting it, whether or not the "earning" is moral, which is
another question entirely.
ham:
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).
msh:
Maybe. But shouldn't the question of how the wealth was generated in
the first place be taken into consideration? This, to me, is the
interesting question at the root of the moral-legal dichotomy.
msh before:
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?
ham:
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?
msh:
We're talking about life-saving drugs, not TVs or homes, but the
nature of the product is not really the issue. Can you imagine any
point in the accumulation of personal wealth at which such an
accumulation threatens the existence of society? What if, due to
highly concentrated real estate holdings, only 1% of us were able to
afford homes and the rest were required to pay whatever rent the
market will bear, or to live on the street? Would this be acceptable
to you? If not, what percentage would be acceptable? And what would
you propose to do about it if combinations of extant wealth and power
drove the percentage below your acceptable amount?
ham:
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.
msh:
According to research done by Gilmer and Kronick of UC San Diego,
nearly 25% of US workers under the age of 65 are or will soon be
uninsured for health care because they are unable to pay the high
cost of coverage. Is this an acceptable percentage in your view of
a moral society? If so, what would be unacceptable to you, 30, 50,
75 percent? Or just the percentage that would include you? Here's a
link, in case you're interested.
http://www.chcf.org/topics/healthinsurance/index.cfm?itemID=109910
msh before:
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?
ham:
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.
msh:
It could be oil, or land, or electricity, or penicillin or bread.
But I see a glimmer of hope in your response. You seem to be saying
that monopolies of essential products and services are unacceptable
to you. More important, you seem to be realizing that the only way
to fight such monopolies is through collective action, which is
surprising because "collectivism" seems to be one of your worst
nightmares.
msh before:
> 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?
ham:
Now you're being asinine.
msh says:
Oops. Thanks for the compliment. :-)
ham:
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.
msh says:
You're being, well, naïve. You are assuming the BOD is aware of such
practices. Do you think the first reaction of a CEO, when illegal
practices are condoned or discovered, is to run to the Board of
Directors? The first reaction is usually to cover-up, to threaten
potential whistle-blowers, and to stonewall any investigation that
might ensue. The situation when dealing with privately owned
companies, such as tobacco's Brown and Williamson, is exponentially
worse. There are just dozens of examples of this kind of
obstructionism. For starters, take a look at the real stories behind
the book (and movie) "A Civil Action" and the movie "The Insider."
One way to avoid this kind of lethal obstructionism, short of
dismantling these private tyrannies of unaccountable power, is to
make their internal documents available to corporate watchdog and
other public interest groups. What do you think?
I'll respond to your Chomsky comments in the Chomsky thread.
Thanks for your time, and I look forward to your response,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com 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 - 19:09:27 BST