From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Mon Jul 11 2005 - 01:10:08 BST
MSH, Platt...
Just have to jump in here a still missing aspect of my parallel discussion with
Platt...
> Yes. Anti-trust laws are based on the fallacy that a free market will
> inevitably lead to monopolies. But the Austrian school of economics
> maintains that government intervention into the economy has been the cause
> of the few monopolies that have historically existed, like the salt
> monopoly in 18th century France.
What Platt has still yet to produce is one example (outside brutal military
dictatorships and small island economies subject to embargos), either
historical or global, where "less CEP" (or defined here as "government
interference in business") has led to "higher Quality" lives for the majority
of citizens.
That is, private wealth interests and wealthy capitalists can "say" all they
want that we would all be better off without anti-trust laws (as one example),
but where is any supportive historical or global example showing this?
Were Americans, for example, "better off" before anti-trust laws? Were we
"better off" before labor regulations on the workplace? A short perusal of
history will indicate that we were not. However, I am all ears. If someone can
explain to me how we were better off with "less government interference", or
show me one historical or global example that supports the idea that abolishing
anti-trust laws favors the majority (and not simply private wealth interests),
I'd be quite interested.
To paraphrase Pirsig: All this talk about how we'd be better off with no
anti-trust laws, and no labor rules, is carried out under the guise of
"individual worth", but its quite obviously "an excuse for giving more money to
the rich" (in ZMM).
Or more exactly: "The conservatives who keep trumpeting about the virtues of
free enterprise are normally just supporting their own self-interest. They are
just doing the usual cover-up for the rich in their age-old exploitation of the
poor." (in LILA)
And remember that Pirsig is not against "social planning". He states " There’s a
place for them but they’ve got to be built on a foundation of Quality within
the individuals involved." It is not an abolishion of social planning, but a
revisioning of the foundation upon which social planning occurs.
Pirsig's own motivation was to get individuals seeing the "Good is a noun, not
an adjective" and that "Quality is the source of subjects and objects". He'd
say, I believe, that before we waste time building more social programs based
on the current ideology, we need to get individuals seeing this new way. He
would NOT, I'd argue, say that the solution is abolish social planning and let
business and private wealth run rampant. Within our materialist paradigm, such
a thing would prove utterly disadvantageous for the majority of citizens.
History bears this out.
Arlo
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 : Mon Jul 11 2005 - 01:33:38 BST