From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Mon Jul 11 2005 - 23:50:20 BST
Hi Arlo,
> At 07:37 AM 7/11/2005, PH wrote:
> >Whoa. Stop right there. If you had read "The Road to Serfdom" you would
> >know that Hayek's thesis, borne out by history, says that Central Economic
> >Planning (CEP) inevitably leads to brutal dictatorships. Thus, any
> >discussion of CEP must include the examples of such dictatorships.
>
> I'm not sure I see the connection. This would lead to your believing that
> Denmark (for example) is "inevitably" on its way towards a brutal
> dictatorship, would it not? Indeed, there are many countries with "more
> CEP" than the U.S. that give no evidence they are headed towards military
> or brutal dictatorships of any kind.
>
> So, I'd disagree that history bears out such an "inevitability".
Since we're talking future possibilities which no one can predict, I can
only suggest that you read Hayek's book in which he points to the many
parallels of current nationalistic organizational thinking that formed the
rational justification for Nazi Germany. He does not exclude the U.S. at
all from vulnerability to the siren song of socialism. Since the New Deal
we have tended to follow in Europe's central planning footsteps.
> I'm not familiar with the specifics, are monopolies "legal" in Hong Kong?
Here's a reference. It looks reliable to me, but judge for yourself:
"The Hong Kong Government pursues economic policies of noninterference in
commercial decisions, low and predictable taxation, government spending
increases within the bounds of real economic growth, competition subject
to transparent laws (albeit without antitrust legislation) and consistent
application of the rule of law. With few exceptions, the government allows
market forces to set wages and prices, and does not restrict foreign
capital or investment. It does not impose export performance or local
content requirements, and allows free repatriation of profits. Hong Kong
is a duty-free port, with few barriers to trade in goods and services."
http://www.usconsulate.org.hk/ushk/economic/1999/0131.htm
> From this I've presented my take being: Pirsig would say 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.
>
> Do you feel he'd argue that all social planning *should* be abolished?
No, I don't think he'd argue for a libertarian revolution. But, I do like
his emphasis on individual worth and self-reliance.
> Pirsig seems to feel, as I agree, that the emergent aspect of recognizing
> Quality as a noun will restructure the way people act within the culture.
> This is why I've long stated my belief in "changing the dialogue" (or
> attempting to, against the onslaught of talk-radio, news media,
> entertainment and embedded cultural values that seek to preserve old SOM
> ways of thinking, and reify old SOM materialistic and political patterns).
Now it's my turn not to get the connection. I don't see that MOQ thinking
supports CEP, or heaven forbid, censorship. But, if you're saying more
people ought to read and absorb the MOQ, I agree. It won't preclude anyone
from wanting to acquire wealth, at least enough to buy a boat and a
motorcycle. :-)
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 : Mon Jul 11 2005 - 23:51:07 BST