From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Jul 20 2005 - 10:18:47 BST
Platt, Arlo,
Not quite sure where you guys were going with this expansive talk but
I'm reminded of a few choice quotes about the morals of companies and
governmental organisations.
(1) Goal oriented organisations, generally behave like pathological
psychopaths. (Anon)
(2) Committees or moral men (often) make immoral decisions. (The US
very own John Z Delorean.)
(3) Board members often behave like they lose their morals in the
drive to the office, and many of them go to church with their families
on Sundays too. (Australian management institute.)
Individual freedoms can't be extended directly to organisational
freedoms, I guess is what I'm saying.
Ian.
On 7/20/05, Arlo J. Bensinger <ajb102@psu.edu> wrote:
> Hi Platt,
>
> [Platt]
> > I don't know of any country without taxes. But, if your looking for low
> > tax countries I suggest you take a look at www. lowtax.net.
>
> [Arlo]
> I took a brief look. If you could point me to something specifically of interest
> that might help. What it looks like to me is information on how to work within
> tax codes to minimize what you "pay in" (for example, through "off shore"
> investments). What this pretty much signifies to me is that the wealthy can
> find the means to protect their wealth, while the middle/low income earners
> have no such "loop holes". In many ways reminds me of the new "bankruptcy laws"
> that allow certain provisions the wealthy have access to as excempt, but
> disallows similar protections to middle/low income families.
>
> But, the point was, I have no problem with people who want to "opt out of" taxes
> to leave, but I think that in looking for "free membership" they'd have to
> either sacrifice affordances, or look for a system that provides the
> affordances on the backs of "others". Is there any other alternative?
>
> [Platt]
> > Well, as I look around town I don't see much price-fixing, monopolies, or
> market control going on. Maybe I'm just blind. As for the Enron debacle, I
> wouldn't take that case or cases like it and condemn the entire "corporate
> power structure" which provides goods, services and jobs for millions, not to
> mention most of the tax base. Anyway, people know, or ought to know, that when
> you invest in stocks you risk losing it is all. Compared to the scam that is
> Social Security, the Enron rip off was trifling..
>
> [Arlo]
> MSH made a reply to this that I think is inline with what I would have said. It
> is easy from a position of privilege to "not see" the low Quality stuff going
> on around you. I'll leave this one to his reply.
>
> As for Enron, I think it is just one example that "business" is no more noble
> than "government". Which is my central premise, and I suspect MSH's too,
> although I don't want to speak for him. The bottom line is that "agencies with
> power will work to rip you off" :-), and that there needs to be a force to
> combat this. Government is "supposed" to be this force, but sadly it has become
> in many ways an "agency with power that works to rip you off". This is, in my
> opinion, largely due to combining wealth-interests with political power. I
> think this is something that MSH has been saying as well.
>
> From our agreed upon Wikipedia, is this on "oligarchy": Oligarchies are often
> controlled by a few powerful families whose children are raised and mentored to
> become inheritors of the power of the oligarchy, often at some sort of expense
> to those governed. In contrast to aristocracy ("government by the 'best'"),
> this power may not always be exercised openly, the oligarchs preferring to
> remain "the power behind the throne", exerting control through economic means.
>
> In many ways, I see America slipping this route, if not already firmly moving in
> this direction.
>
> [Platt]
> > With the advent of the Web, libraries are becoming increasingly
> > unnecessary. But, I agree in principle that open access to information is
> compatible with the MOQ idea of intellectual freedom. Let's just pray that the
> government keeps its hands off the Web.
>
> [Arlo]
> You and I are in complete agreement here, my friend. This article ran in
> Newsweek a week or so ago (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8524609/site/newsweek/).
> It is about how local government provided "free" access to the Internet is "in
> conflict" with "free market interests" that seek to provide that access at a
> cost.
>
> In the end, people will have to decide if providing open access to information
> is worthwhile, or if that access should be sold on the free market. This is one
> case, where I think the "free market" solution would fail the needs of the
> many. When information is restricted to only those who can "afford it", I think
> the MOQ idea of freedom is comprimised.
>
> [Platt]
> > Setting aside certain lands for use as the "commons" supports freedom I
> > agree. Intellect needs refreshment which nature is conducive to providing. But
> I don't see that expenditures for "park services" other than park police can
> always be justified on the same ground.
>
> [Arlo]
> Such as? I'd probably agree, but I'm not sure to what you are referring. I'd say
> that in addition to park police, we need forest rangers, fire patrols and trash
> collectors to keep the land safe. Locally, I'd support the use of personnel to
> teach free classes in hiking, boating, fishing, and other uses of the land to
> people. But those positions can be funded, I'd think, by a local tax base. Is
> that what you mean? But, I do agree with you absolutely, nature is conducive to
> intellectual refreshment.
>
>
> [Arlo previously]
> > > you believe it is in line with the MOQ. If I am right, this is because of
> Pirsig's statement that society has the moral right to protect itself from the
> "biological, might-makes-right" dangers it may face.
>
> [Platt]
> > Yes.
>
> [Arlo]
> And I would agree. A protective military is in line with the MOQ, and so I'd say
> a common tax supporting it MOQ supported.
>
> [Arlo previously]
> > > Or do you think the MOQ can offer no guidance whatsoever in deciding upon
> Good uses for tax dollars? And, do you feel that the MOQ says nothing at all to
> using tax dollars to support libraries, museums and state parks? What about the
> military?
>
> [Platt]
> > I like your freedom justification for imposing taxes when it based on MOQ
> morality. But let me be clear. IMO what the MOQ means by freedom is the absence
> of restraints imposed by government such as not being able to keep what you
> earn, not freedom as the absence of necessity such as working to put food on
> the table. Highest on the MOQ morality scale rests intellectual freedom. So
> yes, I support taxes for education through high school, but in the form of
> vouchers so parents are free to choose the best schools in a competitive
> school environment. The government monopoly on secondary education has been in
> most cases an obscene disaster.
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> [Arlo]
> First, I think that "freedom" as you've stated it depends on a certain amount of
> agreed upon "un-freedom". To use an extreme, I don't have the "freedom" to
> commit murder, but this "un-freedom" means "greater freedom" for everyone, e.g.
> we are not walking around spending all our time defending ourselves from
> everyone seeking to harm us. So, some restraints are always necessary to
> promote a greater freedom than is possible than with simply having "chaos". And
> I'm not even talking per se about the static latching component of the MOQ.
> Sometimes my "freedom" is constrained by a policeman (in the case of laws
> against homicide, for example), sometimes by paying taxes (in the case of
> supporting open access to information, for example).
>
> But your point is well taken. Freedom is not the absence of necessity. You've
> agreed to put something above your computer, and so I will agree to put this. I
> would only add that "freedom is the absence of restraints imposed by external
> power structures (not just government), in the willful pursuit of an
> individual's meaningful goals". That is, it is not only government that can
> limit freedom.
>
> That said, I'll come back to vouchers and higher education tomorrow.
>
> 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
>
>
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 23 2005 - 09:05:57 BST