From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Fri Sep 23 2005 - 08:40:50 BST
Dear Platt,
You wrote 18 Sep 12:38 -0400:
"I really don't know who other than individual human beings build and
maintain dikes. A group working together towards a common end is still made
up of individuals like you and I and everyone else.."
If you see humanity as only consisting of individuals, only individuals can
build and maintain dikes, sure. The point I'm making is that you can still
distinguish between individuals acting or behaving in a coördinated or
seemingly coördinated way and individuals who don't. The difference DOES
exist (according to the MoQ). It can be further distinguished in 2nd, 3rd
and 4th level patterns of value.
I was referring to "collectives" as a collection of 3rd level patterns of
value. Essentially our discussion was about to what extent the specific type
of 3rd level collective behaviour we call government (which includes the
coördinated behaviour of the government), one of the four types of I
distinguish in www.antenna.nl/wim.nusselder/schrijfsels/economics.htm, is
necessary for bulding and maintaining dikes.
You continued:
"Most people would agree that it's OK for the government to impose taxes for
roads, dikes, courts, police, firemen, and soldiers. Beyond that you'll
start getting an argument."
So we agree on government (and taxes) being needed for these purposes.
In the end you wrote:
"Yes, I agree about trade offs between security and freedom. The degree of
sacrificing one for the other constitutes the basis of the argument between
liberals and conservatives (as those terms are used in the U.S.) But, it's
more than a matter of security. Liberals also want economic equality by
redistributing wealth. That's another huge bone of contention."
So we also agree that not all taxes can be wrong. To the extent that they
are needed for security (or safety, I'm not sure about the exact difference
in meaning, but both should be included I think) and a people agrees on the
balance between security/safety and freedom they are necessary and right.
Americans seem to be able to agree on that balance than Dutch. That makes it
also difficult to assess whether the average American really considers
freedom more important than security/safety and wants the taxes to go down,
like you do. If in some places (like New Orleans) government raises taxes to
provide more security/safety (whether in the social or in the physical
sense), that may well be because their constituency requires them to do so.
Whh should you complain when you don't live there? Maybe because you are
concerned that such policies could be a cause for economic downturn of such
a city. Maybe that's a more fundamental bone of contention between
Americans: to what extent social security increases or decreases average
wealth.
As for the ability to agree on the balance between security/safety and
freedom: I wonder to what extent the relative inability of Americans to
agree on that is due to the political system (the type of democracy), the
political culture (polarization, 'winner gets all' mentality) or both.
What's your opinion?
You continued:
"Yes, our government is constantly meddling in private affairs when it
should keep hands off. Pork barrel spending is a huge problem in this
country."
What does "pork barrel spending" mean and what reasons does your local
government give for subsidizing the hotel you mentioned (or other comparable
subsidies you disagree with)?
You continued:
"I don't quite see where density of population requires socialistic
solutions. New York City is about as densely populated as you can get, yet
it's free market dynamism is apparent, as Pirsig pointed out."
Density of population requires coordination and cooperation. Coordination
and cooperation can be provided by the market mechanism and by big
enterprise, but only when and where wealth is accumulating. You remember
agreeing that the already rich have more opportunities to get richer than
those who aren't. (I just reminded you off-list.) The already rich also have
more opportunities to solve the problems inherent in population density than
poorer people. A poor city like New Orleans, where the rich have moved out,
but which is still densely populated, needs more government than a rich city
like New York. And still, the New York City government is bigger than the EU
bureacracy in Brussels... New York City thrives BOTH because of its core
role in US 3rd level patterns of values (where New Orleans is more
peripheral) AND because of a relatively well-functioning city government.
Free market dynamism and big government don't bite each other. In the most
successful places in the world they strengthen each other.
You continued:
"You seem to be saying that we should be happy to pay taxes in spite of
bureaucratic inefficiency and waste, as demonstrated in the New Orleans
hurricane fiasco."
Bureaucratic inefficiency and waste are not implied by taxes. Do something
about the quality of your government and don't throw away the child
(government and taxes) with the bathwater (bad quality government).
You continued:
"I don't call exchanging goods and services in a free market being
dependent. By dependent I mean relying on another's work for support, like
children on parents."
Con you understand the way in which I use the word 'dependent' in which
everyone is working for others and in which the way of compensating for this
work is less relevant (whether direct payments of prices, fees or salaries,
taxes or good family relations on which one can draw in bad times)? I
distinguished 4 types of dependence related to 4 types of leadership in
www.antenna.nl/wim.nusselder/schrijfsels/economics.htm . All of them
decrease freedom, sure. Some decrease freedom more than others, sure.
'Natural' dependence (like family ties) and force-backed dependence (like
some government tasks) decrease freedom more than exchange/market dependence
and ideological dependence (convincement). Every society needs all types of
dependence and leadership however. (Would you want to do away with family
ties, the ones decreasing freedom most?) We can only shift their roles a
bit. Both government and religion use several of these types of dependence
and leadership. Both rely on force (police and soldiers in the case of
government, exclusion from community in the case of religion) AND on
convincing people of ideology. Dependence on force can best be reduced NOT
by doing away with government and religion, BUT by changing them, by
shifting from use of force to use of ideas. And religion (like art) even
provides us with an opportunity to shift beyond fixed ideas and open
ourselves to DQ...
You continued:
"Don't get me started on the money system. The government robs us of our
savings every day by monopolizing the money supply. Surely Europeans
remember the inflationary post WWI days."
Money systems require some monopolizing to function. If everyone could make
his own money (notes saying "I promise to do something in return for what
you give or do for me now."), hardly anyone would accept other people's
money. Money only functions when you trust who supplies it. We need
alternative money systems. That keeps every money supplier sharp. If people
don't trust them any more, they exchange that money for other money. That's
how the international money system works (more or less). If your government
gives out too much money, you can put your savings on a foreign account. If
there wouldn't be a lot of people worldwide trusting US governments
promissory notes (government bonds) your taxes which are lower than
government spending (e.g. on the war in Iraq) would be impossible...
Poor people are those who fail to earn and cannot save in the dominant money
system, not necessarily because of faults of their own. Especially for
communities of poor people Local Exchange Trade Systems (LETS) are a good
alternative: organizing your own 'money' as community. Doing something for
someone else (and having it registered by your LETS adminstrator)
automatically creates 'money' (or compensates a negative balance because
someone else did something for you first). LETS units of exchange can only
be used by members. They can't 'leak out' of the system. They always benefit
someone else from your community if you spend them.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 : Fri Sep 23 2005 - 08:38:24 BST