From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sat Sep 24 2005 - 14:54:52 BST
Dear Wim,
> 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.
My problem is that government bureaucrats often treat people as if they
were part of a group rather than as individuals, leading to all sorts of
horrible consequences. I would think Europeans, of all groups, would
understand the dangers of such "groupthink," you know, "Deutschland uber
alles."
> 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.
Yes.
> 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?
There's a cultural war going on in this country between those who sanction
biological values such as sex and drugs and those who support social
values that attempt to control such vices. There's also a debate about the
balance between security and freedom, but it pales in comparison to the
former. Clinton's biological behavior in the White House put a spotlight
on the cultural divide.
> 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)?
Pork barrel spending refers to spending by politicians to bring home
government benefits to their districts so they will get reelected. It's a
form of bribery to garner votes. Subsidizing hotels or other business is
justified as providing jobs and increasing the tax base.
> 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.
Well, with unemployment in Europe running around 10 percent I wouldn't
necessarily call big governments there successful. As for New Orleans, the
city and the state have a history of corruption going back to Huey Long
days. Their troubles are too deep and complex to go into here. Suffice it
to say the area is a prime example of government malfeasance.
> 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).
IMO, governments are inherently bureaucratic and wasteful.
> 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...
I know that many like to think of a nation as one big happy family with
the morality of family ties and responsibilities applying to the nation as
a whole. I reject the analogy on the grounds that the emotional connection
with one's family is quite different from one's connection with total
strangers. Human nature cannot be changed by fiat.
> 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...
I agree we need a way to make an international money system more easily
available to the average guy. As of now, my local grocery won't accept
Dutch money. That's why I favor an international gold standard.
> 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.
Is LETS a barter system? Would it be feasible on a nation wide basis?
Best regards,
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 : Sat Sep 24 2005 - 14:54:09 BST