From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Wed Jul 07 2004 - 21:52:43 BST
Hi Dan, Arlo, and all,
I doubt if Pirsig meant mom-and-pop type businesses in his analogy.
Maybe. Still, I like Dan's hypothetical business example, but, as it
stands, there are too many unknowns to evaluate whether or not the
analogy holds. Can we make the business a little more realistic by
filling in some of the hypothetical details?
1) What do you produce?
2) What material resources are used in production?
3) How are these resources acquired?
3) What are the environmental effects of your business?
3) Do you get tax breaks? Low-interest federally-insured loans?
4) How do you decide what's the proper pay and benefits for your
employees?
5) Are they allowed to unionize?
6) Is there a limit to the amount of profit you as owner are allowed
to make without proportional employee compensation?
7) If not, what is the moral justification for this?
More comments interspersed below:
> Arlo:
>I find it heartening that Pirsig makes the statement "an
>employee-owned company is more moral than a privately owned company
>for the same reason that a democracy is more moral than a
>dictatorship".
dan:
Now I ask this question because I fail to understand: why is it more
moral for my employees to own the business rather than me? Would they
put their blood, sweat and tears into the company the way I have? I
tend to doubt it. That's why they're employees! ...
... Could they run it profitably? Again, I tend to doubt it. If they
were cut out to be business owners they would be already, in my
opinion.
msh asks:
Kind of an elitist attitude, IMO. Plenty of people don't want to own
businesses precisely BECAUSE they understand the exploitative nature
of the process. Nevertheless, they are stuck in a system that
requires them to rent themselves for wages in order to survive. To
me, the fact that they would choose to be exploited, rather than
exploit others, is a sign of high morality indeed.
dan:
I started the business, you see; it's like a child to me. A dictator
of a country did not start the country. I think that's where the
analogy fails.
msh says:
A dictator has no country, just as a business owner has no business,
without the exploitation of people and resources. This, I think, is
the thrust of Pirsig's analogy.
Thanks,
msh
--
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
"Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is
everything." -- Henri Poincare'
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 : Wed Jul 07 2004 - 21:48:43 BST