From: Dan Glover (daneglover@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Jul 12 2004 - 03:46:10 BST
Hello everyone
>From: David Buchanan <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: "'moq_discuss@moq.org'" <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Subject: RE: MD the metaphysics of free-enterprise
>Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 16:09:17 -0600
>
>Dan, msh, Arlo and all MOQers:
>
>'The Metaphysics of Quality does definitely imply that, other things being
>equal, 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. Both enhance intellectual freedom within a traditional static
>social pattern and thus are a higher form of evolution. Employee ownership
>also appeals to the old Indian idea of community of equals that allows
>maximum freedom for all.' (Pirsig, 1991a)
>
>Dan G responded to the quote above:
>I tend to disagee with Mr. Pirsig's analogy...
> ...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! Even my best most trusted ones. They can go
>home at the end of the day and forget business. I can't. The business
>follows me around. Would I sell my company to the employees? Sure, for the
>right price. You better believe it. But would they really be interested in
>being the owners? And the $64.000 question: 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.
>...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.
>
>dmb says:
>I'm disappointed and disturbed by your response, Dan. You not only failed
>to
>address the main idea, (That employee-owned companies are more moral
>because
>they "enhance intellectual freedom" and allow "maximum freedom for all")
>but
>also seem to be justifying your disagreement by simply insulting those who
>are being denied membership in a "community of equals". They wouldn't care,
>wouldn't be interested and couldn't turn a profit because they're not "cut
>out to be business owners"!? How condescending is that!? Dan, I thought you
>were a philosopher! I'm shock and a little bummed out by this position.
Hi David
I'm sorry. I take it your experience is different than mine when it comes to
running a business. In my experience a good employee doesn't necessarily
make a good owner. In my experience there is a fundamental difference
employee/owner spelled out best as risk/reward.
As for the main point, I don't disagree with it, in theory. I disagreed with
the analogy. I made that clear. It rubbed me wrong but I am sure I could be
wrong myself. I saw no reason to mention the main point. I assumed that was
quite clear to everyone. Thank you though for pointing it out.
>
>The first thing that springs to mind here is that your main defense (That
>you are more concerned and involved than anyone else can be because you
>started it, its your baby and you're the one who goes hungry when business
>is slow.) is actually the same incentive that makes employee-owned
>companies
>work. A stake in the game is a powerful motivator and so ownership turns
>mere employees into dedicated particpants. They become partners rather than
>servants and the whole dynamic changes. The positive emotional,
>psychological and spiritual effects are hard to measure, but there is also
>the plain fact that everyone would then be sincerely interested in turning
>a
>profit and in doing so for as long as possible. Don't you think?
Maybe. It sounds good in theory but I thought communism tried that
experiment. How'd that go for them?
I don't look at my employees as servants. I've yet to order an employee to
do anything. I offer suggestions. Tell me, do you look at yourself in that
fashion in relation to your employer?
>
>Another point that goes along with this is that the quote suggests the idea
>that employee-own companies allow the 4th level in the mix while the usual
>business is based on "mindless tradition" of the social and money is a pure
>and simple "index of social quality". Likewise, your defense is aimed
>squarely at profit and price rather than quality relationships within the
>organization and the organization's relationship to the larger community.
>This is hardly out of the ordinary, but, like I said, I thought you were a
>philosopher and so ordinary is very disappointing. I would have hoped that
>the MOQ's distinctions would have had more of an impact on your views and
>values with respect to life's practical concerns...
Again, I'm sorry. But in my experience there will be no business without a
profit. Now it may seem that money is the most important thing to me but
since I know all four levels of the MOQ operate discretely and yet
simultaneously, I know the 4th level workings cannot survive without the
base of social support guaranteed by a entry in black at the end of the
fiscal year rather than an entry in red.
Money doesn't just magically appear. In order to produce a profit in an age
of intense competition the customer demands a quality product. That is a
given and not even worth my time mentioning. How we portray our self is of
major concern to me. Haircuts and uniforms are required. Drug tests and
background checks are mandatory. I could go on and on about all the minutia
in the business but it seems boring.
I've worked at an employee-owned company. I found it to be the same as every
other job I've had. I got fired. I've been fired from every job I've ever
held. I'm a terrible employee. I admit it. I get mad at the boss and tell
them just what I think in no uncertain terms. I spell it right out. Next
thing you know, I'm standing in the unemployment line. For a time I wished I
could just keep my mouth shut and do my job. Then I started my own business.
>
>"What Phaedrus saw was that the Metaphysics of Quality avoided this attack
>by making it clear that the good to which truth is subordinate is
>intellectual and Dynamic Quality, not practicality. The misunderstanding of
>James occurred because there was no clear intellectual framework for
>distinguishing social quality from intellectual and Dynamic Quality, and in
>his Victorian lifetime they were monstrously confused. But the MOQ states
>that practicality is a social pattern of good. It is immoral for truth to
>be
>subordinated to social values since that is a lower form of evolution
>devouring a higher one."(CH 29)
The truth is, if a business doesn't make money it will be out of business.
Evolution may not devour it but the bank you owe money will.
Thank you for your comments,
Dan
_________________________________________________________________
Get fast, reliable Internet access with MSN 9 Dial-up – now 2 months FREE!
http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/
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 12 2004 - 03:47:35 BST