From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Mon Jul 12 2004 - 19:43:46 BST
Arlo:(2) Explain why we should have restricted the personal freedom of those
who did
not feel slavery was a social or intellectual affront. I would guess this
was
the majority, or else the system would have collapsed from within, no?
DM: For the sake of understanding the MOQ, and for those of us
who accept this point above, when should we restrict individual
freedom for the sake of the greater freedom?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arlo J. Bensinger" <ajb102@psu.edu>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 4:06 PM
Subject: Re: MD the metaphysics of free-enterprise
> Mel, Dan...
>
> Obviously the question was "loaded". Let me address your responses, and
then I'd
> like to bring some discussion back to labor alienation and ZMM.
>
>
> > > > All,
> > > >
> > > >> Let me reask the question in the extreme.
> > > >
> > > > Did the cotton plantations of the old south have value when they
turned
> > >a
> > > > profit?
> >
> > No, not intellectually. Socially low value. Biologically, yes. For the
> > owners. No for the slaves.
> >
>
> Explain to me how slavery "at that time" had socially low value in the
south? I
> think the "system" had very high social value. Did not Thomas Jefferson
own
> slaves? Also, take this above comment and change "slaves" to "labor in
> Tijuana". Explain how this shifts the sentence from a "intellectually low
> quality" to an "intellectual high quality" statement, or from an
intellectual
> to a social moral concern?
>
>
> > > >
> > >
> > >History looks diffrerent on either end...so, to the 1860's owner, it
was
> > >the basis of all of his economic world--this years crop, in fact.
> > >Quality was lower from the enslaved workers point of view no doubt...
> >
> > Hi Mel
> >
> > No doubt.
> >
>
> No doubt. Would you not say Quality is lower from the Tijuanese workers
point of
> view? Why should we "care" either way (slave or Tijuanese worker) if the
> market's highest Quality is measured by profit?
>
> >
> > >1880's I suspect the owners my have found lower social value and
> > >higher intellectual value (having to deal in a NEW WORLD)
> > >Share croppers may have similarly found a lower dynamic quality
> > >biologically as they were finding survival tough somewhere in that
> > >time, but social and intellectual quality was certainly higher, more
> > >dynamic, they even had participation in government for a short time.
> >
> > I expect that until the law came along and mandated an equal playing
field
> > that there were certain groups who received preferential treatment and
> > others who were on the losing end. The same thing happens today but it's
> > more covert than overt.
> >
>
> Is creating a "level playing field" a layer of "stifling social
regulations" or
> is it a moral issue on the intellectual level?
>
> Did abolishing slavery fully create this level playing field? If not, and
if
> creating a level playing field is still moral, why are discussions
surrounding
> it reduced to "pesky social regulations"?
>
> > >
> > >Today, we see the old southern plantation as a straw man, rightly
> > >or wrongly. (from oversimplification)
> >
> > Well it depends. There are still pockets in the south that are "old
south"
> > but with the Interstate highways' homogenizing effects you're right.
> >
>
> It was intended as an oversimplification, to ask why it is "intellectually
> moral" to free someone from slavery, but only a "social moral issue" to
keep
> the Tijuanese labor force impoverished (evidence: rates of pay so low
families
> can't afford clean water).
>
> Are guns the only weapon the intellectual level recognizes as weapons that
can
> keep others enslaved?
>
>
> > > > By the current capitalist dialogue, and everything you have said
thus
> > >far,
> > >they
> > > > maximized profit and contributed to many plantation owners "personal
> > >freedom".
> > > > It boosted the economy of the area, raised many whites out of
poverty,
> > > > bolstered the foreign trade and brought work to many tangent
business
> > > > operations (shipping and fabric dying).
> >
> > Hmm, now. But it did so on the back of an oppressed people. You neglect
to
> > mention that.
> >
>
> I did mention that, it was my point. So is maximizing profit on the back
of an
> oppressed people intellectually morally wrong? How is that not what Coke
is
> doing in Tijuana?
>
>
> > >
> > > >The "immorality" or "morality" of
> > > > slavery is a static social issue, is it not?
> >
> > No. Slavery would seem an affront to the intellect, social, and
biological
> > slave. Slavery would seem to be an affront to the conscientious owner as
> > well, though perhaps only socially and intellectually. That biological
drive
> > though...
> >
>
> Of course if would affront all levels from the slaves point. But here you
make a
> curious statement. "Conscientious". Two points:
>
> (1) It seems to me some have argued that "conscientious" is a stifling
social
> layer of out-dated morality. Why is being concerned about the treatment of
the
> slaves "conscientious", but concerned about the treatment of the
Tijuanaese
> "socialist"?
>
> (2) Explain why we should have restricted the personal freedom of those
who did
> not feel slavery was a social or intellectual affront. I would guess this
was
> the majority, or else the system would have collapsed from within, no?
>
>
> > >
> > >I was wrestling with that as well, but I think your next sentence
> > >shows us a way out of that 'trap'. If we take the intent, the
> > >impetus, behind the Constitution and Bill of Rights as a work
> > >of previously unequalled Intellectual Dynamism, then the part
> > >of that which was looking at personal freedom and all men
> > >being created equally, then slavery at that moment became
> > >an act of economic expediency and political compromise
> > >that is definitely also a low quality-static quality in both social
> > >and intellectual levels.
> >
>
> Agreed. I ask, are there no other "act(s) of economic expediency and
political
> compromise that [are] definitely also a low quality-static quality in both
> social and intellectual levels" being committed by modern capitalism?
Seems to
> me that is what we are talking about?
>
>
> > >So imposing arbitrary "stifling"
> > > > social layers on the "personal freedom" of "honest traders going
about
> > >their
> > > > business in the marketplace" by regulating slavery should be
something
> > >you
> > >are
> > > > against, correct? Just wondering...
> >
> > If the MOQ is against slavery then any attempt at regulating it other
than
> > abolition is meaningless. It's immoral. Period.
> >
>
> Agreed, of course. This of course places "slavery" as an "intellectually"
not
> "socially" governed moral issue (or perhaps both, but...). This says, of
> course, that there are moral issues that must- by virtue of Intellectual
> Quality- supercede individual "personal freedoms" in the marketplace? Does
it
> not?
>
> > > >
> > >The levels are at war, but the higher intellectual quality seems to
> > >make slavery a lower level dominating a higher one. bye-bye
> > >slavery
> >
>
> But not bye-bye exploiting a deliberately impoverished population in
Tijuana?
>
> 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 : Mon Jul 12 2004 - 22:07:05 BST