From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Tue Jul 13 2004 - 05:04:41 BST
Platt,
> > Modern American Capitalism versus Eastern-bloc Socialism: It most certainly
> > comes from you, Platt.
>
> Oh? In what post did I use those words?
>
No, they are not your terms Platt, they are my labels for your dichotomy.
(1) "Modern American Capitalism", if we can agree that I mean the term to
designated the actual instantiation of economics in place at this moment in
time (forgive the necessary redundancy), is something I have been critical of.
In response to these criticisms, you have rebuted them primarily with Pirsig's
famous "what the socialists..." statement about how their economies failed due
to closing the door to Dynamic Quality, and how "free enterprise" was more
moral.
Since I've claimed repeatedly that I favor free-enterprise, this leads me to
believe that you absolutley equate the ideal of free-enterprise with
whatever-we-have-now. The two are indistinguishable and inseparable for you. If
this is a mischaracterization, please explain how.
(2) Pirsig comments on "socialism" saying, "But what the
socialists left out and what has all but killed their whole undertaking
is an absence of a concept of indefinite Dynamic Quality You go to any
socialist city and it's always a dull place because there's little
Dynamic Quality."
I think this is quite obvious that he's talking about easter-bloc socialist
countries. How could he possibly been talking about, say, Montreal or Muenchen
or Kobenhavn, or Malmo... or Madrid, Quebec or London. I can tell you
firsthand, I've been to all these cities... they are not "dull places", they
are very vibrant and alive. Denmark's economy is hardly "all but killed".
Anyways, it is obvious that "in context", Pirsig is placing free-enterprise over
the failed economies (and why they failed) of the eastern-bloc countries. Fair
enough, but you use this to advance the notion that any-and-all criticisms of
capitalism are rebuttable with this statement. Hence, "modern american
capitalism" (which you argue is synomous with free-enterprise) versus
"eastern-bloc socialism" (which you use as the "not A" to modern american
capitalism).
That is how the distinction comes from you.
> > You are promoting fear by advancing, continually, this duality. Socialism
> > or Freedom. You do it here. I think the people of Germany and Canada are
> > free. Indeed, Platt, I've experienced more "personal freedom" in both the
> > Netherlands and Denmark than I have in America. Ooops, unless you
> > synonomize "personal freedom" and "my ability to maximize wealth at any
> > cost".
>
> Obviously your idea of freedom and mine are world's part.
>
Kindly explain to me how you are more free than a Dane? Or a Canadian? I am
truly interested to know. What is it that you can do here, that you could not
do there?
I appreciate the subtle differences, but am somewhat intrigued by your "world's
apart" comment.
> > Because I am critical of your unrestricted personal freedoms to maximize
> > profit at any cost, I am critical of freedom in general. I support the laws
> > that restrict my ability to kill, drive drunk or slander others. Does this
> > make me any enemy of freedom too?
>
> No. It makes you an enemy of biological values.
>
Do you support removing these regulations from society then? Or are they
necessary?
> > Tell me, Platt, do you favor marijuana legalization? The legalization of
> > prostitution? Or are only business matters matters that should be free of
> > "stifling social regulations"?
>
> Yes. I favor both. (Ignoring for the moment that prostitution is a
> business).
>
Platt, we have found common ground! For this reason, I am opening as we speak a
bottle of "Tres Pistoles"! Cheers!
> > > More accurate I think to say, "I favor free markets, BUT . . ." Right?
>
> > Wrong. And this just shows again that you've not really bothered to read my
> > posts. I favor "free markets", I disfavor practices that unlevel the
> > playing field.
>
> That's what I meant. You favor free markets provided they don't . . .
> etc., etc.
>
Soooo... being for a level playing field means I don't really support
free-markets? Do you mean that it's better to be simply straight for "free
markets" whether or not the playing field is level or not? Is that what you are
saying?
> > You have got to be kidding me? In at least four posts (that I've been able
> > to find rereading what I've wrote) I mentioned several suggestions, none of
> > which included "legal action".
>
> Oh? I thought you were all for regulations.
>
Please read beyond these first two paragraphs:
We need regulations to keep the playing field level. For example, the
regulations against monopolies. The regulations against insider trading. The
regulations against price fixing.
And we need regulations to protect the individual. For example, regulations
against dumping toxic waste in groundwater. Regulations against unsafe work
environments. Regulations against false advertising.
But, I think a better way (perhaps ideal) to work towards a system that is not
regulated by social codes, is to bring "what is good" into the dialogue. These
"regulations" are only necessary because the dialogue does not consider the
question "what is good?". If business did "what is good" before "maximizing
profit", I bet these regulations (or most of them) would be fairly unnecessary.
But since "doing Good" threatens "maximizing profit" (which has been
mischaracterized as "earning profit" elsewhere), those who seek only money wish
it's pursuit to be above "doing Good", and oppose the dialogue being expanded.
Correct?
As for other suggestions, such as improving labor to bring activity and product
into relation, I advocated the Harley-Davidson example as a point to consider.
I suggested offering financial incentives (the language you speak) to
businesses that would restructure to provide a more involved labor force. I
suggested possibly thinking of a way to promote the adoption of tying labor to
profit, so the employee "earns" as the business earns (and does not when the
business does not). And I've suggested that if the playing field were equal,
then Pirsig's "more moral" employee-owned companies would be competitive and
would be something we could promote.
But I've said all this many times, over and over, and yet you still say "I
thought you were all for regulations".
> > > Again, more accurate I think to say, "Earning money is good, BUT . . ."
> > > Right?
> > >
> >
> > BUT.. not at the expense of harming others?
> > BUT.. it is not the greatest good we should consider?
> > BUT.. it does not justify all actions?
>
> Thanks for making my point.
>
And you mine. If you are against the "BUTS...", I take it would agree with the
statements:
(1)Earning money is good WHETHER OR NOT...it is at the expense of harming others
(2) Earning money is the greatest good we should consider
(3) Earning money is good and justifies all actions.
Since it is all "A and not A", then you must agree with these, correct?
> > Asking "A and not A" does not logically preclude the existance of B, which
> > must then be dealth with. You are conflating the world into "A and not A",
> > answering the question, and then saying there are no more questions to ask.
>
> And B and not B exists along the C and not C down the whole alphabet.
> That's not the point. The point is words have meanings. In logical
> argument you cannot used the word "socialism" without qualification and
> then claim it means only "socialism of eastern-bloc countries."
>
??? How did I claim "socialism" means only "eastern-bloc countries". You use a
defense of free-enterprise statement that was obviously in context directed at
eastern-bloc nations (see above) as a blanket dismissal of anything that is
critical of modern capitalism.
Socialism exists in various degrees and guises throughout the world, and these
real situations can not be dismissed with Pirsig's statement. I doubt, for
example, that Pirsig would dismiss Canada's economy as "all but killed" and her
cities as "dull". I've just gotten back from Ottawa, well, a few weeks ago, and
I can tell you it is hardly "all but killed" or "dull".
Finally, you ommitted an answer to this question. I am curious...
(1) Are you in favor of unrestricted free-enterprise, or do you feel there
should be some social regulations, which many impede any one individual's
personal freedom, but promotes a level-playing field for all? And, is there a
line where your "personal freedom" to hurt, exploit or enslave others to
"maximize profit" becomes unacceptable?
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 13 2004 - 05:06:55 BST