From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Tue Jul 13 2004 - 19:26:05 BST
Platt:
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 11:27:08 +0000, "Platt Holden" wrote:
> Arlo,
>
> > No, they are not your terms Platt, they are my labels for your dichotomy.
>
> Your labels don't jibe with my meanings. You assume what's not in
> evidence.
>
They do. I've explained this, as other could read if they wish to.
> I've also been to many of those places and in my experience they are
> definitely "dull" compared to NYC. Anyway, Eastern-bloc countries were
> communist, not socialist, unless you consider the two terms
> interchangeable.
>
If you believe that Pirsig's statment "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." was meant to apply to Kobenhavn
(or the others I mentioned), then I don't think you saw the same Kobenhavn I
did.
> > 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'm able to keep more of my own money.
>
Thanks for making my point. :-) "Freedom" = "money".
In Denmark you'd have a greater freedom to pursue higher education, because it
is not considered a market commodity. More people are then able to use this
education to do what they truly wish with their lives. But having a system that
allows more people to learn more and do work they are interested in is not the
freedom you are concerned with, is it? So long as you get to keep more of your
own money, I suppose that's all that freedom is really all about.
If anyone "lurking" needed more evidence of why the dialogue needs to be
changed, here you go.
> >
> > Do you support removing these regulations from society then? Or are they
> > necessary?
>
> There's a distinction between laws and regulations. I'm in favor of
> removing most regulations, but realize it will never happen so long as
> people look to others to solve their problems, refusing to take
> responsibility for their bad decisions..
>
I actually agree with this, Platt. Another bottle of Tres Pistoles, maybe? :-)
> I've asked you to define "level playing field" and how you would accomplish
it.
> Until we have a common understanding of that, a discussion would be fruitless.
>
I don't have a quick and easy definition. And perhaps I'd agree that an
absolutely level playing field is "utopic". But this is no reason one can't see
the inequity in the present system.
One example I've pointed to repeatedly are corporations making use of slave
labor (or practically such) in impoverished countries. This hardly is "level"
for an "honest trader" to compete with, unless said "honest trader" finds a way
to utilize foreign slave labor as well. OR.. the dialogue changes to criticize
the actions of Coke as "wrong" publically and vocally, and to argue for
consumers to purchase goods based on other factors than "cheap" and "brand
indentity". More people are doing this today, and I am vocal in many other
areas in promoting local, community business that pay fair wages and treat
their employees with dignity and respect them "as family".
> You can "expand the dialogue" all you want. I've no objection. Most
> corporations can easily rationalize that they are "doing Good." Otherwise,
> they'd be out of business. Governments also claim they are "doing Good,"
> even as they slaughter millions. The difference is governments can and do
> deliberately slaughter millions in the name of the public Good,
> corporations can't and don't.
>
The couldn't rationalize these things if they've read and understood ZMM.
And people wouldn't buy the rationalizations that Coke is "doing Good" in
Tijuana. Or Union Carbide is "doing Good" by saving money by bypassing
environmental restrictions on dumping poison into the groundwater. Or that
destroying medicine production in Africa, where medicine was being made to
supply a poor population that could not afford high priced American
pharmeceuticals, because American "intellectual copyrights" were being broken
is "doing Good".
If you can rationalize these things away as "doing Good" because they "earned
more profit for the company", then I truly feel shame.
> You can promote "profit-sharing" all you want. I've no objection. But
> again, I wonder what you mean by "level playing field" and how you would
> accomplish it without regulations.
>
And I wonder how you'd accomplish it without regulations as well.
> > And you mine. If you are against the "BUTS...", I take it would agree with
> > the statements:
>
> I'm not against the BUTS. But, they would clarify your position.
>
I've been very vocal that "earning money" and "doing Good" are not opposites,
but that "doing Good" is more important than "earning money". I'm sorry if this
was ever ambiguous.
> I'm in favor of free enterprise governed by the common law against lying,
> stealing, cheating, killing and other biological-level behavior that if
> left unchecked, can destroy society. I'm also in favor of constitutional
> law that guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of the press, trial by
> jury, private property, free markets and other protections for the unique
> U.S. and Western culture. I enthusiastically endorse Pirsig's view that
> "It's the freedom to be so awful that gives it the freedom to be so good."
> (Lila, 17)
>
So, there "is there a line where your "personal freedom" to hurt, exploit or
enslave others to "maximize profit" becomes unacceptable? Can you answer this
with a yes or no, just to help me understand your position?
"free enterprise governed by the common law" is another way of saying that
"doing Good" comes before "earning money", is it not?
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 - 19:28:25 BST