From: Dan Glover (daneglover@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Jul 13 2004 - 19:55:42 BST
Hello everyone
>From: "Mark Steven Heyman" <markheyman@infoproconsulting.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>Subject: Re: MD the metaphysics of free-enterprise
>Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 14:26:12 -0700
>
>Hi Dan, Arlo, and all...
>
>On 12 Jul 2004 at 12:54, Dan Glover wrote:
> >
> >arlo:
> >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?
>
>dan:
>I don't think the workers in Tijuana are slaves in the same sense as
>in Jefferson's time. But again, I've never been there so I can't form
>a qualified opinion.
>
>dan later:
>I don't know whether the quality is lower for the Tijuanese workers.
>Maybe it is. But one difference between them and the slaves is that
>the Tijuanese can leave their jobs there and search for better
>conditions, legally. The slaves in Jefferson's time had no such
>recourse other than to illegally leave their owners and trust in
>systems like the underground railroad to deliver them into a better
>environment. If they were caught they would be hamstrung or worse.
>Not so with the Tijuanese. If they come north illegally seeking
>employment and are caught they may face deportation but we certainly
>don't hobble them, at least not to my knowledge.
>
>msh says:
>Dan, I think you're missing the point here. An analogy doesn't have
>to be perfectly symmetrical to be useful in pointing out some truth.
>The fact is that it's not just a matter of packing up and moving
>north: there's hardship AND risk involved just as there was for the
>slaves. Perhaps the punishment for their illegal behavior is not so
>severe, but this too misses the point, which is...
>
>WHY is it OK for an American Corporation to treat its workers in
>Mexico so much different than it's workers are allowed to be treated
>here? If it's not OK, then what is your objection to calling any and
>all such exploitation of workers immoral?
Hi Mark
I've read your post quite a number of times but I guess I'm still not
getting it. Are you saying slave owners lacked the empathy (an intellectual
pattern of value IMO) to feel the pain they brought on their slaves? Maybe
some did, but human nature being what it is, most people, north or south,
would empathize with the slaves even if they failed to admit it. So it seems
to me you're making an assumption and running with it and then telling me I
don't get it when I don't run along.
I guess since it's a different country Mexico has different laws regarding
workers' rights. There was a time in the US when corporations treated
workers very poorly. What changed? I suppose that's what needs to happen in
the eco-south.
Of course it's hard to pull up roots and move. But if you don't make enough
to buy clean drinking water (even though you work for the world's largest
bottler of drinking water, Coca Cola) then I would think moving might be the
lesser of two evils. But that's only my opinion, keep in mind. I'm not
saying anyone else should do it, only that it's an option that I would
perhaps consider.
Maybe all workers are being exploited. But like the wife who gnashes her
teeth over her husband's alcoholism and yet jumps and runs to the store to
buy his booze for him each time he hollers, don't we have to allow ourselves
to be exploited? Don't we each have some small measure of personal
responsibility in the world?
>
>dan to arlo:
>I think there is a problem with your statement "the market's highest
>Quality is measured in profit." You're subordnating Quality to
>profit. In the MOQ and in my experience it's the other way around.
>The market's highest profit is measured by Quality.
>
>msh says:
>It can't be that Quality comes before Proift when a corporation is
>founded on legal language that makes it a CRIME for CEOs or BODs or
>major stockholders to say or do anything that will impede the
>corporation's profit flow. And even if they couldn't be held
>criminally liable for such actions, they would nevertheless have
>little or no incentive to act differently since their own interests
>are served by profit maximization. This is why, say, you might have
>a car company who KNOWS their cars will explode when impacted from
>behind at a certain speed. However, since their actuarial
>accountants have assured them that it will be less expensive to pay
>off the resulting lawsuits for deaths and maimings than to perform a
>recall, a decision is made to go ahead and allow the accidents to
>occur. Hardly what I'd call Quality-Profit.
I hope you don't think I'm defending such actions; I'm not. I said that
Quality doesn't reside in profit maximization but rather profit maximization
resides in Quality. Otherwise you're subordinating Quality to profit
maximization. I was thinking along the lines of: Lila doesn't have Quality.
Quality has Lila.
Is it Quality to blow up your customers? Of course not. Is it Quality to
addict your customers to a product that will kill them? Hardly. But guess
what. Cigarette and car companies have made a lot of profit. Is it Quality
profit? The money spends the same either way, yes or no. I guess you're
damned if you say yes and you're going to hell if you say no. It's best not
to answer at all. Let's say there is no such thing as Quality profit. Let's
say Quality for some people is not about making more money. There's profit
and there's loss. Black or red, business is very cut and dried that way.
I think the profit maximization you protest against is more the negative
face of Quality, the disregard for the common good (Quality) in acquiring
the greatest possible profit for a product while simultaneously putting the
least amount of resources into it. This system gives rise to suffering
without a doubt. I don't disagree with you on that. But the world is made of
suffering and without it there would be no reason to be free.
Thank you for your comments,
Dan
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/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 : Tue Jul 13 2004 - 20:27:41 BST