From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Wed Jul 14 2004 - 11:44:13 BST
Arlo:
> > > 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".
You got it. Slaves are not allowed to earn 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.
If anyone lurking needs evidence about the positive role of money, ask
"Who pays for education?"
> > 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?
> :-)
Except it's not good for people to look to others to solve their problems.
Nor is it good for others to enable such an attitude by "helping.".
> > 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.
I find nothing wrong with economic "inequities." As Jon wrote not long
ago, "Communism appealed to people for all the wrong reason -- it offered
a world where everyone would be equally miserable."
> 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".
On balance, Coke does far more good than harm as does Union Carbide and
the drug companies.
> > 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.
I wouldn't try, especially by favoring.one group over another.
> 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.
Are you in politics by any chance?
> > 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?
I do not accept your terms "hurt, exploit, enslave" without specifics and
hearing the other side of the story.
> "free enterprise governed by the common law" is another way of saying that
> "doing Good" comes before "earning money", is it not?
It is not. I trust we can agree that survival is "Good." To that end, we
must work. You can work either as a slave and earn no money, or as a free
person and earn money. I think the latter option is damn "Good."
Platt
Platt
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 : Wed Jul 14 2004 - 11:43:43 BST