From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Wed Jul 14 2004 - 15:00:51 BST
Good morning Platt,
> > Thanks for making my point. :-) "Freedom" = "money".
>
> You got it. Slaves are not allowed to earn money. .
>
Well, this is a little reductionistic. I could easily say "Freedom" =
"education", and support this by saying that "slaves were not allowed to attend
school". Right?
> > In Denmark you'd have a greater freedom to pursue higher education, because
> >
> If anyone lurking needs evidence about the positive role of money, ask
> "Who pays for education?"
>
I thought I made the positive role of money clear when I mentioned buying a
Harley? Here I think you are confusing social wealth and personal wealth.
"Everyone" pays for the open higher education system, to the detriment of any
"one" individual's desire to "maximize their wealth". The "one" individuals are
wise enough to know that, like having public roads and a public Interstate
system, their overall freedoms will increase exponentially related to the small
decline in their personal wealth coffers.
Thus, let me restate, no one personal is allowed to claim that their desire to
maximize their personal wealth (keep more of their money) is greater than the
overall freedoms afforded to everyone by open higher 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.".
>
So, if my neighbors next door lose their heating for the winter
(hypothetically), it is "not good" for me to let them stay with me? Or help
them with the money to pay for the heating?
If the little girl across the street, whose family is unemployed, is not eating
well, it is "not good" for me to offer them help buying food?
And the reason for this is that it interferes with my "accumulating personal
wealth"?
Is this what you are saying? Wow.
> 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."
>
"Inequities" existing can not be used for justification that severe inequity can
or should be tolerated. People will likely always commit murder, but that does
not mean we should blindly accept murders and "live and let live".
>
> On balance, Coke does far more good than harm as does Union Carbide and
> the drug companies.
>
Outside of the fact that Coke (soda) is consumed to the point where it produces
significant health problems in many people (something I am against regulating,
but feel needs to be vocalized to combat the incessent advertising), if I grant
you the hypothetical "doing more good than harm", why should this excuse the
harm they do do?
Is this a way of saying that if it's not technically illegal, it's perfectly
fine. If there exists no "laws" preventing UC from dumping toxic waste into the
groundwater of Tijuana, then we should not criticize it?
Or is it a way of saying that since UC employees a lot of people that their
injustices on Tijuana or India or anywhere should be excused?
Are you advancing the notion that if UC went out of business because it had to
abide by "stifling social codes", that people everywhere would be worse off,
would not be able to find new or better employment, and would thus cease being
"free"?
> > > 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 don't understand? You wouldn't try to create a level playing field? Or you
wouldn't try using regulations? I though you said in another post, that
although "unfavorable", some regulations were necessary?
The regulations against monopolies are regulations promoting a "level playing
field". Would you abolish them?
> > 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?
>
No. Foreign language education and technology.
> > "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."
>
A little reductionistic again. What you are basically stating is that since
"free" people can "earn money", that maximizing personal wealth maximizes
personal freedom. Furthermore, that we should only be concerned with our own
"freedom", and if that "freedom" (maximizing wealth) tramples someone else,
then that is their tough luck.
If simply "earning money" alone was your criteria for "freedom", then you'd have
to say the Danes and the Canadians are free too (they can "earn money"). But
your claim that they are "less free" because you can "keep more of your money"
shows that you correlate only "personal freedom" and "wealth".
So, you can either work as a slave and earn no money, or as a a free person and
earn money. I agree that the latter option is damn "Good". But you can also
work as a free person and earn money and believe that your ability to maximize
your individual money stockpile is the only "Good" that exists, OR you can work
as a free person and earn money and recognize that there are greater freedoms,
or greater measures of freedom, than simply the gross total on your personal
paycheck or sum in your personal savings account. I think the latter is damn
"Good"!
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 : Wed Jul 14 2004 - 15:28:18 BST