From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Fri Jul 16 2004 - 17:10:29 BST
Platt,
At 08:49 16/07/2004, you wrote:
>Arlo,
>
> > Money, though, *is* a human right?
>
>Absolutely not. But to earn money, yes. Otherwise, you're a slave.
>
This is a circular argument. Rephrased, "money" is not a human right, but
"earning money" is (activity over object). This is no different than my
saying "education" is not a human right, but "getting educated" is,
otherwise you're a slave.
Explain to me how "earning money" sets you free, but "getting educated"
does not? Unless you're saying that "earning money" makes you free on the
social level, while "getting educated" sets you free on the Intellectual
level. To this, I may agree.
Or, if you take a capitalist-pragmatic view of education as a means to
securing financial income. What better way to "earn money" than by becoming
"educated". So if we really believed that earning money is freedom,
providing educational access to everyone becomes a good way to secure this, no?
> > > Social wealth? Where did that idea come from? Does it mean that part of
> > > everything you earn and own belongs to others? Are "free roads" and "free
> > > college educations" human rights?
>
> > I'd say they are Intellectual level "values". "Accumulating wealth" is a
> > social level "value".
>
>Roads and education are social values. So is accumulating wealth.
>
Activity over object, as you allow your position to do. "Roads" and
"education" (objects) are social level values, the ideas of "open travel"
and "open education" (activity) are Intellectual values, that manifest in
some ways as "public roads" and "Universities as in Europe".
The Intellectual level tells us that a society that is freely mobile will
provide greater freedoms than one where mobility is restricted. So, we
build public roads to help in one way structure this.
> > (Probably just as much as I despise being told I have to pay for an
> > idiotic, misguided and immoral war.)
>
>Immoral war? How so from an MOQ point of view?
Maybe another post, Platt. But I've seen the arguments in the MOQ archives
on this, I fear we'd simply be restating what's been said. Suffice it to
say that we all have to pay for things that we don't personally agree with.
> > I agree that welfare needs to be restructured. I do not agree that it
> > should be abolished.
> >
> > Oddly, Platt, some welfare (not all) could be ended if neighbors would
> > start taking care of their neighbors. If you could convince a lot of other
> > people to think about "community", then you wouldn't have to lose your
> > personal wealth and be bothered being forced to help those less fortunate
> > than yourself.
>
>Why do you suppose it's so hard to "convince a lot of others?"
>
Because of the way the dialogue values "money" over "doing Good"
(Excellence, Virture...). This has been my point all along.
> > That we should not be complacent with a system that is obviously flawed.
>
>Inequities in the system mean the system is obvious flawed? Is that a plea
>for redistribution of wealth, whether deserved or not?
>
Back to that dichotomy again, are we? "As it is" or communistic
"redistribution of wealth"... nothing else?
But, you yourself said the system was flawed in post to Anthony back on
June 7th: "I'll bet Pirsig would pick capitalism over socialism as being
the lesser of two flawed systems."
> > So, basically, they (UC) can do whatever they want, so long as the
> prices of
> > good in the marketplace stay cheap?
>
>As said repeatedly, no one can do "whatever they want."
Really? Seems to me the examples we've been talking about demonstrate
otherwise?
> > Do you not think it would be really easy for the ex-UC employees to just
> > find another job? If so, then why should it matter if UC goes under? If
> > not, then what is this saying about (1) the economny and (2) the need for
> > welfare.
>
>Who said life was, or should be, "really easy?"
No one. But could you answer the question?
> > You avoided the question. I'll reask.
> >
> > Are you against laws prohibitng "businesses" from forming monopolies?
>
>Yes, so long as the laws don't also apply to government. What kind of a
>level playing field is it when government doesn't play by the same rules?
Should the highways be sold to private businesses?
> > Also, since you blame American education shortcomings (I though we were the
> > best in the world?) on it being "public", where did you find information
> > demonstrating the failure of public education system in Canada, Britain,
> > Germany, Denmark.
>
>Most students irrationally despise America.
Hmmm.... and the only possible two choices are "irrationally despise" or
"rationally favor"? No chance at all, I suppose, that if aaaaaalllll these
other people "despised" America (as you say), that there couldn't be
aaaannnnyyyy thing to that that'd make you think aaaaaannnyyything other
than their education system failed.
Some static filtering going on, I'd say.
> > And, to make a specific point, Japan, which we are told leads us in
> > education in many, many fields, has a "public" system (less than 5% of
> > Japanese schools are privately owned and run).
>
>Japan, a regimented society with a policy of ethnic purity, has a culture
>that encourages and rewards educational excellence.
Maybe then this should be the solution for our country, instead of
privatization, eh?
Oooo... wait.... did you say "ethnic purity"? Platt, can you please tell me
what this has anything to do with educational success (let alone anything
else)?
> > How do you place the blame on "public"? Seems more like a political agenda
> > than a well-thought out criticism?
>
>Do you not have a well-thought out political agenda?
>
Not one that falls neatly into a capitalism/socialism dichotomy. I'd like
to think I can function (badly at times, maybe) on the Intellectual level,
and not base my political views on a duality that is pretty much illusory
(in my opinion).
For example, your valuing of education based on the accepting or rejection
of American ideology is, frankly, absurd. It begins with the premise
"America is Great" and filters any challenge to this as misguided or wrong,
or as above proof to education failing. This is more akin to "blind faith"
than "reason", or worse, it is "blind faith" masquerading as "reason".
But, as for a political agenda, the ideas from the Open Capital article
that I've posted the other day, is something that I'd consider worth
pondering "at this point", but I reserve the right to change this opinion
if reason shows there to be a better way, or if as I come to understand
this have disagreements with.
To restate (and Anthony has clearly articulated, "The MOQ indicates that
there's a place for free markets in some contexts"), I fully favor free
markets in the business arena. This does not mean that privatization is
right in every context, as in the case of providing a public highway
system, health care and education, and as you've said national defense and
judiciary matters. As John provided with the Galbraith quote:
"There is a large area of economic activity in which the market is and
should be unchallenged; equally, there is a large range of activities that
increases with increasing economic well-being where the services and
functions of the state are either necessary or socially
superior. Privatization, therefore, is not any better as a controlling
guide to public action than is socialism. In both cases the primary
service of the doctrine is in providing escape from thought. In the good
society there is in these matters one dominant rule: decision must be made
on the social and economic merits of the particular case. This is not the
age of doctrine; it is the age of practical judgment."
> > > I don't accept your premise that maximizing wealth necessarily "tramples"
> > > anyone. That's a reflection of belief that there's only such much of the
> > > pie to go around. What capitalism does is create an ever larger pie.
> > >
> >
> > And what "modern capitalism" is doing is tossing the crusts to the majority
> > of people in this country. Maybe you should come and talk to all the
> > families in my hometown who are losing their jobs, causing the local
> > economy to pretty much collapse, where the only "new" jobs are low-wage
> > retail and local stores are going under, and explain to them how they are
> > getting "more pie".
>
>Anybody suggest to them to stop whining and move on?
Move on? To what? Where? I take it you don't spend much time among the real
people in this country.
> > > Believe what you wish. Speak out against what you deem evil. You're free
> > > to do so unless intimidated by political correctness designed to smother
> > > "degenerate" views.
> > >
> > > Maybe we can agree that freedom of speech is the most precious freedom of
> > > all, one that's worth dying for.
> >
> > Absolutely. Hence we are able to have this coversation. :-) (It's too early
> > in the day for some Tres Pistoles, but I'll earmark a bottle for tonight!)
> >
> > By the way, the "left" (assuming that's who you mean) is not the only side
> > demanding a "politically correct" way of speaking.
>
>Well, at least you admit the left is guilty of something. :-)
>
>Let's see. So far we agree that free speech is worth dying for and
>government should stop subsidizing business. How about a law preventing
>anyone in government from accepting money from anyone? Would you be in
>favor of that?
I would be. I think politicians are too controlled by special interests. It
is like the social governing the Intellectual. But, I'd say that this
requires changes to the electoral-campaign process overall. Ideally, a
blanket ban such as this would make "honest, value-driven" people run for
office, but we'd have to be watchful that it would not instead create a
system where only the "wealthy" could run for office. Much as we need
reform, a plutocracy is not the direction we should go.
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 : Fri Jul 16 2004 - 21:26:36 BST