[Platt] Without individuals choosing to write books and publishers choosing to print them, there would be no libraries, public or otherwise.
[Krimel] People have been writing books for about 3,000 year and collecting them for nearly as long. Books have been written in nearly every kind of economic and political system. Likewise, paintings have been painted. Games have been played. Songs have been sung and dancers have twirled. It would seem that politics and economics are irrelevant to whether books are written or not. While the US certainly produces a vast quantity of writing, is the quality of this writing better than literature elsewhere in space or time? Which is 'better' quantity or quality? [Arlo's question] Let's go back to the fabled pre-socialist era of the early 20th century. Give me some measures you would use to show me how the poor" were better off then? Better income? Better health care? Better education? Contrast the workers in the Pullman camps to the factory workers at GM today. Tell me in what ways the Pullman laborers were "better off"? [Platt] Without individuals choosing to build profit-making businesses and drug companies choosing to invent new medicines, there would be no improvements in income or health care. [Krimel] New medicines and corporations are rarely the product of products of individual effort. They are the products of collective effort. Free markets and collectives are simply techniques for facilitating collective effort. Each is a system of rules for promoting or punishing various behaviors. The success or failure of the system can be judged by the frequency of the target behavior. We see this in bell curves and bar charts. Arlo's question, "By what measures?" is critical. [Platt] Without individuals choosing to become policemen, there would be no police force, public or private. [Krimel] So again the politics and economic is irrelevant to individual choice. The social system is judged by the frequency of individuals choosing to be cops. [Platt] The more individuals are free to choose, the more dynamic and wealthy the society becomes, as Pirsig suggests and America demonstrates. [Krimel] So you would measure a society on the basis of the range of options it provides its members? [Platt] One of the ills of SOM is the bias towards thinking about groups and systems while ignoring the individuals in it. That bias spills over into academe and politics, helping to account for the appeal of socialism and Arlo's propensity. [Krimel] But it is only by seeing how numbers of people respond under different sets of rules that we can know people actually do and the range of options they exercise. Individual choice is constrained by politics and economics. They establish rules to increase or decrease the probability of individual choice. Again, what you choose to measure is critical to your evaluation. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
