> [Platt] > Politics and economics is all about what people do. Too often that simple > fact is forgotten and the products of human effort magically emerge without > acknowledgment or regard for the individual effort required. > > [Krimel] > Certainly no one I have read in this forum denies the value of the > individual. What is missing is your acknowledgement that individual effort > is only meaningful even expressable in its social context.
What do you mean by "social context?" That there are other people around? I'll grant you that. As Pirsig says, social change only happens person by person, and someone (an individual) has to be first. > [Platt] > All you are saying is that when two or more individuals combine their > efforts the result is "collective." The collectives I speak of those who > combine to exercise political or social power over others. > > [Krimel] > Then all governments, societies and systems of morality are collective. They > all set limits on the freedom of individuals. They all seek to promote > static patterns in the behavior of members of society. Yes. You've identified the threat to individual liberty perfectly. As Pirsig points out, the proper role of social "systems" is not to interfere in the free market place of goods or ideas as left-wing socialists want to do, but to protect individuals from biological crime. > [Platt] > Indeed. How about happiness? > > [Krimel] > So how would you measure this? Without some reference point how do you know > whether happiness is up or down? How can you say which systems produce more > or less of it? I refer you to an article I've mentioned before written by those who have established such measures, not by theorizing about systems but by interviewing actual people. Check out: http://www.ebookmall.com/ebook/66883-ebook.htm > [Platt] > Again, a systems approach. On the contrary, I believe the political and > economic system is especially relevant to individual choice. > > [Krimel] > Of course a systems approach; we are talking about systems for influencing > the probably distributions of human behavior. We want to know given a range > of options or a set of rules what individuals are likely to do. Yes, I know. Good old SOM. Study systems, not individual people. > [Platt] > I would measure the quality of a society by the degree of individual freedom > from government interference it provides, the less, the better. > > [Krimel] > So you favor anarchy? I suppose you are not alone. But I would favor a > system that regulates a host of forms of interference from ignorance and > disease to poverty and pollution. You continue to ignore the unchecked power > of concentrated economic forces which are largely ignored in the US > constitution but are enormously influential in constraining individual > liberty in favor of collective wishes. Less government doesn't mean anarchy. But, I'm not surprised you favor a host of regulations. Left-wingers always do. As for economic forces, I'll take them over the KGB any day. > [Platt] > I think the history of liberty in America and elsewhere pretty much > validates the benefits of individualism. > > [Krimel] > History is a cup of tea. You can read what you want into the sludge at the > bottom. I have no idea what that means other than you choose to ignore the slaughter of millions. > [Platt] > The less constraint from the coercive power of government the better > wouldn't you say? > > [Krimel] > Generally speaking I would seek to balance cohesive power in a number of > forms, economic coercion included. It is not a question of whether we have > rules or whether we coerce the behavior of citizen but what set of rules and > which behaviors we want to increase or decrease. These are decisions that > can only be made collectively. Ever hear of the tyranny of the majority? Do you agree with Pirsig that intellectually-guided individual rights like freedom of speech should supersede collective values? And what about the collective wishes of "economic forces." I thought that was bad. Now you say rules can only be made collectively. > >[Krimel] > > Again, what you choose to measure is critical to your evaluation. > > [Platt] > Indeed. How about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as a start? > > [Krimel] > Again how do you measure these? The society with the highest population? The > society without laws? And again with happiness... What did you say that is > again? One good measure would be where people would prefer to live when given the chance to move to any country of their choice. Take Mexicans, for instance. 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/
