Hi Platt
>> Here, he's talking about ECONOMY, nothing else. It makes everybody
>> *richer*, i.e. they get more money. He says nothing about other things that
>> are important to people such as the long term environmental effects of such
>> a market.
>
> Nor does he say the free market is detrimental to other things important to
> some people.
No, but that doesn't mean it isn't.
>> If the free market continues to run things, it will probably hit the
>> wall during this century, after which it will be more economically
>> rewarding to take environmental effects into account.
>
> If you're talking about global warming, it's not happening.
Oh, I forgot. You're living on Mars.
>> That free market may be dynamic, but it's still just a *social* pattern.
>> I.e. it doesn't use any intellectual reasoning. The only goal it has, the
>> only *value* in that market, is money. So any intellectual reasoning any
>> individual may use is solely used to acquire more money, i.e. to blindly
>> follow the incentive of the society.
>
> Money is just a measure of value and medium of exchange. Markets consist
> of goods and services.
*Just* a measure? It's the *only* measure. Whenever someone is involved
in goods or services, they always asses that involvement to see if
there's a "business case". I.e. Will I make money doing this? Is it
valuable? Those two questions are equivalent in the free market.
The bottom line is: It's a social pattern.
Do you agree?
>> On the other hand, another group of people have used their intellect to look
>> into what the free market, if allowed to continue, will bring in the future.
>> And this future doesn't look very bright.
>
> Looks brighter than ever to me, except for the constant threat to liberty
> from the left.
>
>> So, in MoQ terms, we have the dynamic social pattern "the free market" on
>> one side and we have the intellectual pattern "the environmental movement"
>> on the other. And the MoQ clearly states that the intellectual pattern is
>> more moral, because a higher level pattern *is* more dynamic than any lower
>> level pattern can ever be.
>
> The intellectual pattern of which you speak is phony.
You may not agree with their conclusions, but that only means that you
have a different conclusion, i.e. a different intellectual pattern which
you think is of higher quality. Both are still intellectual patterns and
outranks the social pattern of the free market.
>> The culprit of Platt's reasoning is a little strange thing about the MoQ
>> when applied to human societies. It's the "personal freedom" vs. "bonds of
>> society". The MoQ levels doesn't make it very easy to understand that, and
>> Bo's recurring XXX doesn't make it any easier.
>>
>> The individual person also includes intellectual patterns, but the
>> society does not. Then how is it moral for a society to constrain a
>> person? Make her pay taxes etc.
>
> You ask a very interesting question.
>
>> According to Platt, the highest moral is the individual freedom of each
>> person. But if that was the case, why did people start building cities in
>> the first place? Wouldn't it be most moral if everybody just lived by
>> themselves and spent their days exercising their individual freedom?
>>
>> People started building cities to protect themselves from gangs of
>> bandits only interested in personal short-term gain (hmm, what does that
>> remind me of??). So the cities, legal societies, was in fact a way to gain
>> *more* freedom. Freedom to create jewelery and other things attracting
>> bandits.
>>
>> Granted, societies have changed considerably since then, but I don't
>> believe for a moment that Platt most of all would like to live
>> completely outside it. He wants the legal protection of it like
>> everybody else, so all his claims about the individual freedom being
>> more moral than the bonds of society falls pretty flat right there.
>
> Yes, I want legal protection against biological forces. I'm willing to give
> up freedom for that purpose. But, that's all within the principles of the
> freedom in the MOQ.
But that's the culprit. You want legal protection against biological
forces. But other people are also intellectual. They are not just
biological beings. A thief coming to your house may have perfectly
intellectually valid arguments for breaking into your house and stealing
all your valuable things. How do you explain that without degrading
everyone that wants you harm to biological beings?
Magnus
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/
