Chris:
> The basic thought in modern day socialism is not that
> everyone should have
> the same amount of stuff no matter what they do, but as you
> say, that
> everyone should be paid according to their efforts, and
> yeah: what effort
> can possibly entitle someone to 1.000.000 a day?
> The main point here is that the market, if allowed to roam
> freely, as has
> been proven over and over again throughout history always
> produces this
> imbalance, and the only way to solve it is to enforce
> regulations on the
> market. Because if we look at the system as such, the way
> the market works,
> there is nothing that prevents a few handful of people from
> gaining a
> ridiculous amount of profit - that they will never need -
> on the expense of
> millions of people who with their poverty and labour makes
> this excess
> possible for the top dogs.
SA: To prevent the gain a "ridiculous amount of profit", if we're talking
about what the Japanese do, I'm inclined to agree with. But on the other hand
for CEO's to walk away with millions and billions of company money when a
company falls apart and is no longer the same company (bankruptcy or merger), I
don't think that's due to the free market. That's just plain greed, which
morally I think society could step in, too. Both cases involve greed, which
for the sake of a culture as a whole, is due to ill-responsibility. It is a
degenerate act.
Chris:
> Don't get me wrong, this system is built as a
> competitive system, and if
> some win, some have to loose, of course, and if you live in
> that kind of
> system, you can't really blame anyone for playing by
> the rules, even if the
> rules allow millions of people to die in starvation while
> some have 15
> private jets - it's the giant, and we are just small
> parts of it. So I'm not
> preaching morals, there is no point to that.
> I'm preaching rationality.
SA: I see morals at play here too Chris, and I see nothing wrong with
including morals here.
Chris:
> From a MOQ view we can see how this giant needs
> to be redressed and changed in order to secure the
> supremacy of the
> intellectual level in a way that ensures a balance between
> the levels and
> that is not too rigid in order to be open for change. The
> intellectual level
> needs to step in and rein in the social level, and it's
> been trying to do
> that for a long time now - but it takes a long time in any
> case.
> Even if you don't believe there is an option to the
> capitalist market and
> that with that we have reached the best system mankind can
> do, we still have
> to ensure the supremacy of the intellectual level and try
> to make all levels
> work in the best interest of the development of mankind, to
> facilitate the
> movement towards Quality - right?
> I mean, the market doesn't necessarily have to be the
> enemy of the
> intellectual and the biological level as it turns out to be
> now, if it can
> just be checked by intellectually guided rules.
SA: I would say the free market could work as long as responsibility, the
static latches needed to rein in total dynamic quality/chaos are involved. The
intellectual level would be stepping in enacting responsibility upon a lower
social level that if gone too wild and tearing the static fabric against what
we think best, then this might be a degeneration on the part of the social
level and it would be ok for the intellect to help guide the social to what is
better. If we're saying the monetary system is the only way, I would say this
is where the problem begins. We know of barter and gift-giving, which happen
inside of a culture that uses currency even as we speak. These other ways of
economics are important too.
woods,
SA
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/
