On 15 May 2009 at 4:41 PM, Andre Broersen wrote to Platt:
I am not at all convinced that Pirsig is favouring free markets.
Just because the MoQ provided the conservatives with the
vocabulary to describe a free market as a 'Dynamic institution'
doesn't make it any more virtuous (than anything else).
The fact that it is dynamic and therefore virtuous does not hold
for Pirsig (as far as my reading of the MoQ goes). The virtue
that the conservatives see is just that this Dynamic Quality
supports their own self interest. (Lila, p 225).
Andre, I share your doubt that Pirsig intended to promote free market
economics when he wrote that a free market is "Dynamic" and "supports [the
conservatives'] self-interest." In a recent interview, the author admitted
that he had been a Democrat all his life. That fact, plus his constant
emphasis on collective evolution as opposed to entrepreneurial
individualism, is far more indicative of his political-economic persuasion.
However, your complaint that Platt is exploiting "victims" of the free
market reads like Karl Marx and reveals either your misunderstanding or lack
of information about what capitalism is (or should be).
In other words, you are using Dynamic Quality as an excuse,
a justification and cover-up to keep on exploiting, denigrading
and demonizing the poor, the misguided, the unfortunates,
the bloody hard working ordinary people as well as the victims
of this self same free market institution.
First of all, "free market" is a utopian concept that has never been
implemented in the history of mankind. Every marketing system in the world,
including the U.S., is subject to government regulation by such means as
price controls, trade agreements, monopoly laws, energy restrictions,
compulsory medical and IRA plans, corporate welfare programs, and a host of
preferential tax policies. In fact, the federal government's attempt to
manipulate the market (by encouraging people to purchase homes they couldn't
afford) was largely responsible for the present economic crisis.
Secondly, neither Capitalism nor a free market economy produces poverty. On
the contrary, the disparity between rich and poor in a classless society
like the United States reflects the capitalist's freedom to accumulate
private wealth by creating products and services that raise the entire
nation's standard of living. So who are the "victims" you refer to? There
will always be those who lack the education, skills or training to
participate in capitalistic enterprise, and they become our "poor" or
"disadvantaged" underclass. But to suggest that the free market institution
in some way victimizes people is absurd.
Finally, I don't know what the prefix "neo-" before "conservative" is
supposed to mean in this context. I believe this thread was started by
Krimel for political reasons, and "neo-conservative" is a label typically
applied to journalists (like David Brooks of the NYTimes) who have only
recently adapted their former liberal or globalist tendencies to back
conservative politicians.
Andre, I hope you will take Platt's advice and read Thomas Sowell. Also,
Jonah Goldberg clearly explains the rationale for free market economics in a
recent Washington Post article titled "The Spoiled Children of Capitalism".
Following is an excerpt from this editorial that addresses your issue:
"The interesting question isn't 'Why is there poverty?' It's 'Why is there
wealth?' Or 'Why is there prosperity here but not there?'
At the end of the day, the first answer is capitalism, rightly understood.
That is to say: free markets, private property, the spirit of
entrepreneurialism and the conviction that the fruits of your labors are
your own.
For generations, many thought prosperity was material stuff: factories and
forests, gold mines and gross tons of concrete poured. But we now know that
these things are merely the fringe benefits of wealth. Stalin built his
factories, Mao paved over the peasants. But all that truly prospered was
misery and alienation.
A recent World Bank study found that a nation's wealth resides in its
"intangible capital"? its laws, institutions, skills, smarts and cultural
assumptions. 'Natural capital' (minerals, croplands, etc.) and 'produced
capital' (factories, roads, and so on) account for less than a quarter of
the planet's wealth. In America, intangible capital ? the stuff in our
heads, our hearts and our books ? accounts for 82 percent of our wealth.
Any number of countries in Africa are vastly richer in baubles and soil than
Switzerland. But they are poor because they are impoverished in what they
value.
In large measure our wealth isn't the product of capitalism, it IS
capitalism."
The complete article can be found at
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/jonah080408.php3.
I think reading it may correct some of your misconceptions.
Regards,
Ham
And, of course
you are not the only one. The entire American Dream is built around it and
millions are sucked into it...blaming themselves for not making it. (
Albert
Hammond's 'It Never Rains In California' springs to mind). Very, very sad
indeed.
I have suggested to you a few times now that the theories (derived from
scientific discoveries) that underpin the (amongst other things) economic
foundations and practices of the Western world are hopelessly inadequate,
misconstrued, flawed and contradictory and, may I add, highly
destructive.(
this has proven itself on several occasions and you do not need to be a
lefty/commie observer to see this).
You can tell me anything you like but Mr. Pirsig is not so stupid to
accept
this nor your conservative justifications.
Platt:
Anyway, can we agree, Andre, that not all SOM thinking is low quality?
Andre:
Absolutely. It takes wisdom to separate high quality from low quality and
act accordingly.
To quote Pirsig once again (seeing you appreciate this so much):
'...trying to do what is right (and I gather that that is what you are
doing
[it is very populistic and therefore has a massive following] is following
SQ'.
'...trying to do what is GOOD, is following DQ'. Now that takes alot of
intestinal fortitude.
I am assuming you know the difference between doing what is 'right' and
doing what is 'good'....? (of course you do...you've read Lila).
Regards
Andre
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/
