On 2 Jun 2009 at 9:00, X Acto wrote: > John, > I mean it's as if Platts argument is based on the idea that having the freedom > to commit suicide and unconsciously harm others is "betterness" > that greed selfishness and gluttony is "good"
Nothing wrong with selfishness. Mother Theresa gets satisfaction out of serving God and helping the poor. I'm sure you try to do things that make you and those you value happy. Just remember when you are eating your supper you are being selfish because there's not a mouthful of food not needed more by someone somewhere in the world. Those who want to be admired for their caring and compassion are the worst. > If his angle is that systems theory is evil in context to ecology then > doctors are evil for promoting healthy living. My angle is system thinking should not be applied to people. When you do, people become "human resources." They become stereotyped and replaceable because the system is what counts. In a free market corporations who ignore the uniqueness of each individual employee and customer ultimately fail. Only politicians and armies succeed by treating people as cogs in a system. > Who are they to tell us that smoking is harmful, that over eating will cause > heart disease, > all socialist propaganda, they are the murders not my individual desires. > Must be nice > to justify every indulgance with the claim of upholding individualism. > I guess individualism is defined by the freedom of being a complete fucking > pig > If thats what one aspires to. This is Quality. The slow suicide of pigs, pigs > with jobs. > Those socialist pigs that have no jobs are evil. Who are you to think you know what's best for others and to call you fellow humans "pigs?" > I ask, is this excellence? I ask, is this arrogance? > ________________________________ > From: John Carl <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2009 10:41:39 AM > Subject: Re: [MD] Reductionism > > Platt inflamed: > > > > So capitalism has killed as many as communism and fascism? Is that > > your claim? Let's see some proof. Otherwise, you're just popping off, > > trying to defend the indefensible. > > > > I sent a new thread that didn't go appear yet, perhaps exceeding some rule. > But I was so glad to see Wired mag post an article on the subject dear to > my heart, that I must dip my toe back in the water with you Platt. > > http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/17-06/nep_newsocialism > > "The type of communism with which Gates hoped to tar the creators of Linux > was born in an era of enforced borders, centralized communications, and > top-heavy industrial processes. Those constraints gave rise to a type of > collective ownership that replaced the brilliant chaos of a free market with > scientific five-year plans devised by an all-powerful politburo. This > political operating system failed, to put it mildly. However, unlike those > older strains of red-flag socialism, the new socialism runs over a > borderless Internet, through a tightly integrated global economy. It is > designed to heighten individual autonomy and thwart centralization. It is > decentralization extreme." > > I'm not quite as burned out on the subject as your many detractors, but I > must ask you if you are perhaps fighting the wrong battles? Nobody wants to > go back to communism the way it used to be; that's yesterday's news. What > we need in this crisis time (and it must have made you cranky yesterday with > all news outlets braying and the crashing of western capitalism falling down > around our ears) is clear thinking about where to go from here and how. > > Or maybe we should just quit. > > Please read the article. 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/
