Hi Gav [John quoted] --
I enjoyed reading of your recent sojourn to Castlemaine, and your comparison of working as an employee vs. working as a freelancer or volunteer. Having done both, I can understand why you find the latter more "creative" and less stressful. However, I think you have exaggerated the "money factor" in this comparison.
What I realised through all this is that working for money is an essentially alienating exercise. Working for free, or as exchange is quite different - it is ...noble. It builds trust, friendships, community....money is the root of all evil?
Exchanging labor for money is not how one should view capitalism. Time schedules and company obligations can be stressful, of course. But you can build trust, develop friendships, enjoy community, and still exercise your creativity working for an employer. The key to a pleasurable working career is finding what you like to do (and are probably best skilled to achieve), and then seeking out an opportunity that matches your talents and skills.
When I started out to earn a living, I had earned BS in Biology/Chemistry (pre-med) and a degree in music (payed for under the G.I. Bill). My hobbies were electronic tinkering and writing, and I worked part-time as DJ/announcer at a local classical music station while attending the (now defunct) Philadelphia Conservatory. Though the "work" was enjoyable, I was about to marry and realized I couldn't support a wife on the minimum wage. Having received some electronics training during my military service in the Signal Corps., I decided to parlay my communications skills into a full-time job as tech writer--first for Philco Corp., and later (when Philco was sold) for RCA Service Co. across the river in NJ, where I worked on the Minuteman project until it was phased out. I then joined an ad agency in Center City to try my hand at industrial copywriting. This worked out so well, I went on to two other agencies (at higher salaries) before getting an offer from a friend at a major chemical company to work in their advertising dept. After 15 years at Rohm & Haas, I elected to take early retirement, but worked a dozen additional years for a non-profit medical research organization, some of it on a free-lance basis, which I found quite rewarding.
There were a couple of interim jobs along the way, and luck played a role but, although I never made a pile of money, in every case I found opportunities suited to my interests and creativity. And (under the capitalist system), my 15 years at Rohm & Haas qualified me for a retirement package that we converted to an IRA which now pays interest and a major portion our medical bills.
But what really prompted my response was the 2/21 post from John who makes some strange assertions....
[John]:
But "love" is where we put our source of value. And money is a social pattern. Loving money is an immorality, subjecting an intellectual value to a social one. But its not just "a" immorality. It's "the" immorality, for there is no evil in nature, only the intellect of man is capable of evil, when it subjects intellect to social or biological satisfactions alone. Or loves money.
Love is indeed an expression of value, but so is the power of wealth. To call love of money "an immorality" is not only unwarranted but expresses the jaundiced biblical view of usury and exploitation by the rich. Anyway, we don't love dollars and cents; we love the power that money as a symbol of wealth brings. What is immoral about earning wealth or making a proft in the marketplace? Take away monetary rewards for labor or service, and you eliminate the incentive to create or produce anything of value.
I also find the sentiments you have expressed under the 'Capitalism' thread troublesome enough to voice my comments. You appear to have some beef against the justice of trial by jury, private property, and government of any kind, while mocking our laws and constitutional freedoms.
Democracy is a great idea. America (or Australia) doesn't have it - at all. Trial by jury....great idea for a criminalised existence. How about lore over law?
As I understand "lore", it is simply the application of knowledge acquired in a particular area. I don't see its relevance to criminal justice. Where can you find a stable society without laws?
Freedom of speech? - to say what where? The media is owned by billionaires
The business of the media is to report on news in its area of expertise. That this business can be profitable, or owned by wealthy entrepreneurs, is a tribute to its success, not a restriction of public freedom.
Freedom of the press? ha! - read manufacturing consent by Chomsky
It seems that Chomsky has had no trouble gaining a public platform for his Marxist views.
Freedom of assembly? - except if you constitute a threat to national security - ie arbitrarily withdrawable.
Such as shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theater?
Limited government - any government is illegitimate.
What is your criterion for legitimacy? In what sense is a representative government elected by the people "illegitimate"?
Private property - is a crime against the planet. Perpetual leases would be a better idea.
If you believe all property should be state-owned, you are must count yourself as Marxist. (Why am I not surprised?)
I think it would be more prudent for both of us to stick to philosophy. Regards, Ham 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/
