Hi Don, David, Platt and All
First of all, my apologies for not replying sooner. I had to finish an essay for an
Open
University course.
Any way, where were we?
On 11 Feb 99, at 22:14, drose wrote:
> Horse: You and I have a lot in common. I've been a longtime member and
> sometime officer of ABATE of Indiana. I love having my knees in the breeze
> and I too have been known to run with the "rough crowd". I've spent a lot
> of time wrangling over "rights", mine and others.
I remember ABATE from way back in the 70's when I used to read Easyriders, so I
checked
out the Indiana ABATE site and was really impressed. One of the things that did
impress
me was the attitude towards brother bikers and their families, the community you live
in
and the fundraising activities of ABATE- $256K for Muscular Dystrophy, $40K for
Members and Families in need, the Toys for Tots program, $50K for community charities,
$20K for the Riley Hospital for Children. Whilst still remaining individualistic you
retain a
strong sense of collective/social responsibility.
> I suspect we're getting into problems with defininitions. Socialism is
> antithetical to libertarianism, by any definition I of which I am aware.
So what are Socialism and Libertarianism and why should they appear to be in
opposition
to each other?
Libertarianism is about the Rights of individuals in respect of expression,
association,
privacy etc. There's also the right to life, freedom, and freedom from torture which
are the
most basic of rights. Generally, Libertarianism involves the right to go about your
business, peacefully, unobstructed by interference from others. The other side of this
is
that you exercise responsibility in ensuring that not only do you refrain from
infringing
others rights but that you actively ensure that the society in which you exist also
refrains
from infringing the rights of its members.
Socialism is about equality. Equality is the most basic tenet of any Socialist system.
In
contrast to how this is generally interpreted, this does not mean that all people are
equivalent in all respects but refers to the principle that all people should receive
equal
treatment, rights and opportunities. It is the business of a Socialist government to
ensure
that all members of their society are treated equally in these respects. Additionally,
there
are other necessary functions of government - Socialist or otherwise - construction
and
maintenance of transport infrastructures, defence etc., which should also be carried
out
with impartiality and observance of equal treatment, rights and opportunity.
Unfortunately this is rarely the case but this does not detract from the principles of
Socialism - only the practice.
The Rights that form the basis of Libertarianism are an expression of intellectual
value but
their continued existence can only be assured in a social context - social value. If
you want
the continuance of the benefits of Libertarianism then it is necessary that a limited
form of
government is accepted in order that a base level of order exists.
> I guess I'll have to read Chomsky, now. Sometimes this group gets on my
> nerves :-)
For a good introduction to Chomsky you could try one of the publications of interviews
with David Barsamian - I think the latest one is Class Warfare. There a whole stack of
others but two of the classic Chomsky publications are "Manufacturing Consent" and
"Necessary Illusions". You could also try "Chomsky's Politics" by Milan Rai - an
excellent
and very readable book.
> Group: In a nutshell, anytime the government coerces the individual for
> any reason, freedom is abridged. There is a certain amount of cooperation
> required for the survival of the guarantor of our freedom, i.e. the
> constitionally agreed upon gov't.
The problem here is getting the correct balance between state and individual
responsibility. If you don't take an active part in the governance of your society
then you
have no grounds for complaint - this involves more than voting every few years.
> The last 60 years have seen a steady encroachment of government into
> areas over which it has no legitimate authority. That it does so with the
> acquiescence of the "majority" does not make it right. It is my opinion
> that our government in its current manifestation is corrupt and
> unconstitutional, and so illegitimate.
As is every government on the planet as far as I can see. Social level value will
always try
to dominate Intellectual value. It is the responsibility of Intellectual value to at
least
attempt to limit the excesses of Social value but leave it sufficiently intact to
provide the
base for intellectual growth.
> The battle of the two intellectual points of view is for the very soul of
> the nation.
The problem is not with Intellect but with the lack of it. The intellectual point of
viewpoint
that supports society above intellect is immoral and deeply flawed. I suspect that we
are
not arguing here about political ideologies so much as adherence to Social Value which
is
unsurprising given that Intellectual value has only recently emerged as a force equal
to or
greater than social value
> To invoke Libertarianism while empowering the State is illogical.
Empowering the state is an active process. The actual process is on a more passive
basis
as the state will take what it can when it can - public apathy, stupidity, fear and
greed aids
this process.
On 12 Feb 99, at 13:02, Platt Holden wrote:
> �To put philosophy in the service of any social organization or dogma is
> immoral. It's a lower form of evolution trying to devour a higher one.�(Lila,
> Chap. 29)
As a general statement I would agree with Pirsig. Philosophy is notorious for
rationalizing
the irrational - history is rife with it. But I would suggest that it is due to the
poor quality of
the reasoning rather than the fault of philosophy.
There are a number of ways of looking at Pirsig's statement. Historically, many
political
ideologies have been underpinned by ethical doctrines. Ethics, being a branch of
philosophy, provides the basis for any rational form of government. Unfortunately it
also
provides the basis for many irrational, objectionable and downright obscene forms of
government - for a good example of this read Plato's Republic and Plato is rarely
accused
of poor reasoning, at least not if you want to get out with your philosophical
credentials
intact. But unless you want a return to the overt rule by violence, might is right
form of
government (as opposed to the covert form which is normally the case) then it seems to
be
all we've got. However, if it is the case that low quality philosophy provides for low
quality
government then it is also the case that high(er) quality philosophy and reasoning
must be
employed as a counter-measure.
> Pirsig also said a few paragraphs on:
>
> �Ideologues usually talk in terms of sweeping generalities. . . . He didn't
> like Hegel or any of the German idealists who dominated philosophy in
> his youth precisely because they were so general and sweeping in their
> approach.�
So you don't reckon that Quality=Value=Reality=Morality is a sweeping generality then?
:)
I would certainly agree with Pirsig regarding Hegel, as it is from Hegel's writings
that
Communitarianism is derived and I am not too fond of this political and social
doctrine. It
has some good points that can be picked up on in an MOQ framework but as a wholesale
ethical or socio-political system it is deeply flawed.
> Heeding Pirsig's not to use the MoQ to defend or deplore any "ism," I'll
> refrain from making the case that capitalism is inherently more moral
> than socialism other than to repeat Drose's statement, �Anytime the
> government coerces the individual for any reason, freedom is abridged,"
> and Pirsig's statement that the "only perceived good" of Dynamic Quality
> is �freedom."
Blimey! Come on Platt! If you want a couple of sweeping generalizations (and this time
I'm
being serious) then you've just provided them. Freedom, along with love, happiness,
natural and a few other concepts, is so loosely defined as to be almost worthless when
used without qualification. There are some 200 (count 'em) senses of the word. Sure,
freedom is abridged when the government coerces the individual but consider also the
use
of the word coerce. Should the government fail to coerce me to not kill without 'just
cause',
or refrain from stealing or raping or molesting children ....... ??? Any law or rule
is coercion.
Some are necessary to control the excesses of biology, some to control the excesses of
organizations (coporations, societies, unions etc.) it is only when society tries to
control
and dominate intellect when it becomes clear, in most cases, that this coercion is
immoral.
Considering your statement about capitalism could I just say that there are aspects of
it
that I find completely reasonable. Where I find it capitalism worrying is when it
emerges
into corporatism - a bigger threat to the individual in general and the small scale
entrpreneur in particular is hard to imagine.
> But from Pirsig's suspicion of generalities I take courage in asking Horse
> to explain the following sweeping generalities from his Feb. 12 post:
> �socialist principles,� �collective responsibility,� �social conscience,�
> �social responsibility� and �virtues of the collective.�
"Socialist Principles" - the principles of equality of treatment, rights and
opportunities FOR
ALL, regardless of race, colour, creed, gender, wealth etc.
�social responsibility� - the responsibility that each person bears with respect to
their
membership of a community and towards all members of that community ...
"collective responsibility" - ... and the reciprocal responsiblity of the community
with
respect to its members.
�social conscience� - the principle of caring about others who are less fortunate than
yourself - you know, the sick, the incapacitated, the starving, the mentally ill.
�virtues of the collective.� - the strength derived from the pooling of resources and
beliefs -
see my comments on ABATE above.
And talking of sweeping generalities.... :)
> These great flowery phrases have the look of goody-goodism all over
> them in order to hide the ugly fact that at their root lies the barrel of a
> government gun.
I make no apology whatsoever for my predisposition towards caring about others. No
government or individual can induce the terminally selfish into caring but , in order
that
intellect can flourish it is necessary that it's underlying base is sufficiently
healthy.
> I may be wrong, but I suspect such generalities mean
> redistribution of wealth in the name of "equality" and "fairness,"
Well, I would probably agree with you here Platt. I think it's about time that most of
the
largest privately/shareholder owned defense corporations stopped sponging off the
state,
stood on their own two feet and earned an honest living. Forty billion dollars in U.S.
government handouts for the B2 stealth bomber - and you can't even take the damn thing
out when it rains!!!!! Or perhaps I'm mistaking your reference to redistribution of
wealth? :)
> and that
> among socialist principles one would find �from each according to his
> ability, to each according to his needs.�
Marx had a particular slant on Socialism, as did Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Hitler,
Mussolini,
Mao, Pol Pot and a host of others - none of whom I would support in their
interpretation.
In general I like politics to be reasonably simple mainly because in considering the
mental
acuity of most politicians I would have though it a necessity.
> I haven't read any of Norm Chomsky's books but have seen him lecture
> enough on C-Span to conclude that he's a Marxist who, like many
> celebrated academics, has become a professor emeritus of gibberish,
> employing language and jargon to obfuscate rather than enlighten.
Funny enough I've always found Chomsky very clear in what he says and he generally
provides sufficient references such that it is relatively easy to check the accuracy
of his
quotations and sources. How he interprets his sources is open to question, but he
generally provides a very clear chain of reasoning. I don't agree with everything he
says
but still think he makes a good case for most subjects he talks about
> Case
> in point--the phrase �libertarian socialist,� an oxymoron if there ever was
> one, on a par with �the mountains of Holland.� (As an aside, �mutually
> exclusive� seems to be as foreign to Horse's allowable thought processes
> as �absolutes.�)
I'm an inclusivist Platt :) but I do see _some_ things as mutually exclusive like
"honest
politician" and "pointless debate" to name just two.
> Consider �fascist socialism.� Now there's a dualism that carries real
> meaning given the history of the 20th century with its concentration
> camps, gulags and a couple of hundred million dead. Separating those
> two words is the real challenge for those who seek the Good, among
> whom I have not the slightest doubt are all the contributors to this site.
Another example of Socialism misinterpreted.
On 13 Feb 99, at 23:44, David Buchanan wrote:
> Horse: I was so glad for your help on the libertarian socialist debate.
> We have something in common; we're both Chomsky fans. I take back every
> critical word I ever uttered about you. Shall we lobby for libertarian
> socialism to be the official ideology of the MOQ? : -)
Good idea, but I think we might be onto a loser with that one!! Still, you never know.
> I really do think it fits the MOQ better than anything else.
> It effectively gives respect to the demands of each of the two top
> levels. It seems to recognize the distinction, and the tension, between
> the social and intellectual levels.
I agree. Additionally, Chomsky is a great advocate of the value of individuals. I
think
anyone reading his work would be hard-pressed to doubt his sincerity and integrity
which
is probably why he is despised by so many.
> It also works well with the U.S. constitution.
I wish I could say the same about the British Constitution and if we ever get a
written one I
might get the chance to compare notes - but I won't hold my breath waiting.
Platt & Don - I think on many of the issues in this post we may well agree to differ,
but
many thanks to you and David and others for providing me with the opportunity to think
more carefully about my beliefs and the MOQ. Keep 'em coming.
Horse
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
