Hi Bill J.,
Thanks for straightening me out about your name.
You wrote:
> You seem to be talking about forced attempts at fairness that come to be known as
> bad laws because they undermined the very notion of fairness itself. I'm speaking
>of the
> kind of awareness that stops a person from ripping off another just because he can.
>This sense
> of fairness is "better" then the lack of it. It fits perfectly with MOQ and is
>enlightened by it.
Yes, I agree that it would be a "better" if everyone followed the Golden
Rule and treated others as they would want to be treated without being
forced to do so (government being an instrument of coercion). But I also
agree with Pirsig that this sort of betterness is not to be found in human
nature:
�What the Metaphysics of Quality indicates is that the twentieth-century
intellectual faith in man�s basic goodness as spontaneous and natural is
disastrously naive. The ideal of a harmonious society in which everyone
without coercion cooperates happily with everyone else for the mutual
good of all is a devastating fiction." (Lila, Chp. 24)
Thus, to rely on people's "sense of fairness" to promote individual
freedom while maintaining social order appears to me to be Utopian.
What do you think? Do you a believe in the perfectibility of mankind?
Platt
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
