AreteLaugh,
You wrote:
> Economic activity relates primarily to the intellectual patterns of values.
I think that is why we can agree based on MoQ, as I see economic activity as a social
pattern of values. This have been discussed in depth earlier.
Also read Marcos e-mail of 22nd of May:
> Market is a social pattern. The right to a free market is an intellectual
> pattern which ensures social dynamism. I think that we have problems when market
> tries the invasion of intellectual patterns. So I think that it's immoral (for
> example) for market to own ideas, rather than helping the development of ideas.
> And this is happening.
I have attached parts of another e-mail from Marco in the end of this e-mail. I do
recomend that you read the previous discussion on this subject.
AreteLaugh:
>Some anarchists might agree with 3), but some anarchists could just as
>easily believe that killing people who would not give do as they wished was
>an acceptable form of social interaction. No Libertarians think this.
Gehrard:
I can not remember if Pinochet called himself libertarian, but he claimed some of the
same ideas as libertarians. And I'm sure you would find more bad-guys if you start
looking.
AreteLaugh:
>What exactly would you blame it on?
Gerhard:
I would blame it on that socialism does not fullfill the principle of double
reflection, the teory does not have a super-theory of how the society will react when
the teory is applied.
My point however is that they have not acheived a higher order of quality, as the
social value system is not established yet. Maybe this is possible within the frame of
Libertarianism, but I do not think so. I think that the social value pattern have to
be excisting prior to the intelectual value pattern. I understand that this is one of
RMP ideas as well, that a static level is depending on the level below to excist.
Gerhard wrote:
> The few people that have become very rich in Russia and Poland these years, are in my
> opinion not at all contributing with dynamic values at any levels, and seems to be
>only
> interested in a biological "show-off" to prove their
> wealth
AreteLaugh:
>What an interesting thing to say! Economic activity is an expression of
>intellectual value.
Gerhard:
You are here very far from my understanding, so the rest of the argument is not very
interesting to me.
Gerhard:
>I didn't know that California was a Socialist state, and I have never been
>there.
AreteLaugh:
>I was born there and I see it get worse almost every single day.
I'm sorry to hear that. As you understand, I do not think that libertarianism is the
solution. I was of the opinion that the energy-crisis in California was a good proof
of that, but I'm not to familiar with the problem.
Gerhard
>From Marcos e-mail of 13.06.01:
>3. Free trade
>This supposed free trade is not free at all in the third world, where capitalist
>firms (not only American, of course) still persevere to act immorally toward the
>local populations and environments. It's cynical to say that it's fault of the
>Nigerian government, so to say, if the oil companies are *legally* destroying
>the environment. We all know that the oil firms can make the laws there. And
>probably all the blind supporters of this system (that is NOT the ideal free
>trade the MOQ talks about) too easily forget that the western richness has been
>built also thanks to the exploitation of the third world. A good intellectual
>project should be to build a fair world, even helping those people to create a
>*really free* market and a *really representative* democracy. After the WWII,
>for
>the fear of communists, USA helped western Europe with the "Marshall Plan".
>Isn't it time for another plan like that? Roger is surely right now typing his
>usual answer that capitalism inherited poverty. I don't think so, but even if it
>was true, it's like to say: a flash destroyed the house of my neighbor.. who
>cares? my house is untouched and there's the NBA final this evening..... Even
>the slave traders used to say that they did not invented slavery. This
>introduces the next point.
>4. Libertarianism is a dangerous illusion.
>Of course we have the right to smoke a cigarette, but we also have the duty to
>ask for the other's permission. Maybe I'm stating obvious things, but it's good
>to remember that our freedom begins in the point where the other's freedom ends.
>More than one century ago, an Italian thinker, Giuseppe Mazzini, while the whole
>world was going mad talking about the rights of peoples, workers, women,
>minorities and so on, wrote a book entitled "I doveri dell'uomo" (The duty of
>man). I've always thought that if Mazzini was German and Marx Italian, the
>history of twentieth century had been different. In few words, every right has a
>duty as counterpart. Apply the discourse to the MOQ, and you can easily read
>that rights are dynamic, while duties are static. There's no way out: you can't
>have only rights; an absolute freedom is impossible. You should live aboard
>alone your whole life to be socially free, but ONLY through the social
>interaction -that is full of duties- with someone else (Rigel, Lila, Capella)
>you evolve intellectually.
>And this is the limit of libertarianism. When Clarke declares proudly that he
>reaches the peace of mind thanks to his .22 caliber, the first thing I can think
>is that I COULD NOT LIVE IN SUCH A STUPID NATION. Clarke, I'm not meaning that
>YOU are stupid! I'm just saying that if it is necessary to own a GUN to be
>PEACEful, (as the town is full of freely armed people) well, there's something
>wrong in that nation. It reminds me of Orwell's 1984, where the Ministry of
>Peace was there to arrange war; or the Romans, who used to say "Si vis parare
>pacem, para bellum" (In order to keep peace, prepare war) and I think it was a
>perfect mot for a socially focused age like that. 2k years passed in vain?
>Fortunately, Roger will assure me that tons of Americans don't bear arms, and
>that all these news about the passion for arms are intentionally provided by
>those leftists of Hollywood. More seriously, the second thing is that, like in
>the cigarette example, you own a gun but don't care about the low rate of peace
>of mind you are provoking among your neighbors, who probably are going to
>purchase a gun. A nation where it is normal for Brian Taylor to write:
>> for some reason we are very paranoid about
>> everything really. nobody trusts any body.
>is probably the paradise of Rights and the tomb of Duties. That is, a place
>where it becomes very hard to have a fertile social *ground* where intellect can
>richly flourish. Of course right now Roger is preparing the usual list of the
>intellectual developments of American technology and science, and even arts.
>Well, I'm beginning to think that intellect must be ALSO something more.
>Back to the libertarianism, the quiz Roger suggested (even if lacking of many
>important questions) shows well that there are two different dimensions of
>libertarianism. One is about the individual, another one is about economy. It
>seems that we all are more or less libertarian on the individual dimension,
>while
>we have different ideas on economy (there we range from almost 0 to almost 100
>! ). As said, what I write about duties is probably obvious at the individual
>dimension. The "duty topic" was underlying there, that's why we all are
>individually libertarians. To say "free sex" is not like to say "free sex of
>consenting adults". You well see that the duty was explicit in the question. In
>the other questions was hopefully implicit in our minds.
>It's on the economic dimension that the duty thing is not clear at all. Maybe
>Americans are more libertarians only 'cause they don't need an explicit mention
>to duties even on this dimension; they well know, for example, that the freedom
>of the market is controlled by antitrust laws; on the other hand, Europeans
>moqers hardly arrive to 50 points, probably 'cause we have a scarce confidence
>in the respect of the duties by private firms. More likely, simply Americans
>have less care about duties.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
