Ant, Craig, Case, All, I think its worth emphasizing that the "economic free market" is not the only door to Dynamic Quality. Throughout this discussion, that seems to be what's pushed and yet its simply not the case. Consider "public libraries versus bookstores". One is created through "forced taxation", the other through the "free market". Which engenders a greater amount of Dynamic Quality?
By restricting access to information to those with social wealth, we are actually closing more Dynamic Quality out of the equation. The greatest amount of information, in the hands of the greatest number, creates a context where larger amounts of intellectual activity, and Dynamic innovation, can occur. Consider, for example, that without libraries the only books that would be available are those that would be "profitable" to sell. Intellectual quality would be reduced to a popularity contest. Now there are Internet movements, such as Project Gutenberg, that are attempting to make more books available (free) to more people, but if we move the Internet into a completely economic market model, access to these books will still remain only in the hands of those with wealth. Are there really those who would suggest that DQ is maximized by consolidating information only into the hands of the wealthy? Is there no difference between a society where only the rich people own Ferrraris and a society where only the rich people have books? Can we see no detriment to reducing information to a market commodity? There are two primary assumptions raised by the capistrocracy. (1) People only labor for material profit. (2) Those who amass wealth are more valuable as Dynamic change agents (and, conversely, those without wealth are worthless, "social Darwinism" at its finest). Both of these are easily disputed. Public lands, too, keeps the greatest freedom for the greatest number by giving all citizens a vested interest, and fair access, to the lands around us. Free roads and waterways ensures that the greatest number can travel unrestricted, and that goods and commerce can travel fairly to market. Public underfunding of mass-transit also ensures not only that the greatest number can travel, but eases congestion and pollution in urban areas. It allows greater numbers the mobility required to reach work and public lands. Although the capistrocracy typically supports "forced taxation" for military and police, whose real-life work consists mostly of protecting the property of the capistrocracy, little attention is given to fire and rescue. Imagine a fire department that requested payment up front, or who would tell you that you could only affored a single truck response, despite your entire house being ablaze. Now, fire departments are in many areas funded by local donations and volunteer work (examples of human generosity and labor above and beyond the need for material compensation), but I've always wondered how people who do not donate could actually phone in an emergency. Wouldn't these people be seen as the parasites of society? Emergency response, EMT, Search and Rescue, and other services are also provided to all citizens fairly. Should a poor family's child who becomes trapped in a well stay trapped because they can't pay for the service? Should a woman suffering a heart attack be left to die because her credit card was declined? Underlying all this is the advocacy of "social Darwinism", in this case setting up the capistrocracy as those with value, while assuming that those without wealth can and should simply die off and do society a favor. It is harsh sounding, but it is really what's being said. Why provide libraries for the poor, they are stupid and worthless. If they weren't, they'd have money and could buy books. And the only reason people write books is to earn money. Libraries destroy the incentive for people to write, and serve only to put information in the hands of the riff-raff who do nothing for society but bring it down. Public lands destroy the incentive for people to own land, and serve only for meeting places for riff-raff and other low-lifes. Anyone who is anybody can buy their own land. Those who can't are stupid and worthless and don't deserve to be on a lake. As both Ant and Case suggest, and I say strongly, social patterns are not destructive towards intellectual quality, but they are a foundational support of it. The key is balance, and balance is not achieved by simply reducing everything (people, information, land) to a market commodity. All that does is set up a new princely caste, where power and means are consolidated in the hands of a few. One need only flip open a history book and look up the late 1800s to see how the reality of life for most Americans was. Unending hours, substinance pay, unresolving debt, limited life expectancy, and little chance to move up one's standing in life. While Pullman amassed great wealth and power, his employees lived in shacks, worked for credit only at Pullman's stores, and upon death their families were tossed out into the streets. It was a time when "people" were nothing more than a commodity to service the needs of the wealthy. Where I grew up, part of the Appalachian mine-belt, books and entire local histories have been written about the "daily life" of the miners. My grandfather told stories about being a boy and watching the men in black suites drop off a body on the porch of the shack where his wife and kids were, and simultaneously post an eviction notice on the door. Since the miners earned only enough to buy bread for the week, with little to no savings, the wife and kids were tossed aside like chattle. Further west, Upton Sinclair captured the reality of life for meat packers in The Jungle. Across the pond, Dickens captured this world with Oliver Twist. This is the world the social Darwinists want us to return to. I say no thanks. 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/
