At 5:37 PM -0700 on 7/10/99, Alain Farmer wrote:
>Alain : Perhaps this is why a creeping-malaise has crepped in for some
>years now. Our market-oriented economies that assume never-ending
>growth and/or our Protestant Work Ethic and/or our attitude that Man
>should dominate Nature ... are out of synch with the times. Worse
>still, they may lead us to disaster (ecological collapse).
Is it then your contention that Nature should dominate Man? There was a
time when this was the case. And I don't think you want to return there.
>>Rob, I always accept the fact that my view of life
>>might be limited by the world I live in and by things
>>like education and social surroundings.
>
>Alain : Definitely! Which is why �altruistic� initiatives, like free
>or lost-cost education, and medicare, are so important.
Free? There is no free lunch. At whose expense?
>
>>But actually, I wasn't aiming at the fact that they
>>didn't make money, I was pointing out the fact that the
>>way communism was supposed to work (everybody works to
>>his best ability and the community sees to the well-
>>being of all) wasn't accepted by the people ...
>
>Alain : People are not fools. If those in charge abuse their power
>and/or reserve the lion�s share of the booty for themselves, people
>will become un-motivated. If a person�s contributions are not
>recognized and/or not rewarded and/or reprimanded, then the person will
>only provided the minimum effort necessary to keep his job.
Simulary, if a person who does a lions share seems himself getting as much
as someone who does a rats share -- even if both are working to the best of
their ability -- he will become unmotivated. How is it fair that he does
more and recieves the same in return?
>
>>... because it made the assumption that everyone was
>>only good. Marx completely ignored the fact that what
>>makes us human is the ambiguity of good and bad, busy
>>and lazy.
>
>Alain : This is a REALLY fundamental question : Is Human Nature
>essentially good or bad? Spontaneously active or driven by Need?
>Personally, I tend to favour the more flattering alternative! ;-)
Good. But there are some people who are not, and that will serve to bring
down any society based on altruism.
And, IMO, part of the 'bad' is the people who practice altruism with
other's money.
>
>>Of course people did not work to the best of their
>>ability. The harder you worked, the more you are robbed
>>-- in theoretical communism.
>
>Alain : In theory, Communism puts much more trust in Human Nature than
>other political philosophies do. People don�t need an external
>motivator (money) to force them to work. People work together to
>achieve a greater goal, instead of struggling to see who gets the most.
>Capitalism is the Law of the Jungle.
The law of the jungle is force. Is mob rule. Capitalism expressly forbids
it. Capitalism can only work when the rights of individuals are repsected;
it is based on those rights.
Communism rejects those rights. Communism forces you to work for your
neighbor -- even if you don't want to. Communism is the law of the jungle:
brute force.
>
>>The less you work, the greater the percentage of what
>>you earn that you keep. That is, the less you are
>>robbed. The only_logical_conclusion one can come to is
>>to be a lazy bum ...
>
>Alain : Would you act in this manner if you were working for yourself?
No. If I am working for myself, I keep what I earn.
>If the fruits of your labours were properly distributed because of a
>fair assessment of your contribution to the success of the entreprise?
The only proper distribution is one which respects that my labor is mine to
do with and sell to whomever I please (within reason -- I can't go out and
murder someone).
>And that your work, over and above the money you earned accomplishing
>it, was appreciated and brought you many satisfactions, including the
>fact that you participated freely in an endeavour that is or will
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's Laissez-faire capitalism! You don't participate freely in communism.
You only do in capitalism where you own your labor, and can sell/contribute
it as you please.
>become greater than one�s self.
>
>>... unless one has managed to convince oneself that
>>slavery and serfdom to the state is right. Which it's not, and never
>will be.
>
>Alain : Pick your poison! Slavery to money and the job-market is not
>much better! Let�s aim for some kind of middle-ground here. I would
>suggest that we all become self-employed and federate ourselves
>democratically with other like-minded individuals.
I define a slave as: A person who is physically forced to live for the sake
of another.
Capitalism allows you to try and become self employed. It allows you to go
seek a job. It is about your choice.
>Alain : It is often been said (by linguists notably) that we cannot
>think of something if we don�t have a word for it.
Yeh, then how'd the word get there?
>But the contrary is
>true as well. Words are often merely labels that we attach to things
>that we misunderstand and/or as a mental shortcut to avoid thinking too
>much about it. Communism, Socialism, Democracy and Anarchy are just
>such terms.
There are quite a few terms like this. But yours are not amoung them. The
truely bad terms are the ones for which there is no objective meaning.
Consider, for example, what and "extremist" is.
>Alain : Have you read Marx ?
Some of it.
>
>>Marx takes resources from the able, the people who do
>>innovate, and gives it to the unable (or unwilling) who
>>sit around and do nothing.
>
>Alain : What�s your spin on, say, MicroSloth buying out small-sized
>innovators like Soft Image, and maintaining their monopolies because of
>monstrous amounts of capital?
I see no problem with it. It's their money. (And no, it's not comparable to
communism because one is done by physical force, and one is done by mutual
consent.)
>Venture capitalists that seek out
>promising technology-startups in order to take them over?
Great! I hope they make a killing (see above).
>Banks that
>would rather invest in a �sure� thing like �Bre-X� instead of investing
>in small and medium-sized businesses, despite the fact that these small
>and medium-sized businesses are responsible for over 70% of all new
>jobs created in the last 20 years.
No problem there, either (see above).
>Do you really believe in
>�Trickle-Down Economics�?
Yes.
>Alain : I have not read Marx but I do know enough about his political
>philosophy to state that one of its main ideas is to give back to the
>workers the means of production, instead of leaving these means in the
>hand of an elite few. The assembly line belongs to the workers that use
>it, not some rich person that does none of the work.
The rich person did the intellectual work. The workers do the physical
work. Draw your own conclusions.
>
>>>There is a weakness in any social support
>>>system that creates dependency.
>
>Alain : The Welfare State is often criticized for this. It costs too
>much and it creates dependency. But close examination of the
>expenditures of the government shows that the Safety Net provided by
>the Welfare State costs very little, compared to say expenditures on
>military might, or accrued priviledges of the state�s bureaucracy.
First, no it is a HUGE chunk -- some 40%. (Make sure to count SS, Medicate,
and Medicaid). Second, it's still wrong.
>Besides, how would things be if we didn�t have the minimal Safety Net
>that we have today? Desperate people without hope are capable of
>anything. Without a safety net, civility will degenerate to the point
>where we will be living in a �Dog-Eat-Dog� world where no one is safe.
WHy was it not so before the 1930's? There was no Government safety net then.
>
>Alain : Case in point : medicare in the USA versus medicare in Canada.
>In the USA, you get the best care that can be provided, as long as you
>have the money to pay for it. But, if you get sick in the USA and you
>don�t have a job, then you�re up shit creek without a paddle. People
>have to mortgage everything they got if a love one becomes chronically
>ill. In Canada, on the other hand, Medicare is free and available to
>everyone. It�s not perfect, of course. Sometimes you have to wait. But
>you don�t have to be employed, and you won�t be bankrupted either. It�s
>more humane and ... you know what ... it turns out to be more
>cost-efficient for us canadians than it is in the USA.
Cost efficents?! LOL? Is that why Canada's money is worth half of ours? Is
that why Canada has a HUGE national debt in comparison to GDP? It won't be
there for long: Unless things have changed since the last time I looked,
Canada is going broke. Is it still running a deficit?
>Alain : You have to look at what kind of aid was provided. Did the aid
>really assist the recipients, given their local conditions and needs?
>Or was it another flashy money donation, or another example of
>inappropriate technology transfer (ex: high-tech dependency-creating
>pesticides/strains).
The best aid would be to export capitalism to the third world.
>
>>You are completely right. I never said altruism was a
>>good thing (OTOH, please don't think I want to say it's
>>bad either -- it's in between).
>
>Alain : I could not disagree more!
Which side would you like to take?
>
>Alain : Without altruism, civilization will degenerate into barbarism.
Change "without" to "with full" and you'd have a true statement.
>>Real altruism is working for your neighbors without any
>>concern for yourself. Real altruism is becoming your
>>neighboors' slave. Real altruism creates dependancy,
>>destroys independance, and leaves an entire society in
>>a the state of slaves.
>
>Alain : I gather that you are saying that for altruism to be �Real
>altruism�, it has to 100% altruistic. I believe, on the other hand,
>that altruism is not binary. It can be found anywhere ranging between
>0% (selfish) and 100% (selfless).
As long as it's on the 0-ish side, and as long as it is _voluntary_ it
won't destroy a society. But once it's gets 100-ish and becomes
involuntary, it will.
But in a compromise between good and evil, which wins?
