Sent from my iPhone On Oct 10, 2012, at 4:14, Craig Haynie <cchayniepub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's nice that you have a vision; but other people have other visions; > and unfortunately, the only way for you to achieve your vision is to > threaten other people with violence. "Perhaps if we force agriculture to > skyscrapers and deserts..." The only way to FORCE people to do what you > want is through threats of violence. My description may not have made it clear, but I am actually quite sympathetic to this view. I am not attempting to describe a master plan to be followed and enforced by a utopian state. I'm attempting the impossible task of forecasting where things would go if day-to-day subsistence were not an issue for the majority of people. I'm suggesting that there will be a general refinement in tastes as people are able to have more say in how they live their lives. There are obviously the nouveau riches. But eventually the tastes of their children and their grandchildren will gradually be refined. I am not at all a cultural relativist in this regard -- I think that it is possible for there to be consensus across cultures concerning what constitutes excellence in a product. People know where good chocolate can be found; they know where good cheese is produced. The spread of this kind of knowledge will generate a lot of economic activity and start new cottage industries. All of this will be uncoerced. You don't need state socialism and a five year plan to bring it about; just general prosperity for a few generations. We should also avoid binary logic. Switzerland is not a communist country, but they've been able to avoid for the most part the cacaphony of architectural styles that afflict much of the world, and particularly the US. There were no doubt some Swiss along the way who wanted to raise some monstrous structures, and they were overruled. This is not socialism, it's governance. Eric
