[MD] Where have all the values gone?

[Platt Holden]

Hi David M:

PH: 
> Finally, for the intellectual level the highest "citizen value" is freedom 
> from social control.
 
> >> DM: What is intellectual about amassing wealth?

PH:
> > Freedom from social control.
 
> DM: If we were entirely free from social restraint we would have no basis
> for sustaining a society, is this not the error the 60s intellectuals made.
> Is amassing wealth not a biological value, status a social value, spreading
> the possibility of fulfillment and DQ an intellectual value. The problem is
> not simply excess wealth but the low level values reflected in its poor
> use.

You're right that social control is needed to prevent domination by biological level
forces, such as addiction to drugs. The error the 60s intellectuals made was to side
with biology instead of social restraints. I don't see where amassing wealth is a
biological value. I know of no biological forms that hoard for the sake of hoarding.
Status is a biological value (many animal groups have pecking orders) carried over
into human social affairs. So yes, a social value. Spreading fulfillment and DQ comes
when intellect recognizes that the highest good is freedom. Use of wealth is such a
broad topic that to make a blanket statement that it serves low biological or social
values should be backed by evidence.

PH:
> > I'd rather read you version of why limiting individual freedom is moral 
> > rather than
> > Scruton's. The framers of the Constitutiion constructed the political 
> > machinery of
> > the social level.
 
> DM: Surely the use of wealth power somewhat undermines the intentions set 
> out
> in your constitution?

How so? So long as people remain free under the rights guaranteed by the 
constitution, I don't see a major threat to society.

PH:
> > There can be no investments without profits whether profits show up on a 
> > piece of paper or not.
 
> DM: We can invest in assets, assets are quality things we have made. What 
> have
> quality things got to do with profit?

Profit makes possible quality things. Pirsig's books would not have been possible
without profit.

PH:
> > Why shouldn't I collect interest on money I risk by loaning it to you for 
> > your use?
> > Are you looking for a free lunch?

> DM: You got paid for your work, you can spend it, you can give it away, you
> can lend it to someone. You want interest? Who is after a free lunch here?

So are you proposing we eliminate the banking system whose main function is to loan
money at interest?

PH:
> > How are consumers squeezing profits by seeking the best deal in a free 
> > market? Last I
> > looked the economy was booming.
 
> DM: You want to under-cut your competition you have to cut your 
> margins/profits.

Not always. You can make a better product.

> >> DM: Who makes the profit, owners or workers? Come on? But I
> >> grant that some owners do some work,they should get paid for that.
> >> Imagine there are no dividends or interest, everything else can carry on
> >> as normal, apart from who is making the decisions.

PH:
> > Owners and workers collaborate to make a profit.
 
> DM: Workers work, owners want a free lunch.

Stockholders want a return on their investment as a reward for the risk they take.
They can lose, as happened during the depression and many times in downturns since.
Owners in small businesses which make up the bulk of the economy work much harder
than their employees as a general rule.

PH: 
> > So you are in favor of increasing income taxes and eliminating taxes on 
> > corporate
> > profits by eliminating profits?
 
> DM: Yep, you get more total pay, pay more tax, still have more money in your
> pocket, but no one gets any interest. In fact you could have negative 
> interest
> and make your economu really dynamic. Economists have discussed this idea.

So I gather you want to eliminate banks, eliminate the stockmarket, and eliminate the
capitalist system. Your new economic systems is called ___________???

PH:
> > By fair play and sharing I gather you believe that redistributing wealth 
> > from those
> > that have more to those that have less would be a good thing. Is that what 
> > you think?
> > If so, on what moral grounds do you base such a belief?

> DM:  How about pragmatic grounds, competition is not all bad, but if the 
> winner
> takes all, then takes it again, then again, the losers are likely to stop 
> playing,
> start cheating, or start banging us winners over the head. Actually funny 
> thing is
> the more money we have we all just seem to spend it all on bidding up
> property prices -seems really pointless.

Pragmatic grounds? Pirsig said that practicality is a social level value that carries
hidden dangers, pointing out that the Nazis were very practical. So I think your
"pragmatic grounds" comes up a moral cropper.

PLatt
   





-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/