[MD] Unreality of Equality

[Platt Holden]

Hi Ham (Arlo mentioned) - 

> Hi Platt (Khaled mentioned) --
> 
> > "A culture that supports the dominance of intellectual
> > values over social values is absolutely superior to one
> > that does not, and a culture that supports the dominance
> > of intellectual values over social values is absolutely
> > superior to one that does not."  (Lila.24)
> 
> Aside from the fact that "absolute superiority" cannot logically apply
> to two levels of a given referent, this quotation, like many of the
> author's assertions, poses more questions than it answers.

Don't see a problem with "absolute superiority." It means "better 
without question." There are lots of things better without question, 
like living free vs. locked up in a gulag.  

> What is an "intellectual value"?   Is it the value of scientific
> technology? The value of a barrel of oil?  The value of Einstein's
> theory?  The value of Nietzsche's premise that God is dead?  The value
> of life?  And are any of these intellectual values greater or more
> "absolute" than the biological process by which you and I become
> sentient creatures and procreate our species?

Why sure. Without the intellectual value of reason our species wouldn't 
have lasted a generation. The only tool of man's survival is his mind. 

> Of course you may argue that we must evaluate such imponderables
> according to Pirsig's other much-quoted maxim: "Some things are better
> than others". But this doesn't make their value absolute; in fact, it
> makes them "relative".

Nothing is absolute without being compared to something else. Is that 
what you mean by "relative?" Can you think of any concept that isn't 
relative to something else? Surely you understand that the claim,  
"There are no absolutes" is self-contradictory. 

> I'd like to get your take on Khaled's response to Larz's assertion that
> "Capitalism has never been tried":
> 
> > Could it be that we have been practising corporate welfare
> > for a few years?
> >
> > Let's see first there were the Railroad Barons, Coal, oil,
> > telephone and telegraph, and now we have health care,
> > insurance and pharmaceutical Barons.  There is no longer
> > a single owner such as Getty and Rockefeller, but rather
> > stock holder and overpaid CEOs.
> >
> > Just look at the last health care bill passed last year you honor. The
> > prosecution rests.
> 
> What about corporate welfare, agricultural subsidies, and the
> illegalization of pharmaceutical products such as the "next day"
> abortive pill?   Larz raises a valid point for those of you who want to
> discuss political philosophy.  Can we say that we have true Capitalism
> when the government controls the free market?

Khaled's right in saying pure laissez-faire capitalism hasn't ever been 
tried. The interfering hand of government keeps getting in the way. And 
the more they regulate, the more it becomes necessary for business to 
bribe the regulators in order to get anything done. The problem in the 
U.S. goes straight back to the Constitution which gave Congress the 
power to regulate interstate commerce. From those humble beginnings the 
colossus of government grew into now you can't even start a grass 
cutting business without bowing before some government bureaucrat. With 
every new law comes further restrictions on our liberty. Today, we have 
a semi-capitalist system which, of course, is hated by those who would 
like to play Robin Hood by taking from the rich and giving to the poor, 
i.e. from the producers to the moochers. But why go on? Those who 
haven't lived long enough to witness the growth of government and the 
decline of liberty in this country that Pirsig not only sees but 
explains will never understand. They suspect something is wrong, but 
the only solution they offer is a return to communal life of hippies or 
the tribal life of Indians. "From each according to his ability, to 
each according to his needs" is their rallying cry -- a recipe for 
utter misery.  

Like Arlo, I'm cynical about this country's future, but for completely 
opposite reasons.   

How do you assess the current state of affairs?

Best regards,
Platt