[MD] Capitalism (redux ad nauseum)

[Arlo Bensinger]

File this one under "Response to The Fringe".

[Ham]
I have no evidence that Pirsig honors capitalism.  Certainly his followers 
don't.

[Arlo]
Its this type of blatant mischaracterization that I would hope 
formalization of opposition would avoid. I think everyone here has stated, 
repeatedly, that the "free market" is the "most moral" arrangement for the 
production and distribution of goods. But there are two caveats to this 
that bear (obviously) emphasizing.

First, (and I'm going to back up a bit here) one must recognize that "free 
market" is defined by the acquisition of goods based on wealth. Many of us 
argue that there are some "goods" (and I hesitate to even use the word 
"goods") that should NOT be market commodities. Indeed, I'd say everyone 
here can name at least ONE THING that should not be subjected to a market. 
Maybe its a "socialized military". Maybe its a "socialized police" or 
"socialized fire" force. Public libraries and public roads, lands, 
riverways, and parks. I've argued that "information" (including 
"education"... something I'll get back to with some information David 
Granger recently forwarded to me in the ZMM/Dewey thread) and "basic 
healthcare" should not be something that one must have money in order to 
obtain. We may disagree on these points, but it is rhetorical injustice to 
suggest that because my belief in what should be market-exempt differs from 
yours, that I am "against the free market" while you "are for it". This 
continues into the notion of "rules of engagement" in the market. No one 
here has ever argued that there should be absolutely NO social regulations 
on market activity. Whether one argues for copyright protections or 
pollution regulation, anti-pornography ordinances or workplace safety 
requirements (for example), one is arguing that in some way, social 
governance should regulate market activity.

Second, one must recognize that the "market" reflects the "metaphysical 
foundations" of society. One can be critical of these foundations, and draw 
attention to the maladies in both production and consumption wrought by 
these foundations. I have argued in the past that it was the SOMist driven, 
mercantilistic discourse that led to the gross injustices of the early 
industrial revolution, and continues to lead the consumeristic cancer of 
our modern society. Pirsig noticed these things as well, and indeed ZMM is 
quite critical NOT of the market, but of the foundations that structure 
market behaviors. One can, my point is, be critical of this without being 
an enemy of the "free market", as is often suggested. And it is my 
contention that until the foundation changes (along the lines suggested in 
ZMM/LILA), the market will continue to operate in such a way that people 
will demand a socialized response. That is, simply bemoaning that people 
place "unfair" regulations on the market, without address "why" people 
demand these in the first place, will get you nowhere. As I said to Platt 
recently, you can despise the increase of social regulations on the market 
post-1890 all you want, but until you see that these were in response to 
something, and know what that something IS, you'll never be able to 
convince people to go back... unless you can tell them that "this time it 
will be different", and that "difference" needs to come from a foundational 
shift in the way we view the world.