[MD] Capitalism (redux ad nauseum)

[David M]

Arlo

You're right.

David M

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Arlo Bensinger" <ajb102 at psu.edu>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 4:39 PM
Subject: [MD] Capitalism (redux ad nauseum)


> 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.
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>