[MD] Quality decline

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting ARLO J BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu>:

> [Craig]
> What's notable is (a) we could do so voluntarily, without force (much less
> violent revolution) and (b) we could do so regardless of what other blocks do.
> 
> [Arlo]
> I've had this exact conversation with neighbors, but regarding a snow-blower.
> Since snow is often sparse, owning twenty snowblowers profits the snowblower
> manufacturer, but hurts each family. For example, if rather than spend $600 on
> my very own snowblower, I was able to spend $25 and garner all the benefits,
> I'd have $575 more dollars to save, spend on needed commodities, take a
> vacation, etc. So would each of the other families.
> 
> When I suggested this (this was years ago), the most common line I got was "I'd
> rather just own my own", I asked "why?", and in every case the dialogue shifted
> from "practicality" (which improves with communal ownership) to "its just the
> way it should be". In other words, "owning" is so ingrained in the American
> psyche, from years of bombast, consumerism, and advertiser driven fetishism,
> that simply saying "people are free to make this choice" is somewhat narrow.

Obviously each individual preferred the freedom to use a snowblower as she saw
fit rather than be bound by the restrictions of the alternative.
 
> Indeed, one reason our economy is so robust is simply that American's don't
> save. From makingmoneywork.us, "The average American saves less than 5%. People
> in other industrialized nations such as Canada, France, and Japan save 11% to
> 15%."
> 
> Now, upfront I will say that I'd never argue that anyone should be forced into
> such a decision, by any means. But I think we need to confront a dialogue that
> is separatist, consumerist, acommunal and underscored by market propaganda that
> encourages this behaviors. That is why I think any revolution begins bottom-up.
> Only after people's visions have been swayed away from this self-imprisoning
> dialogue will people make these voluntary choices, and then true Marxism may
> finally one-day manifest itself.

I see nothing wrong under MOQ morality with separatist, consumerist, acommunal
behaviors. 

> By the way, although I think strides have been made away from the historical
> evils of Industrialization under which Marx wrote, I think strides have also,
> sadly, been made towards increasing isolation in life, an isolation that is
> heralded as normal and desired by those enslaved by consumerist doctrine. We
> participate less and less in shared social space, the Commons (as Keith
> mention), accepting as normal a daily motion that takes us from one private
> space to another. In Germany, I am reminded, often times at a restaurant people
> will join you at your table (this may be a larger, European activity), and I
> hear from my Persian friend that such sharing of space happens in Iranian and
> Turkish cultures as well. In America, such an act would be attrocious, a
> violation of personal (aka private) space and an encroachment on our desire to
> restrict and control our interactions within a very narrow private sphere.

I see nothing wrong with freedom to dine privately or not, as I wish.

> Interestingly, the Internet gave many a chance to re-experience a social space
> that was obviously lacking from their lives. Chat groups, social rooms and
> other shared spaces flourished in the early Internet. But the move has been
> away from true shared spaces to participation in restricted spaces that are
> safe, similar and non-threatening by virtue of walls that keep out any with
> real divergent ideas. (Note that I am talking about published "trends").
> 
> Okay, this little tangent was brought to you by Folgers.
> 
> [Craig]
> Which is freer: a society in which property can only be held in common or one
> in which you can have private property, share property or do without property?
> 
> [Arlo]
> Private property actually decreases our overall freedom. When the lake is
> community owned, anyone can use it at any time. When you buy that lake, no one
> can use it but you. 

I don't want the world to have freedom of access to my bedroom anytime. An
example as specious as your lake.

> We agree to this lessening of individual freedom because we hope, too, to one
> day buy our own little "sphere of exclusion", our own little slice of land
> where we can (legally by force of government) keep other people away. So we
> move from unfettered mobility that by definition includes the social presence
> of others, to restricted mobility that is seen as worthy precisely because of
> the forced exclusion of others.
 
Yes. The right to privacy is indeed a precious aspect of freedom.




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