[MD] Quality decline

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Platt]
Obviously each individual preferred the freedom to use a snowblower 
as she saw fit rather than be bound by the restrictions of the alternative.

[Arlo]
The point, of course, was that there are actually greater freedoms 
enabled by the purchasing of a community snow-blower. Under the 
current consumerist dialogue, to be sure, those greater freedoms are 
denied in favor the myth that "ownership" ipso facto entails greater freedoms.

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

[Arlo]
And I see nothing under MOQ morality that says that non-separatist, 
unconsumerist, communal behaviors are wrong either. Indeed, I see 
greater freedoms arising from this type of social orientation than 
under the one you promote.

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

[Arlo]
Which has nothing to do with what I said. Even in Germany, you have 
the freedom to say "I wish to dine alone". The point is, that it is 
more common to engage in social spaces, which in American culture is 
seen as an attrocious faux pas. This is, I would argue, not the norm 
but rather a symptom of the "individualist" propaganda we are drown 
in everywhere we turn; propaganda that tells us that we are greedy, 
selfish, separate, loners and that this is not only how it should be, 
but how it ought to be.

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

[Arlo]
Of course, anyone with any sense knows there is a mountain of 
difference between requesting privacy for nocturnal activity, and 
taking a lake and saying that the only person who can now use it is 
_you_. As is obvious, when that lake is owned the result is an 
overall loss of freedoms for everyone. Well, everyone except the one 
person who can now use the force of law to keep others from swimming 
in _his_ lake.

Interesting, though, since you claim your example is comparable, this 
leaves you saying "I don't want the world to have freedom of access 
to that lake anytime".

[Platt]
Yes. The right to privacy is indeed a precious aspect of freedom.

[Arlo]
There is nothing wrong with privacy, but when it becomes synonymous 
with "freedom", so that people think the more privacy they have the 
more freedom they have, then (like the case with property) it becomes 
a malignant drive towards consumption and ownership, as well as 
towards less and less social participation.

Consider that even the Amish have "privacy", as did the Native 
Americans, but this "privacy" was not so entwined with social 
exclusion and property acquisition as to not only constrain the 
freedoms of everyone, but create the sort of material enslavement 
Marx (and Jesus, and the Buddha) all bemoaned.