[MD] Quality decline

[Platt Holden]

> [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.

Maybe to you there are "actually greater freedoms" by purchasing a 
community snowblower. But not to those in the neighborhood. Their ability 
to assess the degrees of freedom available to them under the arrangement 
are certainly equal to yours. Most chose the freedom to the use a 
snowblower as they wished as a better alternative than the money saved.. 
The important thing, as you've indicated elsewhere, is to maintain each 
individual's freedom to choose according to his own values and judgment.   

> [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.

We need not review the communal behaviors of the hippies that followed the 
wrong track. Nor do I see any appeal to living the life of the Amish. But, 
I see nothing wrong with anyone promoting "social orientations" so long as 
individual freedom of choice is preserved.  

> [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.

I don't consider individualism to be immoral. Nor do I know of any 
propaganda that condemns us for been greedy and selfish except from some 
Christian fundamentalist preachers and liberal politicians.        

> [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.

It's a question of where you draw the line. I opt for privacy, ownership 
and individual freedom. Your argument can be used to deprive anyone of 
owning any real estate on the grounds it deprives others freedom to use 
it. 
 
> 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.

I doubt consider consumption and ownership to be a malignancy. Rather I 
see them as aspects of individual freedom. You are free to choose not to 
consume or own anything if that's your true desire ( which I doubt).
 
> 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.
 
"Material enslavement" is something you'll have to explain to the average
American if your hopes for a Marxian Utopia are ever to be realized. Seems 
to me "material enslavement" (whatever that is) is far different from 
"actual enslavement" that the abolition of private property proposed by 
Marx's Communist Manifesto would require.

As for Marx, Jesus and the Buddha -- are they the authorities you look to 
for moral guidance?