[MD] A society without money

[Ham Priday]

Andre --



> The Mother Theresa's of this world will never be appreciated
> for their worth by the financial sector nor by all those millions
> who measure their worth in terms of the size of their bank account.
> There are things more important than money. You get what you
> ask for. You get what you vote for. I understand the side you
> lean towards, Ham but I will be honest: your side's idea of
> individual liberty is the root of this latest crisis.
>
> Your side needs a shift in priorities.

"My side" is that of the individual, Andre.  Admittedly, this is a difficult 
position to argue in a forum whose participants are largely of the 
Marxist/socialist persuasion which demeans the individual in favor of 
democratic collectivism.  Robert Pirsig, who admits to having voted 
Democratic all his life, can hardly be expected to take up the cause of 
individual liberty, and to extract quotes from his philosophy as if it 
supported individualism is disingenuous.

Of course there are things more important than money.  Having a source of 
food is important for survival.  Freedom is important for the development of 
thought and social progress.  Health and fitness are important for the 
proper functioning of human beings.  Philosophy is important in fulfilling 
man's need to believe in something and act in accordance with his beliefs.

Money is simply a medium of exchange to facilitate the distribution of 
products and services to the consumer.  Most monetary systems are designed 
to reward the producers and creators for their contributions to a society. 
As such, the promise of wealth is an incentive to use one's talents and 
skills toward the achievement of what society needs or wants.  Without this 
incentive, industry and the standards of workmanship would flag, and the 
majority of society would live off the proceeds of the producers.  Quality 
would be reduced to the lowest common denominator and, to prevent the greedy 
from having more of their "fair share" than the needy, the state will 
invariably step in to prevent mob sule and assure "equality" for all. 
That's statist socialism at best, or fascism at worst.

You're right, we do "get what we vote for".  And I've lived long enough to 
realize that altrusim and social equality are greatly favored by those 
who've been coddled by a life of hedonistric indulgence, especially the 
younger generation.  Many believe that the government of the most prosperous 
nation in the world has a "moral duty" to provide for its indigent and lazy 
citizens, forgetting (or ignorant of the fact) that the government does not 
create wealth but confiscates it from those who do.  While this is neither 
"fair" nor constitutional, it has great appeal to those whose ideology and 
perspective are limited to their own gratification.

"My priorities" are on the side of reducing government, not expanding it. 
The exercise of individual liberty is not the root of the latest crisis. 
The financial meltdown is a consequence of irresponsible government programs 
since the New Deal that encouraged people to purchase what they could not 
afford and taking on increasing debt in the process.  As with every 
overextended nation since the fall of Rome, there is a point beyond which 
which monetary credit can no longer be sustained, and this was it.  That's 
why I'm not voting next month for a leftist who promises to increase 
government welfare in a country that has accumulated the largest debt in 
human history.

> Because "...in the end the love you take is equal to the love you make"
> Call me a dreamer, I do not find it derogatory. In fact I am proud of it.

When people start trading in love instead of dollars, let me know, and I'll 
give some consideration to your theory.  Until then I'm voting Republican.

Thanks, Andre

--Ham