[MD] Northrop and the failure of neo-conservative free

[Ham Priday]

On 15 May 2009 at 4:41 PM, Andre Broersen wrote to Platt:


> I am not at all convinced that Pirsig is favouring free markets.
> Just because the MoQ provided the conservatives with the
> vocabulary to describe a free market as a 'Dynamic institution'
> doesn't make it any more virtuous (than anything else).
> The fact that it is dynamic and therefore virtuous does not hold
> for Pirsig (as far as my reading of the MoQ goes). The virtue
> that the conservatives see is just that this Dynamic Quality
> supports their own self interest. (Lila, p 225).

Andre, I share your doubt that Pirsig intended to promote free market 
economics when he wrote that a free market is "Dynamic" and "supports [the 
conservatives'] self-interest."  In a recent interview, the author admitted 
that he had been a Democrat all his life.  That fact, plus his constant 
emphasis on collective evolution as opposed to entrepreneurial 
individualism, is far more indicative of his political-economic persuasion.

However, your complaint that Platt is exploiting "victims" of the free 
market reads like Karl Marx and reveals either your misunderstanding or lack 
of information about what capitalism is (or should be).

> In other words, you are using Dynamic Quality as an excuse,
> a justification and cover-up to keep on exploiting, denigrading
> and demonizing the poor, the misguided, the unfortunates,
> the bloody hard working ordinary people as well as the victims
> of this self same free market institution.

First of all, "free market" is a utopian concept that has never been 
implemented in the history of mankind.  Every marketing system in the world, 
including the U.S., is subject to government regulation by such means as 
price controls, trade agreements, monopoly laws, energy restrictions, 
compulsory medical and IRA plans, corporate welfare programs, and a host of 
preferential tax policies.  In fact, the federal government's attempt to 
manipulate the market (by encouraging people to purchase homes they couldn't 
afford) was largely responsible for the present economic crisis.

Secondly, neither Capitalism nor a free market economy produces poverty.  On 
the contrary, the disparity between rich and poor in a classless society 
like the United States reflects the capitalist's freedom to accumulate 
private wealth by creating products and services that raise the entire 
nation's standard of living.  So who are the "victims" you refer to?  There 
will always be those who lack the education, skills or training to 
participate in capitalistic enterprise, and they become our "poor" or 
"disadvantaged" underclass.  But to suggest that the free market institution 
in some way victimizes people is absurd.

Finally, I don't know what the prefix "neo-" before "conservative" is 
supposed to mean in this context.  I believe this thread was started by 
Krimel for political reasons, and "neo-conservative" is a label typically 
applied to journalists (like David Brooks of the NYTimes) who have only 
recently adapted their former liberal or globalist tendencies to back 
conservative politicians.

Andre, I hope you will take Platt's advice and read Thomas Sowell.  Also, 
Jonah Goldberg clearly explains the rationale for free market economics in a 
recent Washington Post article titled "The Spoiled Children of Capitalism". 
Following is an excerpt from this editorial that addresses your issue:

"The interesting question isn't 'Why is there poverty?'  It's 'Why is there 
wealth?'  Or 'Why is there prosperity here but not there?'
At the end of the day, the first answer is capitalism, rightly understood. 
That is to say: free markets, private property, the spirit of 
entrepreneurialism and the conviction that the fruits of your labors are 
your own.
For generations, many thought prosperity was material stuff: factories and 
forests, gold mines and gross tons of concrete poured.  But we now know that 
these things are merely the fringe benefits of wealth.  Stalin built his 
factories, Mao paved over the peasants.  But all that truly prospered was 
misery and alienation.
A recent World Bank study found that a nation's wealth resides in its 
"intangible capital"? its laws, institutions, skills, smarts and cultural 
assumptions.  'Natural capital' (minerals, croplands, etc.) and 'produced 
capital' (factories, roads, and so on) account for less than a quarter of 
the planet's wealth.  In America, intangible capital ? the stuff in our 
heads, our hearts and our books ? accounts for 82 percent of our wealth.
Any number of countries in Africa are vastly richer in baubles and soil than 
Switzerland.  But they are poor because they are impoverished in what they 
value.
In large measure our wealth isn't the product of capitalism, it IS 
capitalism."

The complete article can be found at 
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/jonah080408.php3.
I think reading it may correct some of your misconceptions.

Regards,
Ham


> And, of course
> you are not the only one. The entire American Dream is built around it and
> millions are sucked into it...blaming themselves for not making it. ( 
> Albert
> Hammond's 'It Never Rains In California' springs to mind). Very, very sad
> indeed.
>
> I have suggested to you a few times now that the theories (derived from
> scientific discoveries) that underpin the (amongst other things) economic
> foundations and practices of the Western world are hopelessly inadequate,
> misconstrued, flawed and contradictory and,  may I add, highly 
> destructive.(
> this has proven itself on several occasions and you do not need to be a
> lefty/commie observer to see this).
>
> You can tell me anything you like but Mr. Pirsig is not so stupid to 
> accept
> this nor your conservative justifications.
>
> Platt:
> Anyway, can we agree, Andre, that not all SOM thinking is low quality?
>
> Andre:
> Absolutely. It takes wisdom to separate high quality from low quality and
> act accordingly.
> To quote Pirsig once again (seeing you appreciate this so much):
>
> '...trying to do what is right (and I gather that that is what you are 
> doing
> [it is very populistic and therefore has a massive following] is following
> SQ'.
>
> '...trying to do what is GOOD, is following DQ'. Now that takes alot of
> intestinal fortitude.
>
> I am assuming you know the difference between doing what is 'right' and
> doing what is 'good'....? (of course you do...you've read Lila).
>
> Regards
> Andre