[MD] Mao & The MoQ

[Ham Priday]

Hey, Mark --


> Hi Ham,
> I believe there is a drive for the supremacy of the intellect.
> This is one of the things that bothers me about MoQ. It
> could be argued that Socialism is more intellectual than
> Capitalism (maybe not argued well, but argued nonetheless).
> The problem with control over all through the intellect
> is that there are many contradicting intellects. A democracy
> seems to allow for this, and appeals to the masses (who of
> course cannot think for themselves) by the virtue of choices.

It bothers me, too.  But I think the problem with the MoQ is epistemological 
rather than political.  It is impossible to discuss intellect or morality 
with those who regard these uniquely human functions as extracorporeal 
levels or patterns.

Speaking of political arguments, I'm running one of the best essays on 
Socialism I've ever seen in my Values Page column this week.  Jack Swift is 
an attorney experienced in constitutional as well as domestic law.  Here is 
an excerpted paragraph in which he compares all the forms of collectivist 
rule:

"Socialism or collectivism comes in various forms.  If the means of 
collective control are exercised through regulation and direction by a 
central, national government, then the system is called national socialism. 
The German Nazis were such.  If the peculiar method of control by the 
central, national government is through control of the nation's 
corporations, the system is an offshoot of national socialism known as 
fascism.  Again, the German Nazis were such.  If the means of collective 
control are exercised through ownership of the resources of production and 
direction for their use by a central, national government, the system is 
called communism.  In the case of a number of the theocracies of the world, 
the actual control is shared between a church (Islam) and the state.  In 
that peculiar circumstance, I call the arrangement Islamo-fascism.  All of 
these are simply variations of the beast.  In all its manifestations, 
socialism always entails government control of the means of production and 
distribution of its rewards outside the hands of those doing the producing 
or receiving the distributions."

We tend to forget that America was established as a "democratic republic", 
not a pure democracy.  (Our Founders were wise enough to anticipate the 
risks of mob rule.)  Swift mentions this fact, too:

"Finally there is something called democratic socialism which is probably 
the evil so dreaded by our founding fathers that they eschewed all reference 
to the word 'democracy.'  This is the beast that has insinuated itself into 
our government and is the cause of our woes.  To some it may satisfy their 
ideal of social justice but it is socialism none the less and it has 
failed."

The full essay can be accessed all week at www.essentialism.net/balance.htm. 
Check it out and let me know what you think.

Thanks, Mark.

--Ham