[49] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: LIVING WAGE SIT-IN AT HARVARD (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sourav K. Mandal)
Thu Apr 19 19:54:36 2001
Message-Id: <200104192353.TAA12804@dichotomy.dyn.dhs.org>
From: "Sourav K. Mandal" <Sourav.Mandal@ikaran.com>
Reply-To: "Sourav K. Mandal" <Sourav.Mandal@ikaran.com>
To: mit-talk@mit.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 19:53:34 -0400
Dear all:
My replies follow in "digest" format.
Regards,
Sourav
*********************
"Darius Jazayeri <jazayeri@MIT.EDU>" wrote:
> So if the workers should try to get as much dough as they can, isn't it
> morally right for them to try to use we gullible liberals with silly talk
> of "social justice"?
No, because it lacks integrity. This tactic would be acceptable if the
janitors were trying to dupe some evil entity. In this case, however,
they are merely bargaining with Harvard, which is in no way morally
inferior to the janitors, so employing deception would not be ethical.
By your reasoning, it would be okay to steal from honest folks, as it
is for the state to take from criminals as "fines." This, by the way,
is why taxation is immoral: in order for citizens to be law abiding,
they have to hand over cash, which pays for services they don't use.
*********************
"Cyrus R Eyster <cyruse@MIT.EDU>" wrote:
> Whoa there, chief. Flip all those examples around and they serve as
> counterexamples to the freedom leads to wealth principle you put forward.
> With wealth and freedom, how can you tell which is the cause and which
> the effect?
Um, hello, I provided evidence towards disproving the logical converse
...
*********************
""Christopher D. Beland" <beland@MIT.EDU>" wrote:
> I see one obvious potential linkage. Private business interests are
> disproportionately attracted to resource-rich countries, and thus have
> disproportionately greater influence on their governments.
Does that explain why Luxembourg, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Ireland are
among the wealthiest countries? At least New Zealand has the
sheep/wool and industries ...
*********************
"Ray Jones <rjones@pobox.com>" wrote:
> Again, I don't really care, particularly. I don't have any hard data
> to point you to. However, to quote Andrew Brooks, "I'm not going to
> let the hypocrisy of my statement prevent me from making a valid
> point."
Good point -- the fact that efficient production, and therefore wealth
creation, requires freedom, has no bearing on the question of freedom
itself.
*********************
""Christopher D. Beland" <beland@MIT.EDU>" wrote:
> You seem to be on your own moral crusade to promote laisse faire
> capitalism. Which is great, but merely stamping up and down does not
> seem to provide much justification for it.
Well, I would like to think that the egoism I support provides
justification for laissez-faire, just as the collectivism Ms. Scott
supports justifies her policy positions. Certainly, egoism itself
requires a philosophical foundation. I could get into it here, but I
think the discussion would then veer unacceptably far off topic; feel
free to email me off-list if you want me to explicate my position
further.
> All of these things have real psychological value to me, in the same
> way that your brother's happiness has to you, and in the same way that
> the working and living conditions of Harvard's custodians has to them.
Good -- just don't ask that everyone else share your far-reaching
affections for your fellow man. I, too, have given time and money to
the causes that _I_ value: reason, freedom, science, etc.
This is a good time to ask the question: What is the purpose of a
university? I think it is to teach and discover knowledge. Running a
welfare program, by overpaying for work, cannot aid in this endeavour.
*********************
------------------------------------------------------------
Sourav K. Mandal
Sourav.Mandal@ikaran.com
http://www.ikaran.com/Sourav.Mandal/
