[544] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
"Watch me pull laissez-faire capitalism out of this metaphysics!"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alex Coventry)
Sat May 5 08:17:52 2001
To: "Sourav K. Mandal" <Sourav.Mandal@ikaran.com>
Cc: mit-talk@MIT.EDU
From: Alex Coventry <alex_c@MIT.EDU>
Date: 05 May 2001 08:17:26 -0400
In-Reply-To: "Sourav K. Mandal"'s message of "Sat, 05 May 2001 00:39:35 -0400"
Message-ID: <etd1yq46ld5.fsf@pickled-herring.mit.edu>
> Objectivism has one axiom (Aristotelian metaphysics), and everything
> is built up from there, open to examination.
So you believe that you can infer a useful sociological theory from some
simple metaphysical principles, with no regard for the empirical results
of anthropology and history?
Well, maybe. But in past conflicts, it's been the communities capable
of the most elaborate forms of cooperation that have dominated.
Certainly, sophisticated social arrangements can arise from
laissez-faire capitalism, but a society that is open to other social
pressures is likely to be more flexible. I have trouble imagining how
something like MIT could have arisen in a laissez-faire capitalist
society, for example. On the other hand, I think developments coming
out of places like MIT have played a crucial role in the US dominance
of world trade and culture.
You might be able to build a internally stable society based on
objectivist principles if you could convert everyone to objectivism, but
I doubt it would be as effective as, say, the USSR. At least there they
had the possibility of informal economic arrangements under the table
when top-down organization failed. Objectivism would have us throw out
top-down organization altogether and work with nothing but informal
arrangements, even for pursuit of goals which really demand some sort of
community-wide organization.
Alex.
