[545] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: "Watch me pull laissez-faire capitalism out of this
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sourav K. Mandal)
Sat May 5 12:34:25 2001
Message-Id: <200105051633.MAA02714@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: Sat, 05 May 2001 12:33:48 -0400
"Alex Coventry <alex_c@MIT.EDU>" wrote:
> 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?
Not a sociological theory, but a social theory. I see no compelling
reason why social science should contribute towards the development of
ethics or the resulting politics. By contrast, sociology as ethics is
a cornerstone of secular humanism.
> [...]
> 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. [...]
How can you get more flexible than by having granularity at the level
of the individual? True, collective action requires that everyone
involved buy into it and act of their own free will; but, would any
other way be morally tolerable? In every day life we have many
instances of people joining groups to work together to meet personal
goals, such as business, cultural organization, activist groups, etc.
Forcing anyone to join particular endeavours is deplorable. (This is
why I think the military draft should be abolished, by the way.)
> [...] I have trouble imagining how
> something like MIT could have arisen in a laissez-faire capitalist
> society, for example. [...]
How so? To the best of my knowledge, public research funding that is
not military-related is a relatively new concept (ca. 1950); there are
plenty of dollars coming from private companies who don't have the size
to run their own basic research labs, like old-time Bell and IBM.
Futhermore, most private universities established after American
independence obtained their initial endowments from wealthy individuals.
If the government were to get its mitts out of private pocketbooks,
research dollars might be more rationally allocated, driven by economic
rather than largely socio-political considerations; I would
characterize the billions poured into the International Space Station
to be money down the tube. I'm not surprised NASA balked at allowing a
_paying_ tourist onto their publicly-funded territory.
> [...] 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.
I agree -- basic research is fundamental to sustainable, long-term
technological development. Again, companies (esp. pharmaceuticals)
realize this, and fund projects accordingly.
> 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. [...]
It's debatable how effective the USSR and the general socialist
economic theory is; there's plenty of empirical evidence that it's not.
However, even if it were, it should have no bearing on the
determination of what is _ethical_. Just as sociology should not sway
principle when it comes to civil liberties, economics should not affect
matters of economic liberty.
Cheers,
Sourav
------------------------------------------------------------
Sourav K. Mandal
Sourav.Mandal@ikaran.com
http://www.ikaran.com/Sourav.Mandal/
