Ben excellent first part, I have a few problems with the second.
You said:
> The professor should continue to do that which makes him happy. His own
> happiness, according to Rand, is the highest moral purpose of his life.
> Why should other people have the right to tell him how to live?
But Srinath makes a different point which has to do with a society that
assigns value, promotion and success to money. He said that his peers
regarded him as a failure. If that translates into a loss of opportunity
then his work is affected because of their belief about what constitutes
success as well as value. If on the other hand he goes for the money, he
may very well give up what he loves. A Batesonian double bind that
American business puts those of us in the "Public Goods" sector in
constantly.
> He possesses the three main virtues I extol, intelligence, competence,
> and productivity. That does not always have to translate into wealth.
Actually given the normal economic definition of "productivity" which
relates to "economies of scale" in the market world, the professor is not
productive at all. This again relates to using the same words to mean two
different things that are wildly at odds with one another although they
have the same roots.
Srinath said:
>> "The above have little to do with capitalism, communism or socialism
>> per se."
Ben replied:
> I disagree. It does have a lot to do with capitalism and socialism.
> In the first instance, if the answer to preserving the environment is
> government interference with the business then it is, close to
> socialism.
Socialism: A social system in which the means of producing and
distributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised
by the whole community. American Heritage III Ed.
Is it socialism, close to socialism or just societal responsibility for
maintaining a civilized environment that we can all live, work and prosper
within?
Question: Who do I kill if my daughter dies from the pollution that none
of the companies would take responsibility for and so took the money and
ran? My people believe in vendetta when the government does not take the
responsibility for social justice. I am required to see that it is done
as the responsibility of her Father to her spirit. I am not required to
kill the person responsible. In fact if I can kill his daughter then that
is considered more moral. That is the old way. Do we go back to that?
> If the solution is left to those who are in business, then it is
> capitalism. The question, raised by the first example, is, who do we
> trust to solve our problems in the most efficient and productive
> manner?
> Private business or government? The answer to that question is
> indicative of the differences between socialism and capitalism.
How about considering that it is irrelevant which hand you use if the
brain is unbalanced? America has always been a mixed economy. Like my
cousin Mickey Mantle, a switch hitter wherever necessary or a concert
pianist who uses both hands.
I don't want socialism but a market collapse could bring that on as a
pendulum swing. You can't just ignore the needs for "Private Goods" like
New York has ignored their school buildings. Sooner or later the building
falls down on top of you. The story is that the socialist is the one who
takes the fall while the capitalist sneaks away in the night. What a
choice!
> The second example you give is concerned with capitalism because while
> the professor may not want to profit from his ideas, his/her students
> will more than likely go on to translate those ideas into money.
This brings us back to the "double-bind" for the professor and his
economic needs. His teaching is his "intellectual capital", if he is a
real teacher and not just a lecturer or instructor. There needs to be a
way for him to trademark what he does and then to limit the use of his
ideas in their present form unless the students pay him residuals for the
use of the knowledge. That is a capitalistic solution. The solution that
my old somatics teacher Ilana Rubenfeld uses. But her field has gotten so
crowded and everyone now has their own "method" that the whole field is
hopelessly complex and stuck. Words have been degraded and even the
"stars" like Ilana are forced to do less in depth work as a result.
Another place where capitalism would make it harder is on the internet.
Paying for the upkeep is the only solution, but a bit-toll on the internet
would draw few supporters. Only the government is capable of handling the
costs for this and the next one. Perhaps we should make it pay for itself
in the market? As I have mentioned before with the Airlines, how much
would it take a year for the people who use the internet to pay its
complete cost world-wide. Would those in other countries who paid for
their access by taxes have an unfair advantage over Americans who had to
pay as they go? What do you think?
Regards,
Ray Evans Harrell, artistic director
The Magic Circle Chamber Opera of New York, Inc.
mcore@idt.net
--Ray Evans Harrell <mcore@IDT.NET>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>