Ray,
You make some interesting points. I'll see what I can do to make myself
more clear on what I'm trying to communicate.
"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."
First of all, I don't think it is a very good idea to trust society to
dictate one's own values. The question is, are there moral absolutes? Are
there such a thing as universal values?
Second, I think that self-reliance is the mother of many virtues, among
them, productivity, competence, intelligence, and integrity. I'm using
"self-reliance," in the sense the Emmerson used it. To quote from
Emmersons essay "Self-Reliance:"
"Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of
its members....The virtue in most request is conformity. Self-reliance is
its aversion....This rule, equally arduous in actual and in intellectual
life, may serve for the whole distinction between greatness and meanness.
It is the harder because you will always find those who think they know
what is your duty better than you know it. It is easy in the world to live
after the world's opinion; it is easy in solitude to live after our own;
but the great man is he who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect
sweetness the independence of solitude."
This essay is on the web at http://www.nidlink.com/~bobhard/reliance.html
Third, society can make it difficult to create wealth because of it's
laws, it's norms, and it's collective values. However, that fact does not
mean that those activities that would create wealth in another environment
are invaluable or, worse, wasteful. To make my point, just because it was
difficult to make money in the former Soviet Union, doesn't mean that the
behaviors that would make money in America weren't valuable to the people
there. I don't strive to live a productive, competence, and intelligent
life (i.e. purposeful) because of the wealth I'm going to produce. I do it
for my own enjoyment and my own pleasure. It just so happens that, because
of my commitment to these virtues, I make a pretty good living.
Fourth, the "public goods" sector is simply not as valuable to consumers
as the "production" sector. You have the choice of gooing into the public
goods sector or the production sector, with the knowledge that one will be
more financially rewarding. The choice is yours: Do what you love, and not
make as much money, or do whatever it takes to make money. There is not a
conflict here because if you do what you love, then that is more important
to you than making money and therefore is a good decision. If your goal is
to make money then it doesn't matter what you do as long as it is ethical
and legal.
"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."
A simple question: Are professors today more productive than there
predecessors? To a certain degree they are because they can use word
processors to write with, and they have access to much more information.
But their increase in productivity is not nearly as noticeable as the
increase in productivity in manufacturing or software development.
"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."
Great definition. Deplorable doctrine. Society does not own me, and
therefore does not own the goods I produce, and has no right, under any
circumstance, to distribute what I have earned to those who have not!
"Is it socialism, close to socialism or just societal responsibility for
maintaining a civilized environment that we can all live, work and prosper
within?"
Do you understand what you're saying? I trust myself to much to even think
that question, much less spend the time to answer it.
"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?"
Challenge the assumptions of your people. Look at their reasoning, their
logic, and ask if it is good or not.
And, as far as your reasoning, if your daughter dies because of the
pollution created by a business you must ask why you didn't move to an
area where there wasn't so much pollution? You exercised your agency, your
volition, and now you must suffer the consequences. I don't know what else
to say.
Just because a bunch of people believe a certain way doesn't make it
right. That seems to be the crux of your argument. Question the beliefs,
the assumptions, and decide what is right for yourself.
"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!"
I can ingore the public goods sector. I just have to suffer the
consequence of that ignorance. If schools were privately run, with the
goal of making money, do you think they would be dilapidated? The
government has proven it's incompetence time and time again. It's a
problem with values: What does the government value, versus what does a
business value? I trust business, not government.
Here we are, in a forum dedicated to discussing concepts related to
Learning Organizations, and were questioning whether competition is good,
whether business is good. . .why? What is the point of a Learning
Organization if it isn't to increase an organizations competitiveness?
-- Benjamin Compton DWS -- "The GroupWise Integration Experts" (617) 267-0044 ext. 16 E-Mail: bcompton@emailsolutions.com http://www.emailsolutions.comLearning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>