[extropy-chat] Help! I'm not ready for reality! (was the 7 cents thread)

[Samantha Atkins]

On Nov 19, 2005, at 2:42 AM, Jack Parkinson wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: Samantha Atkins
> To: Jack Parkinson
> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 10:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Help! I'm not ready for reality! (was  
> the 7 cents thread)
>
>
>>>> After watching this "debate" for some time I don't think you  
>>>> have a  lot of high ground to preach >>>from, Jack.
>>>> - samantha
>>>>
>
>
>
>>> Well, I'm listening. And I AM interested in hearing your point of  
>>> view.
>>> And for the record, I was looking for the middle ground rather  
>>> than the high ground...
>>>
>
>
>>> ...What exactly is your point of view?
>>>
>
>
>> On WalMart my opinion is mixed.  The company has done a  
>> magnificent job of creating one of the >world's most sophisticated  
>> business organizations. The level of innovation and integration of  
>> >countless systems, components, business units and resources is  
>> not easily matched by any other >company. The WalMart success is  
>> about a lot more than foreign and domestic exploitation.   On >the  
>> other hand,  there have been a goodly number of abuses  
>> successfully claimed against the >company.   The superstores do  
>> tend to drive out a lot of other businesses simply on the basis of  
>> >unbeatable price.  These businesses in turn employ people.  Many  
>> of them cannot afford to work >at a WalMart and have no desire to  
>> work in the WalMart environment.
>>
>
>
>> I don't believe that there is a definitive answer as to what "to  
>> do about" WalMart.  Real abuses of >existing law should be noted  
>> and prosecuted. But I don't see any reasonable new forms of  
>> >legislation that it would be a net win to impose on them at this  
>> time.
>>
>
> There are no specific points of your assessment I would quibble  
> with. Appearances to the contrary, I don't actually care about Wal  
> Mart one way or the other. I was simply using this high profile big  
> business to make a number of points I think are important:
>
> 1) That arriving at the pinnacle of success (for a person) - or  
> market power (for an organisation) does not make either the person,  
> or the organisation, admirable. "Winners" are not to be adored as  
> Darwinian success stories (especially if their 'wins' are only able  
> to be appreciated in economic terms). Conservative capitalism's  
> love of the big players is (I think) a form of false idolatry.

It takes many quite admirable qualities to "arrive at the pinnacle of  
success".  Darwin has very little to do with it and in context you  
display prejudice to interject Darwin here.   Bigness per se also has  
little to do with success.

> Extrapolated to the extropian point of view - this means in my  
> opinion that there is still plenty of scope for everything to go  
> terribly wrong. If big business can be immoral, self-serving and  
> parasitic - and presidents can be dumb and parochial - who knows  
> what might happen?

Business cannot be truly amoral without going out of business unless  
propped up by government, i.e., by physical force.   I do not agree  
that business, big or otherwise, is generally parasitic.  Business is  
by definition  "self-serving" but if done rationally that is not only  
not a breach of morality in my thinking, it is essential to morality.

> The question: Who will control the technology - and how will they  
> do it? May well be the ultimate deciding factor between a bright  
> enhanced future and interminable conflict or worse. I for one would  
> not like a mega-corporation to exercise this kind of control.
>

I doubt very much that any centralized group will or can "control the  
technology".  I don't consider the question particularly relevant.

> 2) There is too much facile acceptance of silly buzz-word ideas  
> like: "Efficiency is keeping prices low,"

Do you deny that the price is directly correlated with efficiency of  
production and distribution?

> "Darwin asserts that the survivor is the best equipped to carry the  
> torch,"

Darwin asserted no such thing when applied to general business.

> What's good for the economy is good for the country,"

This is true but most people are very confused about what is actually  
good ofr the economy or as to what they mean by "economy".

> "All competition is healthy" etc.

All competition under rules that outlaw the initiation of force is  
generally healthy in economic and many other activities.

> There is no credit to be had for taking a 10 second sound-bite to  
> be all inclusive wisdom.

There is no credit in denigrating others with a straw man argument.

> Catch-phrases are for air-heads and couch potatoes - serious people  
> should be prepared to look at the in-depth argument or admit that  
> Homer Simpson does it way better than they do.

OK.  I agree with Rafal and others here.  What you are doing is not  
reasoned argument.  Later.

- samantha