Re: Don't blame the doctor-- (also knownas"Don't Shoot the Messenger.")

>It is not the profit motive that is the enemy, Tom, it is the dictators
>and power mongers. If people want bread, capitalists and entrepreneurs
>will supply it; if people want drugs, capitalists and entrepreneurs will
>supply them; if people want guns, capitalists and entrepreneurs will
>supply them.

i am trying to follow the logic of your reasoning, pat. you seem to
suggest that people who supply guns, drugs or whatever are
"dictators" and "power mongers". right? then how can you seperate the
"profit motive" from the intentions of these actors? isn't it so obvious
that "capitalists" make profit by already supplying these fishy things? i
do not understand what kind of profit ordinary people gain by buying guns
except for contributing to the profit of capitalists, who then make
guns "available" and "accessible" to people.


>And they will try to supply all of these things as
>efficiently as they can in order to earn a profit so that they can best
>satisfy their own wants. It is not inhumane to be involved in the
>efficient satisfaction of wants, whatever they are.

satisfaction of "basic" needs and wants is the starting premise of
political economy. as marx said, all humans need to satisfy their wants
(eating, drinking, shelter, sex) in order to live a life of human species.
the problem under capitalism is that some people satisfy their needs at
the expense of others. my understanding of basic need is that you can not
live without it, otherwise you starve. gun selling is *not* a basic human
need. i can still live without a gun without any starvation, whereas 
capitalists make profit out of it. gun is totally a social invention; it
is a creation of capitalism and other historically contingent class
systems that have used guns for economic and political purposes. the roman
empire used well developed guns, given the technology of the time, by
building a "hoplite army"  recruited from peasents to fight against egypt 
the dutch used the first technically developed guns to fight against the
british. then, the british developed better guns to gain a world
hegemony. i am not an expert on the history of gun. but, what i know is
that it is an expression of power struggle among states motivated by
economic, historical and military purposes. gun is neither a human want
nor a basic necessity. in the beginings of human civilization, it was
necessary for self-defense against wild animals, potential enemies and so
forth, given the fact no other technique of peace negotiation was
available. now, we are much more advanced both intellectually and socially
(even though capitalism has distorted human development). we do not need
to go back to pre-historical times to justify the existence of guns.

regards,

Mine Aysen Doyran
phd candidate
Dept of Pol Scie
Nelson A. Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
SUNY/Albany
md7148@cnsvax.albany.edu
887 mercer st, 12208,
Albany/NY
(h)518-453-0655
(o)518-442-5255