Re: [ox-en] Robinsonades
- From: Christian Siefkes <christian siefkes.net>
- Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:19:24 +0200
Patrick Anderson wrote:
It is true that I look at almost all human interaction as exchange,
but I don't see anything wrong with that. It is just a more
broad/inclusive definiiton. If I spend time and money to court a mate
and she gives me a kiss, then we have made an exchange. We have
traded. And other potential mates are the 'market' for that trading.
An analytical model that is unable to distinguish prostitution from love
does not strike me as very useful.
I won't reply to your other question -- if you _define_ all human
interactions to be trade, then, naturally, they all _are_ trade for you,
and further discussion becomes pointless.
Just remember that _saying_ that pi == 3 does not _make_ it so. Reality
exists independently of your analysis, and it's not as poor as you claim it
to be.
Best regards
Christian
--
|-------- Dr. Christian Siefkes --------- christian siefkes.net ---------
| Homepage: http://www.siefkes.net/ | Blog: http://www.keimform.de/
| Peer Production in the Physical World: http://peerconomy.org/
|------------------------------------------ OpenPGP Key ID: 0x346452D8 --
It is only the identification of a Them that makes it possible for us to
live with the epidemic of Aids in Africa or the death of thousands of
children each day from curable diseases. The existence of capitalism is
conceivable only on the basis of the dulling of our feelings: this is not
just a question of drugs [...], but above all of identity, that fragmen-
tation that enables us to erect private morality into a wall to keep out
the pain of the world. [...] Communism is the movement of intensity against
the dulling of feeling that makes the horrors of capitalism possible.
-- John Holloway, Change the World Without Taking Power