Not really. It assumes that we can establish the moral principle of responsible consumption. After that things get a bit wonky, but that doesn't mean we reject the principle as an obvious absurdity. Is a shiny new Beamer over the top? I think so, but then my car's 12 years old with a broken sideview mirror, so maybe I'm just jealous, eh?
>Who gets to power to decide that a BMW is frivolous?
I'm not drafting legislation here, but a marxist scooting around in a Beamer doesn't do it for me. To use an extreme example, who gets to decide that a mansion is frivolous? Who gets to decide that a full entourage of liveried servants, rickshaw pullers, footmen and sedan-bearers is just a bit extravagant?
See? We may disagree on the details, but we agree on the principle. At least I hope we do, anyway.
>For people in many poor nations, simply owning a car is frivolous.
In most parts of the US it's a burden and an economic necessity, easy to forget if you live in a city. Chomsky uses just this example to argue that poverty consists in large part of wealth disparities within a particular society rather than the total, objective sum of an individuals possessions across societies and across generations where different economic conditions obtain. Obviously this argument has some limits, it does not for instance apply to nutrition, but it works for cars and other necessary "frivolities."
>Are you going to lecture working class people who drive to work
>in a 20-year old beater that they are "irresponsible"?
No, nor would I scoff at someone who rescued a tommy hilfigger (sp?) shirt from the goodwill. This isn't about name brands, it's about extravagant waste.
>--And
>compared to somebody who owns a couple of Hummers, yachts, summer
>mansions, and a Jaguar, Jay looks pretty good to me.
>
"So and so does it too, and he's even worse" does not work as a moral argument.
>What is every person's "fair share"? It's far from evident!
That's true. Is anyone doing work on the issue of a responsible income? I've often doubted that we could sustain Michael Albert's 50k-a-year figure in a global economy where America, Germany, England, Spain etc did not depend on superexploited third world workers. This problem feeds into the labor aristocracy debate, as a matter of fact. How much of the 'savings' do Nike et al pass on to the American consumer?
> Clucking
>our tongues at people who drive more expensive cars than we do is
>not going to clarify things. (--A good example of Nietzsche's
>slave morality: a Christian asceticism through and through.)
>
1-Christian asceticism aims at the mortification of the flesh per se, it takes social responsibility as a secondary concern or a non-issue. Self-flaggelating, perpetually fasting monks who depended on the peasantry to support them while they abused themselves were never responsible consumers.
2-Why can't you consume responsibly and still have quite a comfortable lifestyle? I don't _suffer_ when I drive my ancient car.
Wow another three-post day. We're snowed in for once here in bleaksburg.