Lawry, I regard society as individuals who find more security and well-being cooperating with others.
Furthermore, cutting into Keith Hudson's territory, I feel that survival is more likely when living in community than trying to go it alone. Again, if that is true, then the survivors will be those who cooperate. Over time, the tendency (need?) to cooperate is part of the nature of those who survive. Cooperation raises living standards, for 100 cooperating people can produce more than 100 individuals. Henry George's 'Law of Human Progress' was "Association in Equality". For teaching purposes I change this to "Cooperation in Equality" because cooperation is more active and understandable for the kids.. I think Association is better. There is a synergistic effect that happens with large cooperating groups, but that doesn't give a special bloom to society. Society is a tool of those who are part of it. Saying that society has needs makes one afraid of society. It seems to suggest we are slaves of society rather than being serviced by it. Harry ********************************** Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles. Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 818 352-4141 ********************************** > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:futurework- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lawrence de Bivort > Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 3:12 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Futurework] [Ottawadissenters] RE: American delemma > > Hi, Harry, > > Thanks for the response. > > I'll suggest that there is far more to 'society' than merely a bunching of > individuals. Societies take on their own rules, they come alive in and of > their own right. It is like cells and organs: organs are a lot more than a > bunch of cells. And organisms are a lot more than a bunch of organs, > and > communities a lot more than organisms. > > At each level of organization you find new rules, new imperatives, new > functions. And so it is entirely appropriate to find that societies have > their own needs, beyond those of the individuals who are part of them. > This > is what, in my opinion, this very interesting and timely discussion is > about. Arthur and others are looking to the needs of society as a > whole, > including the individuals, and not just the latter. > > A vitally important book is: James G. Miller, LIVING SYSTEMS > THEORY. It is a > big book, but I recommend it highly.... It explores in detail the > nestings > of living systems that I refer to, and the functional and systemic > patterns > that bind them, including that provide for the management of them all. > > Cells, organs, organisms, families, communities, organizations, > societies, > nations, and our species as a whole are all linked systemically. One > cannot > address the healthy functioning of all through the perspective of only > one, > yet all have to work effectively for any one to do so. > > This is an absolutely fundamental concept to grasp, in my opinion. > > Cheers, > Lawry > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Harry Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 5:23 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Futurework] [Ottawadissenters] RE: American delemma > > Lawry, > > Society is 'individuals'. > > One hopes that the individuals who comprise society are > worthwhile, particularly those into whose hands we give > special powers to make decisions for us. > > Although individuals - as such - may drink too much, may > take drugs, may gamble - they don't go to war. That's a > societal decision. I'll repeat my favorite advice for > people living I society. "Do as you wish, but harm no-one." > > If some people harm themselves, that is really their > business. As my Unitarian minister in Clarkson, Ontario, > said: "I think that people should be allowed to go to hell > in their own fashion." > > I wonder if you ever read the classic SF story "With Folded > Hands" by Jack Williamson - published in 1947? Robots came > to earth with one objective - to take care of humanity. > However, life was not good when one was allowed only to sit > 'with folded hands' because everything worthwhile contained > some dangerous element. Cute story and perhaps - as good > science fiction should be - a portend of the future. > > A new book has just been published in England "The > Dangerous Book For Boys" which questions the modern > tendency to molly-coddle our sons for fear they will get > hurt. So they reach manhood utterly unable to face the > reality of life - which can be dangerous. Perhaps that's > why they support the apparent security of modern socialism > so often. Unable properly to handle their affairs, they > want "nanny" to make their decisions. > > The book has become (to everyone's surprise) a best-seller. > (Particularly as it excludes a whole sex!) > > You suggest I ' "trust' the decisions of individuals more > than that of society' but that isn't the point. > > I just think that we, as individuals, should be in charge > of our own affairs. > > Is that too much to hope for? > > Harry > ********************************** > Henry George School of Social Science > of Los Angeles. > Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 > 818 352-4141 > ********************************** > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:futurework- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lawrence de > Bivort > > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 5:13 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [Futurework] [Ottawadissenters] RE: American > delemma > > > > Addictive behavior is recognized as one in which the user > harms > > himself but > > yet is irresistibly attracted to the harmful behavior. > Is the user always > > 'right'? Can you recognize any instance, Harry, in which > a consumer's > > choice may be harmful and where it is right for society > to step in? > > > > In general, I sense that you 'trust' the decisions of > individuals more > > than > > that of society, and one can certainly find many gross > examples of this > > in > > contemporary history. But can you not see that there may > be times > > when > > society embodies a greater wisdom than a particular > individual? > > > > Cheers, > > Lawry > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of > > Harry Pollard > > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 3:35 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [Futurework] [Ottawadissenters] RE: American > delemma > > > > Are you suggesting the bug shops at Wal-Mart? > > > > You really must stop making quaint remarks as if they > have > > something to do with the subject. > > > > Millions of people shop at Wal-Mart because they believe > it > > is worthwhile to do so. > > > > But you apparently know better. > > > > I think I will put my money on the shoppers. > > > > Harry > > > > ********************************** > > Henry George School of Social Science > > of Los Angeles. > > Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 > > 818 352-4141 > > ********************************** > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > David > > > Delaney > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 6:38 AM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: RE: [Ottawadissenters] RE: [Futurework] > American > > delemma > > > > > > At 05:04 PM 21/05/2007, Harry Pollard wrote: > > > > > > >The deeply entrenched commercial interests like > > Wal-Mart are > > > good for us. > > > > > > > >How do we know? > > > > > > > >Because millions of people shop there. > > > > > > Is it good for the bug in the petri dish to consume its > > nutrient then die? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ottawadissenters/ > > > > > > <*> Your email settings: > > > Individual Email | Traditional > > > > > > <*> To change settings online go to: > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ottawadissenters/join > > > (Yahoo! ID required) > > > > > > <*> To change settings via email: > > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > > > > > > > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > > Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.6/795 - > Release > > Date: > > > 5/9/2007 3:07 PM > > > > > > > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.6/795 - Release > > Date: 5/9/2007 3:07 PM > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Futurework mailing list > > Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca > > http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Futurework mailing list > > Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca > > http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > > > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.6/795 - Release > Date: > > 5/9/2007 3:07 PM > > > > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.6/795 - Release > Date: 5/9/2007 3:07 PM > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca > http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.6/795 - Release Date: > 5/9/2007 3:07 PM > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.6/795 - Release Date: 5/9/2007 3:07 PM _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
