Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites
The Basic Income discussion on Futurework seems to be at the point wherea re-posting of thefollowing might be of interest. TheLetter to the Editorwas never published. Nor did the Prime Minister follow up on his expressed interest in a GAI.However Canada, two years later,now has a brand new Prime Minister with an explicit interest in "democracy"beginningwith Parliament. Hmmm Also the US, if anyone has happened to notice, is seguing from WMD to "regime change" to "democracy," witness the President's recent address to the National Endowment for Democracy, the increased activity around the Community of Democracies, the notion of a caucus of the democracies in the UN, etc. Maybe the followingversion of theBI (or GAI)will yet have legs? Regards, Gail Gail Stewart[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "G. Stewart" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 12:10 PM Subject: Guaranteed income Some FWers may be interested in the following. I should add that the letter was not, or at least has not yet, been published. EditorThe Ottawa CitizenOttawa, Ontario Dear Sir, The recent report (Ottawa Citizen, page 1, Saturday Dec. 9)that the Prime Minister is interested in a Guaranteed AnnualIncome reminds me of a suggestion put forward by the formerE.R.Olson, Q.C. when he was Associate Deputy Minister(Social Policy) in the Department of Justice in the Trudeauera. It strikes me that, in today's circumstances, the PrimeMinister might welcome the suggestion. Mr. Olson foresaw nothing but trouble -- mean-mindedness inthe population and federal provincial tensions -- in anydiscussion of the guaranteed income as an element of socialpolicy. We would, he thought, just be driving ourselves backto the discredited discussions about who were the"deserving" poor and what level of guaranteed income thecountry could "afford." He proposed shifting the entire discussion of a guaranteedincome out of the context of social policy, where the focusis on the neediness of recipients. (Social policy is thevery context in which the Prime Minister seems to beproposing to situate the discussion.) Mr. Olson proposed thediscussion be located instead in political context where thefocus would be on the needs of the nation. No democracy can function well without the fullparticipation of all its citizens. An informed and effectiveand responsible electorate is the sine qua non tomaintaining our democracy and quality of life. We are allshort-changed when some members of the society aredisenfranchised -- not by having no vote but by being unableto exercise the responsibilities of citizenship that go withhaving the vote. The question then becomes not "how much will a guaranteedincome cost?" but "what is the cost of putting our politicalfuture at risk? I am reminded of this question when I see the dramaticdisparities in the circumstances of Canada's children andthink about their future together as adult citizens. Thedifficulty faced by many of today's families in making theirvoices heard, let alone sharing in the activities that makea democracy work, is apparent. I think of it too when I hearabout people with adequate income being bored or flippantabout politics, equating it with the activities merely ofthe political parties when it is in fact a much deeper andmore significant institution, a remarkable process forpeaceful change that is deserving of our attention andrespect and thoughtful participation. A visible and guaranteed income, arriving in our mailboxes(a negative income tax will never do: it is far too arcane)might be a good reminder to all of us. The net cost to thecountry of recirculating a certain amount of income in orderto recategorize it is minimal, and could yield manybenefits. The question becomes "Can we afford not to investin a universal guaranteed annual income?" Mr. Olson thus saw a guaranteed income delivered in apolitical context as an extension of our enfranchisement ascitizens -- a way of making our vote and politicalparticipation more likely and thus helping to guarantee ourfuture. He proposed that such a guaranteed income be called"the Canada Franchise." My own view is that this is an excellent suggestion, thatsuch a strengthening of the effectiveness of democraticenfranchisement would constitute a major step forward in thelong history of the development of democracy. The CanadaFranchise would constitute a memorable legacy for Mr.Chretien to leave to Canadians and would set an example forall democratic nations. Yours sincerely, Gail Ward Stewart December 12, 2000 Gail Stewart[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Ed Weick To: Ray Evans Harrell ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; Christoph Reuss Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 7:37 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income
Re: [Futurework] James Robertson
I met James Robertson and his wife in the early 1970's on one of their trips to Ottawa. (I regret I don't recall her name as they worked in partnership, her contribution by no means subordinate to his. I think it was Alison but I don't remember her surname.) The event was an informal evening at the home of my business partner, Catherine Starrs. Both we and the Robertson's had by this time become interested in looking at what came to be called alternative futures, we usually working on contract with the Canadian government and the Robertson's I think working and publishing independently. I recall thinking at that time that their work too conservative (too narrowly framed -- I felt that more was in change than they were taking into account) but subsequently came to appreciate the extraordinary character of what they were doing and their deep commitment to it. I was later for many years an interested and grateful recipient of their newsletter, Turning Point, which brought news of the numerous meetings, conferences, publications and other initiatives in Britain and sometimes elsewhere that were addressing change in concepts of work, in health and social policy, corporate forms, community development, etc. The publication, I think, sustained an immense network of persons, small groups and established organizations that were trying to address change in a coherent, constructive and down to earth way. Far from a glossy New Age magazine it had more the character of a modestly printed chapbook. Turning Point frequently included mention of James's own speaking and writing activity: he was vigorous in pursuing and supporting new thinking about work and income and other matters. He was well-informed about government and his work was always marked by strong common sense about the practicalities of policy change. A few years later I think he became involved as an advisor to the World Health Organization (WHO) on health promotion, which was on the leading edge of thinking about health. This brought him back to Canada on occasion as at that point Canada itself was deeply involved in pioneering new thinking about health. I am quite out of touch with the Robertsons now but have been struck by the sea change brought by the internet. It seems extraordinary that, even though relatively recent, so little of their commitment and utterly admirable and prolific work remains readily accessible, and that those of us who knew them or knew of their work should be left groping for its traces and trying to put together a picture out of our own memories. I hope somebody who knows more of them, including perhaps their present whereabouts, will come forward with more information and that more of it will be made available on the net. Either or both of them would be remarkable and distinguished members of this FW list or a spin-off list that gets down to business in addressing concepts of work. That some focused discussion is needed is apparent from Arthur Cordell's posting of an article that appeared in yesterday's Globe and Mail, where increased productivity was regarded as a threat to jobs rather than a potential boon to self-directed activity and leisure -- surely a clear indication that conventional thinking about work is quite topsy-turvy! We seen to be trying to accumulate and hoard jobs rather than secure some release of people from long hours of work. It is reminiscent of mercantilism, when gold was prized for its own sake rather than for its potential purchasing power to improve lives. In my own view this is because we have not become comfortable in addressing new arrangements with respect to income - a matter that I think must soon be faced. James Robertson, and Sally Lerner, and Charles Brass, have useful things to say about this. Meanwhile, I'll conclude with the following small piece of history, for your amusement. Regards, Gail Date: Sat Dec 31 14:21:16 1994 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (S. Lerner) Subject: A New UK FW Group To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Multiple recipients of list) Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I've just received a letter from a new UK group, the Job Society. They have almost exactly the same concerns as the Futurework Network (very encouraging!).They too will communicate via the Internet and also with a printed newsletter. They heard of our original Futurework Network through James Robertson's newsletter, Turning Point 2000. (If you haven't read Robertson's seminal books Future Work and Future Wealth, by all means do so. He's been way out in front on these matters for many years.) I've e-mailed FW information to Keith Hudson,their Founding Secretary, inviting their subscription to this list. The e-mail address is [EMAIL PROTECTED] if you'd like to request their literature. When they join, I'll ask them to post it and/or archive it. Sally Sally Lerner, Faculty of Environmental Studies, Univ. of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1 Gail Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From:
Re: [Futurework] Workloads
in so doing the very foundation of these societies is sometimes destroyed. 2. Secondcomment, less a story this time than a comment onvalues. It concerns voluntary activity and is in the form of a saying: "Ask not the value of voluntary activity in terms of a dollar [or whatever is the prevailing formal currency]: ask instead the value of a dollar in terms of voluntary work." In my experience this saying often leads to interesting discussion. Reversing the valuing processquickly reveals the extent to which a different currency/ethic prevails in the informal economy, a currency which regards the offer of formal currency as perhaps an insult, or unnecessary, or symbolic. Thus the formal currency emerges as a"phenomenon" to be noted, not taken for granted. Only by "seeing" and taking account of this foundational economy is it possible to make any sense of the "jobs" and the "job market" and the "employment numbers"of the formal economy. T%he informal economy is not "marginal" to the formal, but "foundational".The situation is akin to the relation, in democracies, of informal self-governance to formal governments. Without the former the latter can neither function nor be understood or maintained but nonethelessthis foundation isoften neglected in political science and politics, in government, and by the media that report on government. The formal is dependent on the informal, in work and in government as in life generally, isit not? We practice a strange perversion if we think or proceed otherwise? (Also, when attempts to maintain the formal at the expense of the informal are pursued, this is when a feeling of oppression mounts?) Perhaps we might therefore approach the concept of work on the basis ofa very broad definition, withthe formal manifestations of "jobs" understood as necessarily supported on the much broader base of informal human work (much of it going more directly to the point of human desires and freedoms and potential), and from there discuss interesting possiblities"? Perhaps the way forward is to acknowledge and strengthen the informal rather than simply trying to extend the formal (e.g. through "job" creation), and in so doing strengthen not only the foundations of the informal but also the possibility of strengtheningthe informal and formal Might assuming synergy rather than adversary relationships between the two perhaps serve us best? Just a thought. (I haven't forgotten women's work withwhich thisthread started. Somuch of women's work being antecedent to jobs and currently unrecognized, such a strategy would serve women too.) Cheers, Gail Gail Stewart[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Ray Evans Harrell To: G. Stewart ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 8:09 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Workloads Hi Gail, I think of the German response to the problem of religious persecution after the holocaust. They give all recognized religions a religious subsidy and help them meet the needs of their people. One of my Rabbi students was shocked to find the German government supporting the Synagogue in Berlin after she visited Auschwitz. The government also helped in telling the story of the camps as well. Their values changed. I think it is an issue of value. Are mothers valuable to children? If so, then pay them for their work. Sally has made the point that there is truly a glut of labor if youmake the labor sector efficient through the use of machines and all night factories andthe full use of information technologies. No one on this list seems to understand the implicit contract between business and the American government to supply "make work" to people doing useless jobs that are redundant and serve no purpose and indeed contribute to the glut of product that is a part of the recession cycle. But if you don't pay people to work then what do you pay them for?And if you don't pay them and there are no jobs then they starve. Sally has tried to get this discussion started many times but it has died on the vine. Now might be a good time to take the labor glut seriously. And talk about a tax system that stresses private efficiency and pays people a minimum living standard in order to "allow" them to seek out the best work that fits their potential. People could elect to work just for riches or they could elect to develop their minds and supply the creative engine of the society. Women who wanted to work as mothers could "work" as mothers and women who wanted to work in the system could choose that. But either way they could be given regular support and testing that would make sure that they complied with contemporary standards in such jobs. Many would not
[Futurework] Workloads
Speaking of work and and trade,here is an item posted this AM to another list. I'd be interested in comments. Do you think these are reasonable objectives for the World Bank and UN? Do you see around you or in your own life evidence of their accomplishment? Thefourth objective of UNIFEM gives me some trouble, at least until the third and fifth are advanced -- otherwise it seems to me that we get wage distortions that affect international trade, possibly reducing rather than enhancing the general welfare. Wageinequities produced by "discrimination per se" carrya continuing odour of slavery?Nor, I think, is the problem confined to women but is conspicuous there and links with other issues, e.g.caring forchildren,health, population, etc. What think you? How is the issue developing in your own surroundings? Gail This Friday's NOW with Bill Moyers focused on how women are faring in theglobal economy, with Vandana Shiva explaining in a live interview howglobalization increases women's workloads. For those who missed the show,the NOW site on pbs.org http://www.pbs.org/now/ is worth a visit.cheers, PenneySample:Rich World, Poor Women: Women and WorkThere is an old saying that you can judge a society by the way it treatsits women. In the last several decades many world organizations have signedon to that belief making improvements in the status of women among theirhighest priorities. The World Bank's Millennium Development Goals put itbroadly: "Goal Number 3: Promote gender equality and empower women."UNIFEM, the United Nation's Development Fund for Women lays out the road toprogress in greater detail: * Women's share of seats in legislative bodies should reach 50% * The ratio between girls' and boys' school enrollment rates should beone to one * Average female weekly earnings as percentage of male weekly earningsshould equal 100% * Women's share of paid employment in the non-agricultural sectorshould be expanded * Men and women should spend an equal number of hours on unpaid houseworkPolitical power, education, type of work all these factors have aninfluence on women's economic power Gail Stewart[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Futurework] Workloads
Hi Ed, You write that "you don't like this" but more, I take it, on the basis of the housework point where you feel the partners should work it out privately. I'm old enough, Ed, to remember the day in this society when womenwere expected to giveup their own name when they married; when women working "outside the home" were rare andfrequently frowned on; and when, even if working outside the home as much as their spouse,women did more of the housework. In many families, "working it our privately" was a difficult proposition for the woman and"women's lib"was gladly embraced. I think these days are gradually disappearing in our societyas women gain more power outside the home. However it would be inaccurate to think that "Neither male nor female should feel they are restricted from becoming what they want to because of their sex" is an injunction that prevailsin most of the world. In short, I think your response is idealistic if what you "would most like to see is equal access to education, to careers, to the income hierarchy, and everything else that people do outside the home." I suspect that a more interventionist stance may be necessary to realize what you would most like to see.But possibly more talk about how thingscan besuccessfully shared in the home on an informal basis, i.e. without either spouse feeling aggrieved, would lead to such practices gradually spreading to workplaces, places of worship and recreation, schools, etc. My own guess is that this is far from enough to achieve eveninformal (non-"tyrannous")equality. The Commonwealth has a program called Gender Mainstreaming and I am always shocked tobe reminded of the subordinate situation of many women around the world even today. (The Declaration of the Rights of Women in the US dates I think from 1848 but if you looked at the website for the Moyers program we both referred to, http://www.pbs.org/now/, the US hasn't yet achieved even wage parity -- and if took more than half a century to achieve even the vote. I don't think the barriers of discrimination facing women can just be wished awayalthough itmight be a better world were they gone. You make one othercomment to which I can't resist responding: What if, as may be possible, all of the women were geniuses and all of the men morons?What Ed, as may be even more possible,there may be as many women genuises as men genuises? Ought we notthen to be actively fostering women's emergence? The great question, it seems to me, is "how"? How prevent well-intentioned intervention in a complex social system from having a counter-intuitive result? Gail Gail Stewart[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Ed Weick To: G. Stewart ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 4:11 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Workloads UNIFEM, the United Nation's Development Fund for Women lays out the road toprogress in greater detail: * Women's share of seats in legislative bodies should reach 50% * The ratio between girls' and boys' school enrollment rates should beone to one * Average female weekly earnings as percentage of male weekly earningsshould equal 100% * Women's share of paid employment in the non-agricultural sectorshould be expanded * Men and women should spend an equal number of hours on unpaid houseworkPolitical power, education, type of work all these factors have aninfluence on women's economic power Gail, I don't like this. It strikes me as the tryanny of absolute equality. What if, as may be possible, all of the women were geniuses and all of the men morons? Or, can you think of the difficulty and fallout of a husband and wife keeping tabs on each other to ensure that they did an equal amount of house work? "No, no, dammit! I cooked dinner yesterday! It's your turn!" What I would most like to see is equal access to education, to careers, to the income hierarchy, and everything else that people do outside the home. When it comes to inside the home, partners have to work it out themselves. He likes cooking; she doesn't. Or she likes cooking; she doesn't. Or however the household goes. What would seem most important in the home is the kids. Neither male nor female should feel they are restricted from becoming what they want to because of their sex. Ed - Original Message - From: G. Stewart To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 12:15 PM Subject: [Futurework] Workloads Speaking of work and and trade,here is an item posted this AM to another list. I'd be interested in comments. Do you think these are reasonable objectives for the World Bank and UN? Do you see around you or in your own life evidence of their accomplishmen
[Futurework] Pax Democratica - a proposal
Ray, Karen, Arthur, Harry, Keith, Lawry et al:
what would you think of this?
Pax
Democratica
(Draft - April 1, 2003)
"From top to bottom, Americans do believe democracy is
good for everyone, even if some may have to wait for it longer than others. But
here comes the crux of the American dilemma. Even if we're prepared to grant the
existence, deep in American purposes, of more idealism than is usually admitted,
its fulfilment has become unattainable."
"... What Iraqis see, and the world along with them, is a
hegemon going about its business of domination, and barely any longer interested
in why it is hated for doing so. Its motives, to put them no lower, are
compromised."
"It is inconceivable that Bush would make a speech
disclaiming the merits of a Pax Americana."
" But at least Blair's
motives are not compromised. ... He's an internationalist visionary, albeit a
naive one."
The
article, "Blair has one final chance to
break free of his tainted fealty," by Hugo Young (The Guardian,
April 1, 2003)
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,927061,00.html) from which
these quotations are taken, is of a type becoming increasingly common in recent
days. It reflects the growing concern about a world in which the US enjoys
hegemony and will practice it in such a way as to result in an imperial role for
itself, seeking a Pax Americana. At the same time the UN is struggling with its
future role. A possible response to such a situation follows.
The current situation
It
is easy to read into the short-term power agendas of any particular US
administration a long-term trend that may not develop. It is important to be
skeptical about the present US administration but not be blinded by cynicism. By
and large, with many mistakes and much to be corrected and developed, the
American experiment, now more than two hundred years in the making, has
contributed substantially to world civilization. It would be foolish indeed to
throw the US out with the bathwater of all things bad internationally simply on
the basis of its current initiative in Iraq -- as many, worldwide, seem prepared
to do. Judgment might be suspended until such time as an effective context and
accountability structures can be created for that action.
The
USdid not so much seek as find itself thrust into its present
role,following World War II. Its role in the world became even more
dominant following the end of the Cold War. Today, with the United Nations
having failed to assert its own responsibility for maintaining international
peace and security and thus being in crippled condition, and the invasion of
Iraq under a coalition headed by the US well begun, the American role
hasinevitably taken on the full colour of imperialism.
The
world today thus finds itself on the horns of a dilemma. Resisting the hegemony
of the United States seems likely, if successful, to create an even more
turbulent international situation. Similarly, allowing a dubiously authorized
US-led "enforcement action" perhaps fueled by imperialist ambitions to proceed
without protest is dangerous. In such a situation a new conceptual framework
becomes needed, a new myth or story, a narrative of world affairs in which broad
common ground can be found and the forces supportive of a human and humane
future be fostered and those inimical to it
constrained.
The
US, doubtfulof a United Nations with its growing membership of nations of
various sizes and forms of government and membership franchise of one nation one
vote (a very different matter from a one person one vote situation), and its
Security Council veto arrangements, appears to have concluded that the UN is not
constituted in such a way as to be able to ensure international peace and
security. (Nor is it alone: there is much to be done before the world can be
confident that the UN is in condition to embrace its responsibility for
maintaining international peace and security.) However it is still possible to
read the US as not wanting imperial power so much as wanting a world in which
security is assured, a world in whichthe US and all nations arefree
to develop their potential, a world in which "coalitions of the willing" set
about addressingsome of the primary globalagendaitems that now
supercede mere international affairs in theirurgency. This reading could
be wrong but may not be: it seems highly unlikely that the Americans want a
world in which they must have troops stationed abroad on a continuing basis.
Thus, far from the US having "Dreams of Empire" and the
rest of the world having to pronounce "Eulogies for International Law," ("Dreams
of Empire, Eulogies for International Law" by John Gershman, http://www.presentdanger.org/frontier/2003/0325empire.html), we could be on the verge of a welcome new development.
Whether such a development is realized will depend now on the initiative of
other nations than the US. Willthe
Fw: [Futurework] Pax Democratica - a proposal
- Original Message - From: G. Stewart To: Ed Weick Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 4:16 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Pax Democratica - a proposal Ed, Thanks for your comment. I agree with you that the "coalition of the willing"is a new watershed. It was foreshadowed in an almost unreported speech thePresident Bush gave in the Rose Garden to diplomats,early in his term.I don't think I saw it discussed on thislist but it clearly foreshadowed a differently structured world. The "few strong poles" that you anticipate would take us back to the old "balance of powers" approachthat one might have hoped we could get beyond in the 21st Century. The problem with that, as distinct from "coalitions of the willing" is that it is geographically based, always a recipe for trouble. I'm not familiar with the World Federalists but thought they wanted world government, whereas the Commons is designed tomove beyond the quarrelbetween the two "world governments" we have now, the UN and the US, although I agree with you that the UN has certainly been winged. Beyondall the "deploring" (eloquent on this list!)I've seenlittle in the way of thinking about what people would like to see, beyond what is (discouragingly),merely "expected!" Thanks again, Gail Gail Stewart[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Ed Weick To: G. Stewart ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 1:42 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Pax Democratica - a proposal It's a nice idea, Gail. It reminds me of the kinds of things the World Federalists used to put forward. And it may happen, though not for quite some time. Where I think we are going is a world stalemated around a few strong poles, most probably the US, Europe, Russia and China, with the others falling in behind whichever pole best suits their purposes. What role the UN will play remains to be seen, but following from Iraq and 1441, I don't think it will ever again play a very strong role. I see Iraq and the "coalition of the willing" as a major watershed that has put the world on notice that things have undergone major change. Ed Weick - Original Message - From: G. Stewart To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 1:00 PM Subject: [Futurework] Pax Democratica - a proposal Ray, Karen, Arthur, Harry, Keith, Lawry et al: what would you think of this? Pax Democratica (Draft - April 1, 2003)
Re: [Futurework] Pax Democratica - a proposal
Ed, Interesting. A lot of horsetrading I think is a useful idea. I agree with the notion of several centres of power but think it important that they not be mutually exclusive, like nations. That is why I was thinking of a Commons that included both the US and many of the countries in the UN. The three would then be overlapping, and overlapping with the Commonwealth, the European Union, etc. A multiplex or web, rather than a detente. So I don't think we are far apart but Iseem to bemaking my "edges" fuzzier than yours! What do you think?Could the four or five "poles" be international organizations rather than countries? We have so much to learn about how to avoid war! Gail Gail Stewart[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Ed Weick To: G. Stewart Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 4:26 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Pax Democratica - a proposal Gail, I would like to see four or five poles in a detente. They would have to be of about equal strength so that if one tried to maneuver, the others would be in a position to counter it. It's not the brightest and most optimistic scenario, but it may be the best we can hope for. It could result in a lot of very useful horsetrading. Ed Weick - Original Message ----- From: G. Stewart To: Ed Weick Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 4:16 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Pax Democratica - a proposal Ed, Thanks for your comment. I agree with you that the "coalition of the willing"is a new watershed. It was foreshadowed in an almost unreported speech thePresident Bush gave in the Rose Garden to diplomats,early in his term.I don't think I saw it discussed on thislist but it clearly foreshadowed a differently structured world. The "few strong poles" that you anticipate would take us back to the old "balance of powers" approachthat one might have hoped we could get beyond in the 21st Century. The problem with that, as distinct from "coalitions of the willing" is that it is geographically based, always a recipe for trouble. I'm not familiar with the World Federalists but thought they wanted world government, whereas the Commons is designed tomove beyond the quarrelbetween the two "world governments" we have now, the UN and the US, although I agree with you that the UN has certainly been winged. Beyondall the "deploring" (eloquent on this list!)I've seenlittle in the way of thinking about what people would like to see, beyond what is (discouragingly),merely "expected!" Thanks again, Gail Gail Stewart[EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message - From: Ed Weick To: G. Stewart ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 1:42 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Pax Democratica - a proposal It's a nice idea, Gail. It reminds me of the kinds of things the World Federalists used to put forward. And it may happen, though not for quite some time. Where I think we are going is a world stalemated around a few strong poles, most probably the US, Europe, Russia and China, with the others falling in behind whichever pole best suits their purposes. What role the UN will play remains to be seen, but following from Iraq and 1441, I don't think it will ever again play a very strong role. I see Iraq and the "coalition of the willing" as a major watershed that has put the world on notice that things have undergone major change. Ed Weick - Original Message - From: G. Stewart To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 1:00 PM Subject: [Futurework] Pax Democratica - a proposal Ray, Karen, Arthur, Harry, Keith, Lawry et al: what would you think of this? Pax Democratica (Draft - April 1, 2003) "From top to bottom, Americans do believe democracy is good for everyone, even if some may have to wait for it longer than others. But here comes the crux of the American dilemma. Even if we're prepared to grant the existence, deep in American purposes, of more idealism than is usually admitted, its fulfilment has become unattainable." "... What Iraqis see, and the world along with them, is a hegemon going about its business of domination, and barely any longer interested in why it is hated for doing so. Its motives, to put them no lower, are compromis
Re: [Futurework] Pax Democratica - a proposal
Hi Ray, Thanks for this response. I hadn't seen the Commons as making something better by making it bigger but it is an interesting way of seeing it. I was not intending to deal so much in scale as in "presence," e.g. structuresof dialogue, and amintrigued that you saw it in material terms. I'll have to think about that. I was also interested in what you said about democracies. I don't think of them as a cultural imposition but something that can come in all shapes and forms, the esssence being consent of the governed, checked out at fairly frequent intervals. Peter Russell has described democracy as "a process for peaceful change" because people don't have to "overthrow" their government but have opportunity to change it. Would I be wrong in thinking that someaspects of the American Constitution related to this derive from some of theaboroginal governments that the invaders met? There is some concern, I agree, about the relation of democracy and capitalism as you mention, but I don't thinkcapitalism is intrinsic to democracy. Again, it is a matter of consent -- what do the people want? The "balance of powers" that you call for is an old idea, largely discredited now I would have thought. Your last paragraph I think is arguing with other people, not my proposal. Thanks so much for responding. It's very hard to know whether an ideais useful (not to say robust)until it gets bounced around a bit. Cheers, Gail Gail Stewart[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Ray Evans Harrell To: G. Stewart ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 3:30 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Pax Democratica - a proposal Gail, Pax Democratica? What a terrible idea. Making something better by making it bigger. Sometimes but I don't think so here. Just a recipe for the world domination of one culture over all. It messed up Communism in the Soviet Union and in China, one culture rule took thousands of years to evolve.There were Democracies that came and went all over this Hemisphere with the oldest continuous one being the Kuna in Panama which are said to be several thousand years old.But the"Catholic" idea has created reasonable genocides throughout the past two thousand years. And what is so wonderful about Democracy given what is going on at this moment? Might you consider that both the concept of Democracy and Capitalism might have a few flaws that could fester and become terminal? I would suggest instead that Europe get its act together and form a Union that works and is a balance to the economic union of the United States. But no one wants to give upbeing English or French in order to be European. Admittedtly it would also be a bigger unit but the key seems to be the ability to balance economic power. Remember we fought and still fight battles over theFederal Union.It would help if the world wouldsend the US troops home from all of Europe including Kosovo,Bosnia, Korea and Japan. Once there is a balance of powers then you can begin to negotiate, but there is no reason to negotiate with this arrogance as long as they are so completely economically dominant. I think that claiming America's decline economically is premature since the depth of the country is not limited to the mistake in the White House. Nor are the Wall Street provencials particularly able at anythingbeyond retail. Most are just a larger version of smart aleck Auto dealers who believe the entire world began when their concept of sales happened. Remember the "Great Ford?" Good day, Ray - Original Message - From: G. Stewart To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 1:00 PM Subject: [Futurework] Pax Democratica - a proposal Ray, Karen, Arthur, Harry, Keith, Lawry et al: what would you think of this? Pax Democratica (Draft - April 1, 2003) "From top to bottom, Americans do believe democracy is good for everyone, even if some may have to wait for it longer than others. But here comes the crux of the American dilemma. Even if we're prepared to grant the existence, deep in American purposes, of more idealism than is usually admitted, its fulfilment has become unattainable." "... What Iraqis see, and the world along with them, is a hegemon going about its business of domination, and barely any longer interested in why it is hated for doing so. Its motives, to put them no lower, are compromised." "It is inconceivable that Bush would make a speech disclaiming the merits of a Pax Americana." " But at least Blair's motives are not compromised. ... He's an international
Re: [Futurework] Pax Democratica - a proposal
Ed, you wrote: However, we may be into a very different ball game in the future, a perpetual, long-term war between established powers and supranational networks of organizations that purport to represent the aggrieved and oppressed and use terror to make their case. If anything could drive the poles I've postulated into common cause, that might. Yes, terrorism could. I keep expecting too that environmental degradation, of the sort that William Ward wrote about, might do so, but the separate incidents don't seem to add up to having a sufficiently pervasive effect. I watched again the other night the old classic, The Day the Earth Stood Still. Half an hour without electricity was deemed enough to catch attention worldwide! Gail Stewart[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Ed Weick To: G. Stewart ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 6:53 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Pax Democratica - a proposal I don't think they could be international organizations unless you consider the EU to be an "international organization", and it may still have a long way to go. I don't personally see large and powerful (or potentially powerful (e.g. Russia)) countries being willing to give anything up unless it is to their advantage to do so. However, we may be into a very different ball game in the future, a perpetual, long-term war between established powers and supranational networks of organizations that purport to represent the aggrieved and oppressed and use terror to make their case. If anything could drive the poles I've postulated into common cause, that might. Ed Weick - Original Message - From: G. Stewart To: Ed Weick ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 4:45 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Pax Democratica - a proposal Ed, Interesting. A lot of horsetrading I think is a useful idea. I agree with the notion of several centres of power but think it important that they not be mutually exclusive, like nations. That is why I was thinking of a Commons that included both the US and many of the countries in the UN. The three would then be overlapping, and overlapping with the Commonwealth, the European Union, etc. A multiplex or web, rather than a detente. So I don't think we are far apart but Iseem to bemaking my "edges" fuzzier than yours! What do you think?Could the four or five "poles" be international organizations rather than countries? We have so much to learn about how to avoid war! snip
Re: [Futurework] Eyes wide open
Lawry, I think it would help bring your account up to dateto add to it the doctrine of "human security" and the recommendations of the report of the International Commission on Interventions in State Sovereignty, "The Responsibility to Protect," December 2001. Under Canadian leadership, there have been serious efforts to try to deal with the issue of "failed states" like Iraq. http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/iciss-ciise/report-en.asp Gail Sovereignty and Responsibility to Protect(by Ken Stevens, in Peace Magazine, Jan-March, 2003)The government-led human rights abuses in Srebrenica, Rwanda, and Kosovocreated a serious discussion about the necessity of international militaryintervention designed to protect people from being massively killed by theirown states.The debate primarily involves the implications of military intervention forsovereignty--a principle that has been the acknowledged norm of inter-staterelations since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. It has been accepted thateach state must have the capacity to make final decisions for the people andresources within its territory.But what if such a state systematically brutalizes large numbers of its ownpeople ? In his Nobel Peace Prize speech, Secretary General Kofi Annan said"The sovereignty of states must no longer be used as a shield for grossviolations of human rights"Rising to the challenge, in September 2000, on the initiative of thenForeign Minister Lloyd Axworthy, Canada took the initiative to establish ahigh level committee to address this issue: the International Commission onIntervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS).The project was assisted by Britain, Switzerland, and numerous othercountries, and was financially supported by major American foundations. Theobjective was to produce a guide to international action whenever such humanrights were egregiously violated. By December of the next year, thecommission had re-formulated the doctrine of sovereignty in a way thatshowed signs of being acceptable. Its report was published as Responsibilityto Protect -- "a responsibility owed by all sovereign states to their owncitizens in the first instance, but one that must be picked up by theinternational community of states if that first tier responsibility isabdicated, or incapable of exercise..."The commission's document, Responsibility to Protect, has met withwidespread, if vague, approval. The question is, how can it become formallyrecognized as an official guide for action, and effectively part ofinternational law ? Canada's present foreign minister, Bill Graham, is fullycommitted to pressing forward with it as a matter of high priority, andmentioned it when addressing the General Assembly at the end of 2002. A unitwithin the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade headed byPatrick Whitman, is organizing to advance its principles.Last March, Science for Peace and Pugwash Canada held a one-day meeting onResponsibility to Protect. A report on the meeting can be located at thePugwash Canada web site: www.pugwashgroup.ca/ In early November,Parliamentarians Global Action met in Ottawa to consider both theInternational Criminal Court and RtP. Parliamentarians from around the worlddiscussed ways of codifying its principles and making them into a regularfeature of international law. Gail Stewart[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Lawrence DeBivort To: Ray Evans Harrell ; futurework Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 10:26 AM Subject: RE: [Futurework] Eyes wide open Greetings, Ray and everyone, The laws that pertain to the violation of civil rights and to war are voluminous and a discussion of them is even more so. It is, literally, impossible to examine these laws and their applications in a list discussion, even if the participants were deeply committed to doing so. So with that fundamental caveat in mind, I will will try and give a brief overview. ... Gail Stewart[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Futurework] Eyes wide open
aps lookingtoward an injunction. I am reaching for something else: a human understanding of the situation and the way it might best develop. Iwould then search for such legal conceptsas might be helpful.You might say that thesituation does not measure up to the needs of the law while I might say that the law does not measure up to the needs of thesituation. I might hypothesize a pre-existing global human community of which international law isone tool, you might perhaps conceive international lawgrowing out of nation statestoarch across unfilled judicial space to codify their relationswith each other? Is this how our dialogue is developing? I can't otherwise conceive why you are anxious to pin me down as to whetherI think MOAB is a "weapon ofmass destruction," for example.What does it mean to you? I regret it however we categorize it. What are you seeking to accomplish? I've not been clear why you are so interested in my views although I really appreciate our exchange: I've learned a lot. * Ray, I'm going to leave it to Lawry to answerthe question in your recent posting:I'm not sufficiently versed in the law. With respect, Gail Lawry also wrote: I am still hoping for your response, if you are up to it,re. "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and Iraq. One of the questions was: do you consider the as-Samoud rocket a WMD? And there were other questions, too. I had on Sunday prepared and have now forwarded my response to Lawry about WMD, Iraq, etc. in our increasingly lengthy exchange, leaving him free to decide whether to post it on FW at this stage. If he decides not and anyone is particularly interested, I'm sure either he or I would be happy to share it with you directly. GS Gail Stewart[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Lawrence DeBivort To: futurework Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 11:45 AM Subject: RE: [Futurework] Eyes wide open Hi, Gail, "Recommendations" do not equal law. Ray's question (or that portion that I was able to contribute to)was about the existing state of relevant law. There are literally hundreds and perhaps thousands of groups and commissions proposing rules and policies. Most never make it into international law, but they are all part of the great debate out of which international law eventually evolves. It is a grand, frustrating, and exhilarating process. I am still hoping for your response, if you are up to it,re. "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and Iraq. One of the questions was: do you consider the as-Samoud rocket a WMD? And there were other questions, too. Cheers, Lawry -Original Message-From: G. Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tue, March 18, 2003 11:04 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Ray Evans Harrell; futureworkSubject: Re: [Futurework] Eyes wide open Lawry, I think it would help bring your account up to dateto add to it the doctrine of "human security" and the recommendations of the report of the International Commission on Interventions in State Sovereignty, "The Responsibility to Protect," December 2001. Under Canadian leadership, there have been serious efforts to try to deal with the issue of "failed states" like Iraq. http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/iciss-ciise/report-en.asp Gail Sovereignty and Responsibility to Protect(by Ken Stevens, in Peace Magazine, Jan-March, 2003)The government-led human rights abuses in Srebrenica, Rwanda, and Kosovocreated a serious discussion about the necessity of international militaryintervention designed to protect people from being massively killed by theirown states.The debate primarily involves the implications of military intervention forsovereignty--a principle that has been the acknowledged norm of inter-staterelations since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. It has been accepted thateach state must have the capacity to make final decisions for the people andresources within its territory.But what if such a state systematically brutalizes large numbers of its ownpeople ? In his Nobel Peace Prize speech, Secretary General Kofi Annan said"The sovereignty of states must no longer be used as a shield for grossviolations of human rights"Rising to the challenge, in September 2000, on the initiative of thenForeign Minister Lloyd Axworthy, Canada took the initiative to establish ahigh level committee to address this issue: the International Commission onIntervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS).The project was assisted by Britain, Switzerland, and numerous othercountries, and was financially supported by major American foundations. Theobjective was to produce a guide to international action whenever such humanrights were egregiously violated. By De
Re: [Futurework] Eyes wide open
aps lookingtoward an injunction. I am reaching for something else: a human understanding of the situation and the way it might best develop. Iwould then search for such legal conceptsas might be helpful.You might say that thesituation does not measure up to the needs of the law while I might say that the law does not measure up to the needs of thesituation. I might hypothesize a pre-existing global human community of which international law isone tool, you might perhaps conceive international lawgrowing out of nation statestoarch across unfilled judicial space to codify their relationswith each other? Is this how our dialogue is developing? I can't otherwise conceive why you are anxious to pin me down as to whetherI think MOAB is a "weapon ofmass destruction," for example.What does it mean to you? I regret it however we categorize it. What are you seeking to accomplish? I've not been clear why you are so interested in my views although I really appreciate our exchange: I've learned a lot. * Ray, I'm going to leave it to Lawry to answerthe question in your recent posting:I'm not sufficiently versed in the law. With respect, Gail Lawry also wrote: I am still hoping for your response, if you are up to it,re. "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and Iraq. One of the questions was: do you consider the as-Samoud rocket a WMD? And there were other questions, too. I had on Sunday prepared and have now forwarded my response to Lawry about WMD, Iraq, etc. in our increasingly lengthy exchange, leaving him free to decide whether to post it on FW at this stage. If he decides not and anyone is particularly interested, I'm sure either he or I would be happy to share it with you directly. GS Gail Stewart[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Lawrence DeBivort To: futurework Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 11:45 AM Subject: RE: [Futurework] Eyes wide open Hi, Gail, "Recommendations" do not equal law. Ray's question (or that portion that I was able to contribute to)was about the existing state of relevant law. There are literally hundreds and perhaps thousands of groups and commissions proposing rules and policies. Most never make it into international law, but they are all part of the great debate out of which international law eventually evolves. It is a grand, frustrating, and exhilarating process. I am still hoping for your response, if you are up to it,re. "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and Iraq. One of the questions was: do you consider the as-Samoud rocket a WMD? And there were other questions, too. Cheers, Lawry -Original Message-From: G. Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tue, March 18, 2003 11:04 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Ray Evans Harrell; futureworkSubject: Re: [Futurework] Eyes wide open Lawry, I think it would help bring your account up to dateto add to it the doctrine of "human security" and the recommendations of the report of the International Commission on Interventions in State Sovereignty, "The Responsibility to Protect," December 2001. Under Canadian leadership, there have been serious efforts to try to deal with the issue of "failed states" like Iraq. http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/iciss-ciise/report-en.asp Gail Sovereignty and Responsibility to Protect(by Ken Stevens, in Peace Magazine, Jan-March, 2003)The government-led human rights abuses in Srebrenica, Rwanda, and Kosovocreated a serious discussion about the necessity of international militaryintervention designed to protect people from being massively killed by theirown states.The debate primarily involves the implications of military intervention forsovereignty--a principle that has been the acknowledged norm of inter-staterelations since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. It has been accepted thateach state must have the capacity to make final decisions for the people andresources within its territory.But what if such a state systematically brutalizes large numbers of its ownpeople ? In his Nobel Peace Prize speech, Secretary General Kofi Annan said"The sovereignty of states must no longer be used as a shield for grossviolations of human rights"Rising to the challenge, in September 2000, on the initiative of thenForeign Minister Lloyd Axworthy, Canada took the initiative to establish ahigh level committee to address this issue: the International Commission onIntervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS).The project was assisted by Britain, Switzerland, and numerous othercountries, and was financially supported by major American foundations. Theobjective was to produce a guide to international action whenever such humanrights were egregiously violated. By De
Re: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff!
Keith, What a nice set-up you've provided for a gentle proposal by a woman! Thanks! Gail You wrote: From: Keith Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Harry Pollard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 2:00 AM Subject: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff! It's the testosterone that's doing it! At this stage of the war, all sorts of otherwise reasonable male politicians (as well as the male editor and mainly male staff of the Economist) are becoming turned on and turning into rabid supporters. ... Shame on them for forsaking their rationality. Here's the proposal: March 16, 2003 The time has come for the Security Council to do something bold... Article 1, Chapter 1 of the UN Charter states that the first purpose of the United Nations is to maintain international peace and security, and to that end, to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace... A member country of the United Nations -- Iraq under Saddam Hussein -- possesses weapons of mass destruction and has not disarmed as demanded by the UN Security Council. This behavior is destroying international peace and undermining a general sense of security. Some member states, in a coalition of the willing, are threatening war against Iraq in the absence of effective early action by the Security Council. The Security Council is not simply empowered but is obligated to take action to maintain or restore international peace and security. Member states of the UN are committed, if asked, to contribute forces and resources through negotiated agreements with the UN. Accepting its obligation and immediately calling upon member states to contribute toward effective collective measures, the Security Council establishes itself as the responsible enforcement agency in the situation, not just a forum. The initiative by the Security Council to mobilize its own forces and resources changes the structure and character of the discussion. In the process of negotiation between the Security Council and those providing assistance (many nations, including the coalition of the willing ), an early timetable for the effective disarmament of Iraq, with only necessary use of force, is established. An illegitimate war threatening international peace and security is averted in favour of a legitimate UN police action strengthening international peace and security. THE UNITED NATIONS. A great idea. A grand agreement. The time has come to do something bold [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
[Futurework] Re: Security Council's responsibility [was Futurework] It's the testosterone (was Powerful Stuff)
Karen, There is also this: BETWEEN THE LINES - ONLINE - BY JONATHAN ALTER A Hail-Mary Peace Plan Here's a last-minute idea for how to avert war with Iraq Newsweek Web Exclusive: March 15 - I'm not a dove, but if I were, I'd be looking for a 'Hail Mary' pass just about now. Signing petitions and marching in the streets isn't going to stop this war or even delay it. Nor will beating the United States in the United Nations Security Council. Prayers for a coup in Baghdad or a change of heart in Washington are useless. SO IT'S TIME for a little out-of-the-box (or even off-the-wall) thinking. The first question is whether there' s anyone with the stature to spearhead a creative alternative, and the answer is yes. His name is Kofi Annan. If the Secretary General decided to step forward and lead the U.N., not rhetorically but literally, the status quo in Iraq could be transformed quickly, and, most likely, peacefully. So far, the Security Council has been obstructing and dithering, but not acting (He goes on, with his own plan) http://www.msnbc.com/news/885729.asp?0cv=KB10#BODY Gail Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Karen Watters Cole To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Keith Hudson Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 11:42 AM Subject: [Futurework] It's the testosterone (was Powerful Stuff) The Washington Post demonstrates that it, too is struggling. I would summarize this as Yes, but.- KWC WP Editorial: Damage Control Sunday, March 16, 2003; Page B06 We hope the summit today in the Azores will offer a way out of the impasse on Iraq at the United Nations Security Council. But the flurry of activity at the White House on Friday, when President Bush's meeting with the British and Spanish prime ministers was abruptly confirmed, looked more like damage control than serious diplomacy. ... ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff!
Keith, Can the development you point to be accelerated? Is there any hope that the Security Council, tomorrow, would assume responsibility for the use of force-if-necessary, calling upon member nations to contribute and then setting out its own effective timetable (and incidently converting a potential illegal war between nations into a legal international police action). I can see no other speedy move that would re-structure the situation in such a way as to satisfy both the growing alliance for peace and the Azores alliance, while doing the job of ensuring the Iraqi regime is effectively disarmed. Regards, Gail Gail Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Keith Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: G. Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 3:27 PM Subject: Re: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff! Hi Gail, You've hit upon what must inevitably happen, either within the UN or a successor organisation. It must have a Security Council that is independent of nation-states and has the resources to carry out effective action as soon as it is decided that a nation-state is dangerous to others. How that can come about is quite another matter. However, there are two interesting developments of the last twenty years or so which, if they continue, give some promise that a better Security Council will occur over the longer term future. One is the development of what is called segregative diplomacy. That is, nations in dispute with others over particularly tricky issues are learning to keep negotiations on these quite separate from other less tricky issues and not to conflate them into comprehensive confrontation. The second is that nation-states are increasingly realising that they are having to yield parts of their hitherto jealously guarded sovereignty to some larger specialised agency or governance -- e.g. the WTO, North Sea fishing rights, control over water extraction from rivers or aquifers which stretch across national boundaries, etc. But we're a long way from a new sort of UN yet. Perhaps it shouldn't be called the United Nations, because nation-states never will be united. However, the UK ambassador to the UN between 1986 and 1998, while arguing with Perle yesterday on ITV, said that he thought that the UN could be either strengthened or weakened by the way the war is fought. Either way, America has already realised that the world won't tolerate the way it is trying to browbeat the UN and that present membership and rules of the Security Council will have to be radically reformed. Keith Hudson At 07:45 16/03/03 -0500, you wrote: Keith, What a nice set-up you've provided for a gentle proposal by a woman! Thanks! Gail You wrote: From: Keith Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Harry Pollard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 2:00 AM Subject: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff! It's the testosterone that's doing it! At this stage of the war, all sorts of otherwise reasonable male politicians (as well as the male editor and mainly male staff of the Economist) are becoming turned on and turning into rabid supporters. ... Shame on them for forsaking their rationality. Here's the proposal: March 16, 2003 The time has come for the Security Council to do something bold... Article 1, Chapter 1 of the UN Charter states that the first purpose of the United Nations is to maintain international peace and security, and to that end, to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace... A member country of the United Nations -- Iraq under Saddam Hussein -- possesses weapons of mass destruction and has not disarmed as demanded by the UN Security Council. This behavior is destroying international peace and undermining a general sense of security. Some member states, in a coalition of the willing, are threatening war against Iraq in the absence of effective early action by the Security Council. The Security Council is not simply empowered but is obligated to take action to maintain or restore international peace and security. Member states of the UN are committed, if asked, to contribute forces and resources through negotiated agreements with the UN. Accepting its obligation and immediately calling upon member states to contribute toward effective collective measures, the Security Council establishes itself as the responsible enforcement agency in the situation, not just a forum. The initiative by the Security Council to mobilize its own forces and resources changes the structure and character of the discussion. In the process of negotiation between the Security Council and those providing assistance (many nations, including the coalition of the willing ), an early timetable for the effective disarmament of Iraq
Re: [Futurework] Security Council's responsibility
Lawry, Thanks. I've been hoping to see such discussion on this list. I'd like to take your points in turn. Gail Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Lawrence DeBivort [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 2:12 PM Subject: RE: [Futurework] Security Council's responsibility (was Re: It's the testosterone) Thank you for your answer...let's examine the matter a little deeper. Does any resolution of the UNSC carry the force of law? As will all questions about international law, it seems to depend. There are some areas where international law is fairly well established, others where it is not. The UN Security Council has I think probably been careless over the years in trying to ensure the effect of its resolutions. The degree to which any decisions carry the force of law depends on whether people obey them and precedents that are felt to be binding become established. I worry a bit that your question seems to imply a world where the force of law is objectively determined by the issuer, rather than how it functions. Any of us can issue laws: their force is what happens in consequence. Thus some see 1441 as If not, why interpret 1441 in this particular way? Any resolution of the UNSC is able to carry the force of law: whether it does or not is another matter. The purpose of interpreting it as carrying the force of law is that the actions of the Security Council are meant for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security. This being so, we would surely be foolish to dismiss them, ab initio, as not being at least intended to carry the force of law? If so, why not enforce the many other UNSC resolutions that get ignored? A good question: this is where the Security Council needs to be careful not to get into the condition of some legislatures that have what has been called, the disease of hyperlexia! What evidence is there that Iraq possesses 'weapons of mass destruction'? Apart from the evidence that they are already destroying, at UN command, some longer-range missiles than they were authorized to have, the reports of earlier inspections showed the presence of WMD for which plausible evidence of destruction has not been provided. The UN resolution put the onus on Iraq to show what has happened to them. If Iraq possess them, what evidence is there that they threaten international peace? The mere possession of WMD by anyone or any nation is surely a threat to international peace, which is why the world is trying to get rid of them. Should all countries possessing WMD be disarmed? In my view yes, starting with non-proliferation and moving to disarmament as fast as we can put effective global monitoring institutions, and an effective international architecture for peace-keeping, into place. I see it as a global learning process in which the last few months will prove very helpful. It is immensely heartening to see so many people concerned with peace. If we can now learn as well how to set up mechanisms that will effectively enforce peace it will be a big step forward from the cold war balance of power days of mutually assured destruction. If not, why not? Answered above: I think they should disarm, and we should, as the international peacekeeping mechanisms are developed and strengthen, be concerned about those that don't. This is one reason why Iraq is a concern: it does not need WMD and its possession of them (or failure credibly to demonstrate that it has disposed of them) puts it at more rather than less threat of external threat. This is surely one reason that the Iraq regime may be regarded as dangerous: it is unnecessaarily putting its own population at risk. It would be interesting to know how the dictionary of mental disorders would view such behaviour. Concerning resources 'of the UNSC' -- the UNSC does not control nor own the resources of UN members. Are you suggesting that the UNSC commandeer them in some way? Commandeer is an odd word in the circumstances: it has been given authority to acquire such resources so by the member nations of the UN and has previously called upon the member nations for such resources when needed. (Some think it should have a standing police force but for the present I think the arrangement that it is able to call upon member countries, as needed, is about as far as we would want to go. The UN General Assembly is, after all, not an elected body and we haven't yet worked out ways in which it can be held accountable by the world's people. Does it worry you that some members of the UNSC have veto power over UNSC actions? Good question. No, I don't think it worries me. There was some reason for it when it was first established. There might be some question now as to which nations should hold this power but I think diplomacy has done pretty well in working about it where needed, e.g. by abstentions. Do you trust these members to faithfully themselves implement international
[Futurework] The Iraq Opportunity
A longtime participant in this FW list, I've been following with interest some of the recent comments about the UN/US/Iraqsituation. I've been writing about the situation for a while, both indrafts toclarify and develop my own thoughts andin notes to friends and more publicly, and have now compiledhalfa dozen of thesediverse items into an12 page file I've called"Notes toward the Iraq Opportunity." In retrospect, I realize I've been looking at the situation as a problem to be solved -- an opportunity to be seized -- more than speculating about or condemning the motives of the participants. While the attempt may seem quixotic to many, I'm looking for a triple win scenario, a "natural hat trick:" -- a win for those opposed towar -- a win for the "coalition of the willing" -- a win for the UN Security Council in bringing Iraq into position as a fully cooperating member of the family of nations through an effective enforcement action. Recognizing that thelimits ofSaddam Hussein's imagination may determine the degree of difficulty in advancing this agenda, (the more he cooperates the more he too may be a winner but I'm not sure he will see this), I don't think such a triple win is impossible and make a number of suggestions. The whole approach though could stand to be greatly supplemented and strengthened and FWers I'm sure would have many useful suggestions. My own thoughts are certainly only a very modest contribution toward whatseems to me to beneeded and I amsure many others, worldwide, are working along the same lines. If anyone is interested in this kind of approach drop me a note and I'll send the file along. I'm not sure what the ideas in itare worth and whether any might subsequently appear on FW for discussion but I would leave this to readers to assess for themselves. I think I'm really just trying to point to the kind of thinking wherethe object isn't defeatingsomeone elsebut in which all the parties, and the world as a whole, emerge into a new era - a sea change toward global peace. Quixotic? Yes. Practical? I would suggest that it is the only course that makes intellectual, moral and practical sense. But such an approach needs many minds at work on it, working together. Diplomatic freeware? Regards, Gail Gail Stewart[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why do I write? (+ Why do *I* write...)
Dear Brad, I'm glad you appreciated the compliment: it was certainly intended -- you play a unique role among us and are, I believe, pointing to something very important that we should certainly be considering: the construction of our own thought and an available option. At the same time you don't always make it easy! I was interested in Keith's note to you on another posting: Please forgive me for saying so but this is the first posting of yours for some time that I have been able to understand on first reading. I'm sure it's my simple mind and not your syntax. So I'm going to take advantage of this unexpected luxury by commenting on this one: snip This is my experience too but not though any failure on your part: your elegant posts seem to me sometimes elliptical and I read them more than once. I appreciate that some matters can only be approached (perhaps especially translations from one mode of thought to another), by ellipsis. But I'd like to understand, so I'm going to follow up on this by asking if I have correctly interpreted what you were saying yesterday because I found it a bit cryptic (your posting is appended): Derrida you say is a learned man and his summary of Husserl is disdainful. In your view though he missed the Husserl's point. If he so missed it, then many others can hardly be expected to have appreciated Husserl. Derrida's mistake arises in re-listing Husserl's own categorization of historical epochs of thought as though they were merely epochs in a linear chronology of history rather than such differences in thought as not to be comparable because they would each conceive history radically differently. Thus Derrida, in approaching Husserl's categories from within a mode of thought of which Derrida himself seems to be unconscious, fails to recognize that each of Husserl's epochs is a mode of thought, and so misses the point. It is as though mythology, science and phenomenology were not different worldviews but just developments along a single line, without seeing that the single line itself comes from a particular mode of thought (science) -- a mode of thought (I suspect you might add), that tends to flatten the world as Derrida has done in his footnote. Interesting too, that his tone, in your reading of it, is disdainful, thus matching the mode of thought he had brought to his reading of Husserl i.e. #2. Is this anywhere near a correct interpretation? (I won't try to deal with The Last Man and The Man without Qualities although I confess to having difficulty there too in grasping your point and would like to return to it sometime.) Thanks, Brad. Gail Gail Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Brad McCormick, Ed.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: G. Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 1:29 PM Subject: Re: Why do I write? (+ Why do *I* write...) Thank you for the compliment. I keep trying, both to spread the good news, and also because I come to understand these things more deeply by writing about them. So I get something out of it even if nobody else does, but I could not make the effort unless I felt there was plausible prospect of being heard. I could never write a private diary -- I'd feel it was waste, because it would be purely private (as in de-prived). -- I was reading a very famous lecture by one of THE leading lights of our time: Jacques Derrida, The Ends of Man. It was early enough in his career (or else he had donned his sheepskin to camouflage himself...) for me to understand what he's saying. I found in a footnote a remarkable aside, which I take Derrida as citing with disdain and in disagreement. In this footnote, Derrida sums up Husserl -- *my Husserl* -- remarkably succinctly: Derrida said that Husserl believed human history divided into 3 epochs: (1) everything before the Galilean exact sciences of nature [this would include, e.g., even what Joseph Needham described as: Science and Civilization in China, not just primitive superstition...], (2) our own time, the age of exact mathematical sciences of nature [esp. physics] and technology, and (3) a time yet to come in which all humanity would live the life of phenomenological reflection. Each of these 3 forms of life, for Husserl, is *radically* different, not just more or less of the same thing[s]. Just think about it: Here is a person who is massively educated, who probably knows Kant and Hegel and Husserl to a degree which, if we were freemasons, would make him 32nd/33rd degree and me at most 3rd degree -- and he pooh-poohs/denigrates what he not only cannot feign ignorance of, but flat-out spells out in 25 words or less. With such persons at the *pinnacle* of the ivory tower, what can we expect down in the muck and the mire of the blue- and white- collar workplace, even the individuals who have comp.sci. PhDs? -- Again, thank you
Re: Super-stimulation
Good post, Keith. Ivan Illich's perspectives are a good antidote to some of this: http://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/~ira/illich/ and http://www.preservenet.com/theory/Illich.html are two sites that carry some of his work. Gail Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Keith Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 7:17 AM Subject: Super-stimulation If you make an exact copy of a bird's egg -- but make it very large -- and place it in the nest, then the mother bird will incubate that egg to the exclusion of all the others. This is called super-stimulation. The mother bird has no resistance to the stimulus of the overlarge egg because, throughout all of the evolutionary history of birds, and of that species, no such egg had ever occurred before. There was no cause to be wary of it. Exactly the same applies to the male power-urge. We didn't evolve any sort of resistance to untramelled leadership in large organisations because, for millions of years of primate evolution, our behaviour evolved in small groups. We needed rank order and we needed strong leaders to whom the group or small tribe would defer in times of crisis. If, however, he became too oppressive he could easily be brought down because he was always accessible to the group and there were always younger adult males trying for his slot. Evolution had no need to be wary of super-leaders because large groups couldn't exist in that former way of life. When, however, the natural tribal-bounding restraints of the hunter-gatherer environment no longer applied (from about 5,000BC) and small tribes became large ones, and then townships, and then cities and empires, the male power-urge persisted unabated but leaders were now more able to protect themselves in various ways from being easily pulled down. The result of this that, at the present time, out of the 170 countries making up the UN, about 150 of them are dictatorships to a greater or lesser extent. Even in the democratic countries, our forms of government usually produce leaders who have extraordinary individual power which can only be moderated with difficulty (if at all, in some potential warmaking situations) or periodically. Once we left the hunter-gatherer way of life behind us, the various innovations and technologies of mankind have produced organisations for production and government which are of a size which have become super-stimuli for the male with a strong power-urge. Males who strive for power will do so whether the economic unit is a small tribe or whether it's a large nation-state. We do not have an instinctive restraint which can prevent this. It is said that the price of civilization is constant vigilance. True enough. But on what ground is the vigilance based? In England, it used to be based on Common Law (though that has now become largely superseded by a vast body of Statutory Law exercised by the power establishment). In America, the founding fathers knew that Common Law was insufficient against the tyranny of government (from which they had fled) and decided to have a written Constitution. This is far better. But it is still not enough. Although America has more checks and balances against oppressive Presidential power than we have in England (our Prime Minister is now a virtual President who takes little notice of the House of Commons when making important decisions), it still means that Bush and a small nucleus of people around him have the most enormous powers -- for good or for ill. It is *informed* vigilance that we need. It may prove fortunate that the faculty that has caused many of our problems -- our curiosity and scientific experimentation -- may also in due course inform our vigilance more accurately as the results of the human sciences become more widely known, discussed and built into the institutions of the future. It has been the fashion of the last 50 years or so to disparage the strength of our instincts and to exaggerate the effects of the environment in shaping behaviour. By designing our environments (rather than the institutions of power) we are supposed to be able to create new human beings. But the supposed efficacy of social engineering has merely given autocratic governments additional justifications for their control. The leaders can now say We will improve your environment. We will educate you. We will make you prosperous. We will secure your welfare from the cradle to the grave. Of course, populations easily fall over themselves to believe them -- and (even more misguidedly) to believe that governments are able to achieve this. This applies to most of the countries of the world but even countries which once used to be approximately democratic have become welfare dictatorships, bewitching and subsidising their electorates with the promise of all sorts of goodies. However, three of the countries which went along this route --
Re: Keynesianism again?(was RE: Privatizing the Public: Whose agenda?: At What Cost?)
Hi Keith, You wrote (to Ed and Arthur): But, thankfully, you are both outnumbered now by enough economists (and the chattering classes) who know that full-blown Keynesianism will only lead to a repeat of the inflation that we suffered in the 70s and which deprived millions of their savings in a cruel way. A slight mistake here I suspect. Or perhaps a category that you have just invented: full-blown Keynesianism? Surely you meant over-blown Keynesianism. It is not Keynesianism when governments engage in excessive deficit spending. That is quite different from the purposes of applying Keynesian theory. Keynes isn't to be blamed for what we let our elected representatives do when they pile up debt continuously. One wants to beware of throwing out the baby with the bathwater? While I'm at it, I should perhaps also caution you: Keynes was very funny on the issue of businessmen and economists to the point where it is has become a cliche to be avoided, at least in writing to economists. (You wrote: With great respect from a small businessman to two economists) I'm willing to bet that there wasn't an economist on the list who didn't giggle at that and depreciate your following comments. Keynes was a smart cookie: he foresaw that practical men of affairs, even though they are strong believers in debt for corporations, would have trouble with the notion that governments could also use debt as a constructive instrument of public policy. The difficulty lies, he said, not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones. Oh Keith, you do goad us! Canada used to have what we called a mixed economy, extremist neither in the use of market forces or of central planning. I was reminded of that useful phrase (and that useful policy stance) when I read the Albrecht article posted by Arthur. After the excesses of command economies and the excesses of today's market economies, I suspect that we will find our way back to that more strategic and less ideologically-driven stance. I'm hopeful that Genuine Progress Indicators (as an improvement in un-nuanced GDP numbers) will play a role. Regards, Gail Gail Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Keith Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 3:36 AM Subject: Keynesianism again?(was RE: Privatizing the Public: Whose agenda?: At What Cost?) Hi Arthur and Ed, With great respect from a small businessman to two economists, I'll say you're quite wrong. Yes, politicians will be tempted (Bush has recently gone partially Keynesian). But, thankfully, you are both outnumbered now by enough economists (and the chattering classes) who know that full-blown Keynesianism will only lead to a repeat of the inflation that we suffered in the 70s and which deprived millions of their savings in a cruel way. (Cor! memories are short, aren't they?) Only a foolish or desperate country will try it in the future. (I, too, deplore the loss of community in today's technonological culture. But blame Pandora's Box, not Monetarism.) Keith I thought the programme was very good. The pendulum does swing. When the economy goes sour again, Keynes will come back in favour. Some day we'll recognize the real costs of deregulation and privatization (especially the loss of community) and the pendulum will swing back again. Arthur -Original Message- From: Ed Weick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 5:09 PM To: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Privatizing the Public: Whose agenda?: At What Cost? Thanks, Arthur. Albrecht makes a great deal of sense. Our public institutions are under attack and there is a feeling abroad that this is justifiable - that the great wheel has come around to where it should be. The program Commanding Heights which appeared on PBS recently seemed to pit Hayek against Keynes as the great gurus of the past century, and Hayek, it would seem, prevailed. It suggested that Reagan and Thatcher got it right, ending Keynesian socialist experimentation and letting the market prevail. Bleahhh!! Ed Ed Weick 577 Melbourne Ave. Ottawa, ON, K2A 1W7 Canada Phone (613) 728 4630 Fax (613) 728 9382 - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 9:07 AM Subject: Privatizing the Public: Whose agenda?: At What Cost? I am passing along for your interest the following from the net. The article was originally written about 1997 but seems relevant to the thread. Arthur Cordell === DEREGULATION, UNIVERSALITY AND SOCIAL COHESION In the past 15 to 20 years, beginning with the airlines, we have witnessed a profound move to deregulation just about everywhere. Pundits tell us that we achieve a more efficient allocation of resources if prices are
Re: FW: Metaphysics || Why is metaphysics still so prevalent today?
Brad, Tor, Tor writes: How do human create themselves and each other? This is what happens, and how do we take control of this process and take part in this creation of ourselves? Brad writes: hopefully it is the same with Western academe, that, the sun of man's (and woman's and child's...) self-accountable self-understanding as perspective-on-all-that-exists will continue to rise (it has been wavering in its course in recent years...), and melt away the crushing weight of all pre-reflectively held beliefs, I ask: is the following in some way consistent with what you are saying? If it is, I may have some further questions to ask. Thanks. Gail Taking responsibility Hunted tonight through a myth of personal search, a hypothesis about our lives and their very structure and stuff, the wild hypothemyth nonetheless remains as wild and elusive as ever. It is only the style of the hunt that may have been changed somewhat through this particular foray, more players invited to participate, the locus of the game perhaps shifted a little. I hope so... shifted away from the realm of the institutional and towards the realm of the personal, from which the institutional itself may be seen as human invention and responsibility taken for it; shifted, too, away from the realm of idea and towards the realm of life, from which idea itself may be seen as human invention and responsibility taken for it. A new freedom Much follows from this, not only for public policy but for life itself. Having created a point of departure through self-enablement, we may now set out cross-country, responsible, caring, credible, exploring new freedom. With myth and hypothesis we may, as have others before us, bring refreshed energies to the discovery and invention of a civil future. And, some might say, 'not a moment too soon.' ___ Gail Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Three views of human nature (was: Intertwined (was Name Dropping)
Hello Selma, I would like to move towards the implicationsthat may lie in the assumptions you have set out for our consideration: e.g. humans are (probably) born with a basic tendency toward goodness and that arranging things so that their basic needs are met will produce loving self-directed individuals. (Sounds a bit like gardening.) So, when a baby is born, we tell ourselves a story that this is a good baby, love and care for it and learn how to enrich its environment (i.e. apply the latest findings in brain research -- which is what the Conservative governmentof Ontario isnowencouragingthrough opening100+ "early years" centres throughout the province). And so on, through life although, as we become adults, it becomes a matter of nurturing ourselves and each other and our own children, and developinga nurturative built environment. That, I take it, is where you are going: a intensive care path but with the effort that is involved gradually becomingreduced because "synergy" cutsin as the cared-for child grows and becomes adult -- it becomes less effort to nurture oneself or others ifweand theyhave been nurtured to become nurturative persons, as well as less effort to improvea built environment that is already supportive -- a sort of virtuous circle of self-actualization. There are many instances of such an approach entering now into the policies of Westernsocieties, although not always for the purpose you seem have in mind. (Some are inadvertent consequences of budget paring.) Parenting classes, distress centres,john schools, community sentencing, early retirement allowing for increased voluntary caring for others, a growing solidarity against inhumane results of trade practices, progressive taxation, etc. Where there has been charity we are now seeing investment for development, and, through interaction with human rights, we are now seeing development not merely as economic development but as human development, and so on.Like almost anything else,little is new: itis a mattering of re-mappingour consciousness toperceive a new pattern in the events around us. From economic growth for its own sake we are shifting to economic growth for the sake of human "growth," i.e. growth in education, health, longevity, civility, ... and finally...consciousness. So what would you have us do: tell ourselves a different story (Brad's "narrative") and thus perceive a different pattern in events, place our bet firmlyon the assumption that infants are born goodand water and fertilize them and each other to the best of our ability toward a loving world in which work is done voluntarily and, presumably with high innovation and productivity? I'm pressingyourRogers, Maslow, Benedict theorizinga bit, (no, more than a bit) but is this basically where you would take us? In short, do some kinds of suggestions -- for parents, for schools, for governments, for ourselves -- lurk in yourtheorizing? The line of thought you are pursuing is interesting, and I don't recall seeing it often on this list, so please say more. When you link it to the possibility of willing work, as you do, it goes even further, but I'd like to getthe dynamics of your systemicanalysisclear first, and the suggestions that it might give rise to. Seeing goodness in babies, and nurturing them, a society that practices nurture can become what itbeholds, aloving nurturative hard-working society? Regards, Gail Selmawrote (quoted by Keith): "This is perhaps an oversimplification, but I would suggest that there arethree basic views of human nature that can be characterized as positive,negative and neutral. The positive view, best described by Carl Rogers andAbraham Maslow sees humans as born with a basic tendency toward goodness(other things being equal which is a huge IF); the neutral view can beseen in the work of people like the behaviorists such as Watson and BFSkinner and the negative view in the work of those who subscribe to Freud'sidea that humans are basically 'beastly'.If one subscribes to the positive view and accepts Maslow's hierarchy ofneeds as a guide, then humans who have had their basic needs for supportand nurturance of all kinds-physical, emotional, psychological, spiritual,aesthetic, intellectual, etc. etc,. will ultimately desire to love and towork above everything else." Gail Stewart[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Three views of human nature (was: Intertwined (was Name Dropping)
Yes indeed, Lawry, and in fact there is some evidence that higher income societies canbe less loving and the people, families and communities thereless self-defining.But beyond a reminder, can you direct this comment then to what Maslow says about a "hierarchy of needs?" Does this suggest that basic needs are not really basic -- that those who hope to see a world of loving self-directed people may be over-estimating the importance of whatever the basic needs are that you suggest are "far from met?" Which needs were you thinking of? Thanks Gail Gail Stewart[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Lawrence DeBivort To: G. Stewart ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 12:12 PM Subject: RE: Three views of human nature (was: Intertwined (was Name Dropping) Just as a reminder: there are MANY people, families and communities, from all over the parts of the world that I have visited, that are 'loving and self-directed' -- and whose basic needs are far from met. Meeting needs is not a prerequisite to being loving and self-directed... Cheers, Lawry -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of G. StewartSent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 11:41 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: Three views of human nature (was: Intertwined (was Name Dropping) Hello Selma, I would like to move towards the implicationsthat may lie in the assumptions you have set out for our consideration: e.g. humans are (probably) born with a basic tendency toward goodness and that arranging things so that their basic needs are met will produce loving self-directed individuals. (Sounds a bit like gardening.) So, when a baby is born, we tell ourselves a story that this is a good baby, love and care for it and learn how to enrich its environment (i.e. apply the latest findings in brain research -- which is what the Conservative governmentof Ontario isnowencouragingthrough opening100+ "early years" centres throughout the province). And so on, through life although, as we become adults, it becomes a matter of nurturing ourselves and each other and our own children, and developinga nurturative built environment. That, I take it, is where you are going: a intensive care path but with the effort that is involved gradually becomingreduced because "synergy" cutsin as the cared-for child grows and becomes adult -- it becomes less effort to nurture oneself or others ifweand theyhave been nurtured to become nurturative persons, as well as less effort to improvea built environment that is already supportive -- a sort of virtuous circle of self-actualization. There are many instances of such an approach entering now into the policies of Westernsocieties, although not always for the purpose you seem have in mind. (Some are inadvertent consequences of budget paring.) Parenting classes, distress centres,john schools, community sentencing, early retirement allowing for increased voluntary caring for others, a growing solidarity against inhumane results of trade practices, progressive taxation, etc. Where there has been charity we are now seeing investment for development, and, through interaction with human rights, we are now seeing development not merely as economic development but as human development, and so on.Like almost anything else,little is new: itis a mattering of re-mappingour consciousness toperceive a new pattern in the events around us. From economic growth for its own sake we are shifting to economic growth for the sake of human "growth," i.e. growth in education, health, longevity, civility, ... and finally...consciousness. So what would you have us do: tell ourselves a different story (Brad's "narrative") and thus perceive a different pattern in events, place our bet firmlyon the assumption that infants are born goodand water and fertilize them and each other to the best of our ability toward a loving world in which work is done voluntarily and, presumably with high innovation and productivity? I'm pressingyourRogers, Maslow, Benedict theorizinga bit, (no, more than a bit) but is this basically where you would take us? In short, do some kinds of suggestions -- for parents, for schools, for governments, for ourselves -- lurk in yourtheorizing? The line of thought you are pursuing is interesting, and I don't recall seeing it often on this list, so please say more. When you link it to the possibility of willing work, as you do, it goes even further, but I'd like to getthe dynamics o
Re: Work and the economy
Charles, Two comments in response to your interesting posting. 1. You wrote: "I suspect that many of those who have not entered the conversation have stayed silent because they believe this is just a rather meaningless word game. Gail to some extent perpetuates this view by talking about voluntary work as different from employment, and Keith talks about working for himself as different from employment. I guess these are differences, but they are not what I am getting at (at least not necessarily)." You seem uncertain about distinguishing these from employment. Could you elucidate, especially with respect to voluntary action? (I was of course not talking about volunteering which is often coerced, e.g. students and CEO's needed it for their resumes, young offenders being sentenced to do so many hours of community services, churches and other institutions making it almost a condition of membership, and even friends (or Presidents) putting moral suasion onpeople to "volunteer." This of course is not what I meant by voluntary action.) Do you not see it, and entrepreneuring, assufficiently different from employment as to meet your criteria for "work?" 2. I am intrigued by your "peroration:" "For me, the alternatives will involve a much more vibrant local community (by which I mean the network of people and resources close to us) than currently exists - mostly because nationals systems simply can't measure let alone control needs and wants at the local level. In my future for work, everybody has at least one community with which they can identify and within which they can sustain themselves. There will still be plenty of people who interact within many communities and many of the current economic systems will continue to very very useful in facilitating this interaction. But they will be meaningless at the local community level which is where sustainable strength will be based." In my terms you are speaking about "meaningful work" in which the work is meaningful both to the person involved and to the communityfor which it is done, i.e. doubly meaningful, what we could perhaps call "work-in community" done by "persons in community." (MacMurray). Pressing you a little, do you think something can be called "work" that is meaningful only to the person involved independent of what others may think of it? Self-defined work? In short, is work necessarily a social concept or can it be a personal concept, even perhaps in defiance of community? Who decides what is "work?" To make this practical, my interest has been in public policy. The question hasrelevance for taxation policy (personal income tax, policies for foundations that give grants, guaranteed basic income), policies toward education and support for people who say they want to be students or artists,.. and so on. Where does individualism meet community in your definition of work? These are issues on which I would hope this FW list might not only enter into discourse but perhaps even develop and spin offsome public policy proposals Regards, Gail Gail Stewart[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Work and the economy
Hi Ray, This is interesting. You have surprised me. I had not expected you to be annoyed by my perspective on artists as engaged in the activity of pursuing personally responsible self-defining self-expressive work, and doing so even when support and understanding in the larger community mightbe lacking. This is not to deny that, within narrower parameters, there are forms of art that follow and interpret established disciplines, but who is to say that the solo self-defining artist may not be pioneering a new discipline? As in law, it is the extraordinary cases that establish the boundaries. But never mind. The issue can be recast: are we willing to guarantee income to people the "worth" of whose activities we may not understand, or approve, but don't seek to judge provided we are not actively harmed by them? I am reminded of a question that I heard someone once ask, in all seriousness, "Of what worth is a giraffe?" What interests me more in your post though is the "am I wasting my time?" I don't thinkthe purpose of our discoursehere is to persuade each other so much as it is "to compare mythologies" and be illuminated by each others' perspectives. I have frequently been illuminated by yours. Best regards, Gail Gail Stewart[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Ray Evans Harrell To: G. Stewart ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 12:56 PM Subject: Re: Work and the economy Gail, I object, once more, to your catagory of Artists. Am I wasting my time here? REH - Original Message - From: G. Stewart To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 12:33 PM Subject: Re: Work and the economy Charles, Two comments in response to your interesting posting. 1. You wrote: "I suspect that many of those who have not entered the conversation have stayed silent because they believe this is just a rather meaningless word game. Gail to some extent perpetuates this view by talking about voluntary work as different from employment, and Keith talks about working for himself as different from employment. I guess these are differences, but they are not what I am getting at (at least not necessarily)." You seem uncertain about distinguishing these from employment. Could you elucidate, especially with respect to voluntary action? (I was of course not talking about volunteering which is often coerced, e.g. students and CEO's needed it for their resumes, young offenders being sentenced to do so many hours of community services, churches and other institutions making it almost a condition of membership, and even friends (or Presidents) putting moral suasion onpeople to "volunteer." This of course is not what I meant by voluntary action.) Do you not see it, and entrepreneuring, assufficiently different from employment as to meet your criteria for "work?" 2. I am intrigued by your "peroration:" "For me, the alternatives will involve a much more vibrant local community (by which I mean the network of people and resources close to us) than currently exists - mostly because nationals systems simply can't measure let alone control needs and wants at the local level. In my future for work, everybody has at least one community with which they can identify and within which they can sustain themselves. There will still be plenty of people who interact within many communities and many of the current economic systems will continue to very very useful in facilitating this interaction. But they will be meaningless at the local community level which is where sustainable strength will be based." In my terms you are speaking about "meaningful work" in which the work is meaningful both to the person involved and to the communityfor which it is done, i.e. doubly meaningful, what we could perhaps call "work-in community" done by "persons in community." (MacMurray). Pressing you a little, do you think something can be called "work" that is meaningful only to the person involved independent of what others may think of it? Self-defined work? In short, is work necessarily a social concept or can it be a personal concept, even perhaps in defiance of community? Who decides what is "work?" To make this practical, my interest has been in public policy. The question hasrelevance for taxation policy (personal income tax, policies for foundations that give grants, guaranteed basic income), policies toward education and support for people who say they wan
Re: Work and the economy
Hi Brian, You wrote: "It is good to have you contributing to this list again. ... I work very hard to help my beginning teachers of English wrestle with what you believe. Paulo Freire has written extensively on this topic." Thanks very much for the welcome but you have made an assumption about "what I believe" that is not accurate. I'm not talking about what Paulo Freire is taking about. He starts by assuming alienation: "My suggestion is that we capture our daily alienation, the alienation of our routine,..." I don't assume alienation and hope I didn't give this impression. Ithink studies show that many people are happy in their employment. In drawing a distinction between work and employment, I'm not trying, asFriere seems to doing, to "that" is bad and "this" will be good. (There's a deep political distinction between the two approaches - his is structured as an adversarial approach,mine is not.)I'm trying to say that "this,"i.e. making a distinction between work and employment (notnecessarily even to the point where they are mutually exclusive)is perhaps a way to make a given situation better. It opens the possibility of a realm of discourse about work that is not available when all work is assumed to take the form of employment. When wefail to make such a distinctionwe miss (and dis) the foundational work of society, the self-care, the caring for family and friends (such as shopping for food and cooking meals and a thousand other things we do in the context of "caring for"), the entrepreneurship, the getting of an education plus all the self-directed learning that we do, the voluntary action in communities and in all sectors, the self-expression in the arts,and all sorts of work activity on which the market economy depends for its existence. It is usually best, in my experience, to think of the market economy and the paid work that goes on within it as superstructure. Just as in introductory economics classes "trust" is pointed to as essential to the functioning of a market economy, so too is all this foundational work that goes on. When we expand employment (which is currently understood as paid jobs) weneed to be careful not toweaken this foundation. In fact, much of our concern about jobs is as a channel for distributing income and we are often not very imaginative about what is produced. We would probably do far better to find ways of letting more people pursue self-defined work (as we do through the pension schemes, arts grants, college bursaries, honoraria, loans for business creation, etc.that we have invented) than by trying to expand jobs. In fact I've always wondered why we seek to train disadvantaged youth solely for jobs rather than give at least as much attention to showing them how to become entrepreneurs. The latter is just one of the anomalies that is associated with conflating work and employment. Yours, trying to remember one is "ever newer" (thanks for that) Gail Gail Stewart[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Work and the economy
Title: Re: Work and the economy I'm sorry Brian, in my reply to you I chose to respond only the second part of your posting, on Paulo Friere, because I didn't have anything much to say on the first part - I pretty much agreed with it, although with a qualification in my turn. People with access to the media sometimes coin or use aword that becomes repeated throughout the media. This says nothing though, I think, about whetherweneed accept it. In fact, even with respect to terrorism, I've talked with many people in recent weeks who have had various interpretations of the word, including bullying in the schoolyards, profiling of visible minorities, threatening people with loss of jobs or reputation, kidnapping, etc. -- almost anything on the spectrum of actions intended to generate "fear." So my agreement with your comment was qualified. Yes the rich do have some power but I'm not sure it is necessarily the power of the word: sometimes the word is just cover for actions that are going to be pursued under whatever name. Your example of words used by government, e.g. in education, that have regulatory effect is a good example of the latter I think. Even if the teachers in Ontario were to change their name to educators, it seems likely that they would face a regulatory regime where words are being used to control. This is the way positive law works, through words. However, just as work is more than employment, positive law is not the only form of law we use. (Also, I remind myself that that government was elected twice, its platform apparently developed in anger, and am saddened.) I like it that we are talking on this list about language per se. I think that it is only as we begin to take responsibility for our use of language that we will be able totemper some of the risksI believe humanity is takinginour relations with each other, generatingfear and humiliation and anger among us, by words that may lead to unfortunate deeds. Making language transparentso we can see and appreciate its varied uses and it limitations, could be a big step forward for humankind. Language has proved to be a very powerful invention. Regards, Gail Gail Stewart[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Brian McAndrews To: G. Stewart Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 2:56 PM Subject: Re: Work and the economy Hi Gail, I think we have to go back to my qualifier: Gail wrote: I think we all have that privilege although the rich and powerful may have better access to leverage in making their definitions known,but even theycannot force acceptance of their decisions.) I replied: Hi Gail, It is good to have you contributing to this list again. As to the section of your posting that is copied above, I agree with you with one major qualifier. Let me start with an example: the word 'terrorism'. When the rich and powerful(George W and friends) define this concept to suit their purposes it has huge very pragmatic consequences. Enough said? Do you accept my qualifier? Perhaps enough wasn't said. The Mike Harris government in Ontario has fundamentally redefined what it means to be a teachers in Ontario by introducing standardized tests, standardized report cards, standardized curriculum, standardized permanent probation for teachers. They create a teacher regulatory body called The College of Teachers and then ignore anything it 'defines' if they don't like it. I don't think it is a stretch to say that many teachers are feeling alienated, so too nurses. Marilyn Waring in her NFB film "Sex, Lies and Economics" describes how the definition of GDP by governments alienates care givers. The definition of what it meant to be a person did not include women a hundred years ago. The suffragettes didn't like this alienation. Take care, Brian
Work and the economy
Thanks to Charles Brass for a most interesting recent posting on work and employment. What is called "work" seems to be (I'm avoiding assertion)nothing more than a human convention, differing in different places and times and even in our own lives at different moments. One moment I may be doing something with a happy sense of fulfillment and usefulness-in-the-world and feel that I am doing meaningful work. The next moment the same task, become over-elaborated, may lose the worth of work or, coming tothe edge of my energies,may cease to be work and become toil.The capacity to self-define whatI will choose to regard as work,a subjective judgment, is important to my sense of well-being.Further, as we now seem to be learning, our image of ourselves in relation to the work we define ourselves as doing can affect our health, mental and physical. No work is intrinsically lowly, none intrinsicallysuperior, but only as we perceive it to be so? As it is for myself, so it is, through my eyes,with respect toothers. Thus otherswho may see themselves asworking, perhaps even in well-paid employment, may not in my eyes be working, while many who regard themselves as unemployed (voluntarily or non-voluntarily) may in my view be doing significant work. In short, I reserve to myself the opportunity to look around me and accord the accolade of work where I believe it is merited. I assume that others do the same. (I therefore don'tagree that the decision to choose what a word will mean is confined to the rich and powerful. Brian has written to Harry: "Alice is perfect because as you recall the rich and powerful get to decide what language means and they get to change that meaning when it serves their purposes!! Now that is infinitely better than privilege." I think we all have that privilege although the rich and powerful may have better access to leverage in making their definitions known,but even theycannot force acceptance of their decisions.) Where is this going? Given the capacity of each of us to decide what we will regard asconstituting work, I amconstantly surprised by how many choose to define paid employment (working for hire) as being co-extensive with work, and to define non-employment (voluntary and/or non-voluntary), as"not working."Is anybody elsesurprised by this phenomenon in contemporary society? It seems to me quite marked. In making work and employment synonymous I think a valuable distinction is lost,one that opens, as do all distinctions, an opportunity for fresh perception and discourse.In instance, some of the hardest-working and most productive workers I know are retired or have never held a job. This creates the possibility of "more jobs, less work," a language game -- or a realcost to societyarising from a failure to sustain a distinction in language? (The other side of that real cost of course is perhaps a real opportunity? ) Regards, Gail Gail Stewart[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fw: conference
Arthur, Thanks for this notice. There is, however, so much confusion in this conference between work and employment, and workplaces and employmentplaces, that I wouldn't think it could be very useful. Notice how they use work and employment as though they were synonymous and use workplaces to describe what are really just employmentplaces. Their e-work is really just e-employment -- paid jobs in the monetized labour market? Rather than The World, The Workplace and We, the Workers the conference might better be entitled The Global Economy, The Employmentplace, and We, the Employees. Members of the futurework list could never make such elementary mistakes could we? I wonder what other members of the list might think about this. Yours provocatively (and, I trust, constructively) Gail Gail Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 2:22 PM Subject: conference The introduction of new information and communications technologies and the spreading of e-work throughout our economies has been accompanied by major changes in the organisation of the local and global economy within and between European regions, and globally. As a consequence, we can not only observe major shifts in the location of employment, but also the implications this has on the organisation of the workplace and the individual workers around the world. However, these changes, underlying processes and consequences are often poorly documented. By presenting recent research material and confronting this with views from more theoretical and policy oriented experts, the conference will try to put the debate into a more empirical perspective based around three subthemes: the world, the workplace and we, the workers eWork in a Global World, Brussels, 16-17 April 2002 http://www.emergence.nu/events/wwwe.html
A hypothetical exam essay question
Background: (Excerpt from an article forwarded to me today) From Slate magazine, an article by Steven E. Landsberg subtitled "The airline bailout enriches stockholders at the expense of taxpayers:" "Let's be clear about what this bailout will do for the flying public: exactly nothing. It won't keep any planes in the air that wouldn't have been there anyway. Airplanes are flown when it's profitable to fly them, and they're not flown when it's not profitable to fly them. Giving cash to the airlines doesn't change the profitability of any given flight, so it doesn't affect any decision about which flights to offer. snip So, what does the airline bailout accomplish? One thing and one thing onlyit enriches the millions of people who own airline stocks at the expense of the millions of others who don't. And in the process, it undermines the very principles that we uphold and our enemies want to destroy. Hypothetical exam question: Is Landsberg right? If so, why are governments not bailing out the airlinesby making it less expensive for people to fly? Why is there no vociferous lobby for reducing ticket prices, perhaps through a voucher system temporarily reducing the costs of flying? Wouldn't this be a healthier form of bailout both for the airlines andthe public than just giving cash to the airlines? Wouldn'ta reduction in ticket prices to the consumerbemore likely to maintain jobs and lead to a resumption of normal airline activity? Are resources that might be usedagainst terrorism being needlessly wasted by a straight "bailout" of the airlines? Discuss. Regards, Gail
Re: A hypothetical exam essay question
A further contribution, from a friend: "All of your questions (except the last one) imply a transfer of resources towards flying. Why subsidize flyers? If we're going to tax and transfer there are a lot of competing candidates!(as your last question implies - counter-terrorism is one possible direction.)Of course, it might be argued that flying is somehow essential and therefore 'something' must be done to preserve the industry but Landsberg would argue that nothing isthe answer. If it is argued that Landsberg is wrong, that private resources just cannot reallocate themselves fast enough to keep planes in the air and that it is somehow critical that planes be kept in the air then I would prefer your solution to bailing out shareholders." Gail Stewart[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Self-defined work
In the engaging "less is less" thread, Ray wrote:. The external motivation of utilitarian thought is an anathema to themeaning of the study of human expression through practice i.e. art. Does this then not argue for moving toward self-defined work, as we have discussed on this list many times? Is it time to begin a serious exploration of the possibility --its concepts, processes, supportive infrastructures? Regards, Gail Gail Stewart[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Examining ourselves, again
A few days ago I posted a couple of purported examination questions to which Ray Harrell and Mike Spencer made thoughtful and informative responses. I had set up a grading scheme and at the conclusion of Mike's response he asked how he did -- so I thought I should play along a bit further. Both got 20 points for just showing up. Also each got top marks on their answers, putting each of them at the head of the class. How so, you ask? Well, with their distinctive (and to me always welcome and helpful) postings to the futurework list over many months, each is clearly in a class by himself! These recent postings were no exception. So congratulations, Ray and Mike. On a more personal note, thanks for those responses. I was deeply troubled by the quotation around which I had posed the questions and that it was buried in the article from which it was taken rather than written in headlines. There are many areas -- child development, homelessness, the design of working environments, deterioration of the natural environment, the role of the arts -- where we seem to be waiting for science to give us "permission" to act. In fact it is we who are not giving ourselves permission. We do this when we withhold credibility from anything that isn't scientifically "endorsed." In many cases this is not only inhumane but quite unwise. True, scientific findings do sometimes show that "common sense" has misguided us, but surely it is even less sensible to wait upon science to guide us and to fail to act until it does. The indictment of "the policy world" in the case of early childhood development that is implicit in the quotation should wake us up to this practice of waiting upon science and lead us to review many of our current priorities. Even beyond "the precautionary principle" (which is now entering the policy world as a legitimacy umbrella for acting before all the scientific facts are in), there are other rubrics for action (common decency, experience) that are quite valid. For example, it is simply "man's inhumanity to man" that is, after all, at the root of many of the problems that we are now waiting upon science to endorse and resolve. Also we are denying ourselves much joy and learning from the arts and humanities simply for lack of being able to prove they are "measurably" productive. I'd love to give confidence to a policy discourse (on futurework and elsewhere) that felt itself able to include but reach beyond science to more profound principles of policy development in situations of democratic self-governance. Policy-making is surely not just a science but an art. Indeed, to speak of policy-making as a science is a growing problem. We nonetheless do this in hundreds of courses on "the policy sciences," thus turning out deformed practitioners who, hired, then interpose their advice between the citizenry and its elected representatives. It is one of the reasons that the working world has become such a deformed institution, deforming workers in deformed environments -- which is where this thread began. We should not forget that work, in the perspective of the dismal "science" of economics that dominates our policies toward work today, is still defined as a "disutility" producing income as a side-effect. Work could equally well be centrally defined as a utility, a pleasurably developmental learning experience, and so organized, with income arrangements to match. Now there's a challenge! 50 points for simply participating, and 50 points for a great three paragraph contribution on looking at work as a pleasure (a utility) rather than a disutility (a pain) and what would be needed to reorganize work so that it becomes the pleasure for everyone that it already is for some? A 21st century concept of work. But this time how about everyone participating in the marking, giving credit for welcome and helpful postings? Gail Gail Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Examining ourselves
1. Apropos the recent discussion on futurework about the design of the workplace, try substituting "the workplace environment" for "early childhood" in the following statement. Discuss (for 40 points). " Recent progress toward improving outcomes for children First, there has been a rediscovery, in the policy world, of the role of early childhood as a lifelong determinant of health, well-being and competence. This has occurred because issues of early childhood development began to be expressed in a credible vocabulary for modern society -- the vocabulary of science. Recent insights from neurobiology, developmental psychology and longitudinal studies ... give credibility to notions long held as common sense." (Clyde Hertzman, "The Case for an Early Childhood Development Strategy," Isuma, Vol 1. No 2, p. 16.) 2. On another note but still with respect to the above quotation, what is wrong with a "policy world" that cannot hear the cry of a child until it is expressed in the language of science? When did science become the gatekeeper of policy rather than merely one viewpoint among a number with respect to policy-making? Have we installed a discourse of the deliberately selectively deaf between ourselves as citizens and our elected representatives? How might we have got ourselves into such a situation? Discuss (for 40 points). 20 points will be given for list participation -- Let's hear it for improved workplace environments, but speak in the language of science or "the policy world," on its current form, will choose to play deaf. As a longtime and now sometimes participant in the policy world I found the above quotation made me want to convene a conference. Has it really come to this? Have we so thoroughly abdicated our responsibility to develop good policy advice that, in a human world of many languages, we will only listen to those who speak science?) Gail Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
