Dear Keith:
Thanks for entering the fray. I appreciate you comments and thinking, I may
not agree with all your points and argue forcibly against some of your
conclusions, but it is through such aggressive dialog that I learn and
change - or not. So even though we often seem to be at odds, that is the
most valuable area for growth for me.
>Thomas,
>
>(KH)
>>>[Basic Income] won't work because it ignores one basic fact of human
>nature: we are
>>>essentially a tribal species, the product of millions of years of
>>evolution.
>(TL)
>>Thomas: I would argue that it is because we are essentially a family and
>>tribal species that it will work. When your total support for life is the
>>other 60 to 80 people in your tribe, you don't set up two or three as the
>>rich guys and make the rest exist at a poverty level. Tribes work because
>>of the Basic Income of sharing food, skills and supporting each other.
>
>Exactly! Perhaps I did not make myself clear enough. Basic Income would
>work in a tribal-sized society, but not in the distant, centralised
>governmental set-ups that we have today.
Thomas 2
The government of today, in my opinion is the perfect medium through which a
Basic Income can work. Governments have developed sophisticated
methodoligies for collecting and redistributing money. They have a whole
legal and accounting system that has evolved over several hundred years to
redistribute income to individuals and into public goods services. In fact,
today, through computerization, it can collect and redistribute almost
without cost. With only some slight modifications, it could accomadate my
Basic Income Plan. In some ways, this discussion about our tribal geneolgy
is a canard that doesn't need to explored or rationalized.
>
>
>(TL)
>>Capitalism and to a degree, the concept of democracy shift our tribal
>>instincts of cooperation into predatory instincts of "I'll take care of me
>>and screw the rest of the tribe."
Keith said:
>But it's not capitalism that's at fault. It's over-large governments. And
>the larger they are, the more opportunity there is for corruption between
>them and some (I must emphasise "some") capitalists.
>
>"Capitalism" and "capitalists" come in all sorts of shapes and sizes and
>you simply can't use these jargon terms in any meaningful way.
>
Thomas 2
Overlarge governments are mostly the result of continually increasing
services being provided. At the turn of the century a government was small
because it didn't do much. It now trys to do many complex and difficult
tasks, often at odds with each other, such as, the social safety net and
helping business being two in which there is conflict as to how resources
are spent. In fact, from my point a view, a Basic Income plan will reduce
the size of governments and clear up many of the conflicts of resource
distribution.
As to your challenge to my use of language - capitalism is a system whose
purpose is to create profit and as my essay pointed too, I feel that it is
this idea of "profit" which is taken as a defacto truth, not to be
questioned, that basically creates a non sustainable system. The profits
and wealth accumulation need to be recycled back to the general population
in a more effective and timely way than the current system allows. It is
these huge pools of accumulated profit chasing ever more profit through
speculation on differences rather than on production of goods and services
which is causing so much misery at the bottom. I agree that wealth
accumulation provides the stimulus that makes capitalism so dynamic and
should not be discontinued in a socialist or communist model. What I am
suggesting is an upper limit on profit that will still allow all the
benefits of capitalism and still provide surplus money for redistribution
back to the demand side of the economy.
>(KH)
>>>A basic income would work in a society of small governments because
>>>fairness and equality of transactions would operate visibly. Recipients
>>>would be seen to pay back their monetary incomes -- as much as they are
>>>able to do so -- by other forms of non-monetary help and service to the
>>>population paying the taxes. Malingerers could be readily identified and
>>>told to pull their weight or lose their basic income.
>(TL)
>>Thomas: The concepts of large governments grew out of the development of
>>nation states which, I believe could be argued developed out of the use of
>>energy.
>
Thomas 2
Nit picking here, but gunpowder is a form of energy. So is the crossbow.
When the discovery of these new forms of energy came into history, they
altered the possibilities of rulers. I stick by my idea that it was energy
which resulted in weapons and also in windmills and nuclear power plants
which is the foundation of the changes in government from tribal to fuedal
to industrial. So far, we have not had the historical experience of having
an energy source disappear. As Jay points out, that may begin to happen
within a few years with unforeseen effects on our models of governance.
>I would argue that successive types of governments throughout history were
>a product of innovative weaponry which made the previous types vulnerable.
>
>Nevertheless, I wouldn't argue with your next two sentences:
>
>(TL)
>As Jay points out so continuously, our concepts of energy may be
>>going through a graphic re-evaluation as they collide with the reality
that
>>we are soon at the bottom half of the Earth's fuel tank. (Combine this
with
>>the results of energy use, global warming, soil depletion through
industrial
>>age agri practices and a profit and loss model which disregards long term
>>thinking, the overuse of water polluted with chemicals and fertilizers and
>>you get the whole nasty paradigm.) The very concept of paying taxes, do
not
>>exist in a tribal - familial society. This is an invention of larger
forms
>>of government. As long as we wallow in these paradigms, then we will only
>>see certain kinds of solutions.
>
>But I don't understand your last sentence. What you refer to are facts, not
>paradigms (though I beg to differ on one of them: significant man-made
>global warming above normal fluctuations is far -- very far -- from being
>fully demonstrated yet).
Thomas 2
My dictionary indicates that paradigm = an example or pattern. The paradigm
or pattern of collecting money and consequently resource or money
redistribution is a pattern. It is not some universal truth or absolute
scientific law. The same with scientific proof, it is just a pattern of
describing reality that we have developed. A shaman operates in a different
paradigm - pattern and therefore identifies different significances. The
patterns we live by become, as I pointed out in my essay re the Aztecs,
become our blind side because they seem so self evident that all other
patterns or potential patterns cannot be considered.
>
>
>(TL)
>>As far as your concepts that Malingerers should be told to pull their
>>weight, I would argue that many of them should be held up as saints for
>>refusing to participate in the madness around them. Read my article and
you
>>will see that your basic assumptions are those of the "middle class" who
>>have accepted the "work ethic" as your religion. It's a shocking discovery
>>to consider that perhaps doing less is actually doing more.
>
>This is a silly statement. At whatever standard of living, or state of
>society, a certain minimum expenditure of personal effort is needed in
>order to survive.
Thomas: Well, yes it is a silly statement. But let's look at Mr. Middle
Class. He wants a job so he goes to school to become a specialist - someone
who knows a lot about one thing perhaps at the expense of other things he
should or could know. He gets a job that pays him $50 thousand and then he
wants a house. So he buys 2000 sq ft of heated, lighted, resource using
space to sleep and eat in. His standard has been set by his expectations
and societies promises if he exerts himself and becomes a specialist. The
whole society rewards Mr. Middle Class for his consumption and his
contribution. By himself, his use is insignificant, multiplied by Europe,
Japan and North America, these standards use an incredible amount of
resources of the planet. We might say that this is a maximum effort
Your point and to a degree mine is that a person who exerts a more minimal
effort, may choose to live in 800 sq ft, which gives the world the
possiblity of twice as many people living in modest comfort as against half
the people living in excessive comfort. Our Mr. Middle Class is a very busy
guy, so he eats out, buys highly processed food, drives a big car which has
to use a lot of land for roads and parking, to say nothing of the two car
garage. Mr. Minimal lives more frugally, perhaps does some gardening,
hardly ever eats out, drives a small car or uses public transportation. He,
by his lifestyle is contributing to the overall betterment of everyone on
the planet. Mr. Middle Class is getting more than his fair share and as my
essay examined is often doing it through socially damaging products in terms
of their results. Mr. Middle Class, claims he is working hard and that he
should be rewarded for his many years of study. His reward, he claims is an
excessive share of the worlds resources. Mr. Minimal, also works, but he
didn't spend years learning how to produce CD's for the Spice Girls, instead
he has spent years learning how to effectively have a good garden and
compost pile. If the great judge from outer space was to arrive and ask
which is the better life style using the criteria of what is best for the
planet, it is my believe that he would choose Mr. Minimal as the ideal.
>
>
>(KH)
>>>We cannot institute a basic income when taxes disappear into a distant
>>>central government maw and are then redistributed (after huge
>>>administrative expenses have been paid) to people we do not know and
cannot
>>>observe -- and which, besides malingerers, also contain substantial
numbers
>>>of confidence tricksters in their midst. (The situation is bad enough
>>>already and the welfare state cannot be sustained for a great deal
longer.
>>>In the UK there are twice as many national insurance numbers as the total
>>>population -- and I cannot imagine that we are unusual in this respect.)
>(TL)
>>Thomas: Again I would point out that for many of the statements you make
to
>>be true, you have to believe in the self interest view of humans.
>
>I certainly do. Everybody is as selfish as any other, even though some may
>purport to be altruistic. The point is not "selfishness" (another jargon
>term! -- and pejorative besides), it's whether someone is "stupidly
>selfish" or "sensibly selfish". A "stupidly selfish" person does not
>anticipate the benefits that he may receive if he is helpful/kind/generous
>to others with whom he has dealings.
>
>Thomas 2
Pejorative = depreciatory, I guess I am guilty. As my previous paragragh
and my essay points out, I do believe some of the activities that business
engages in are more destructive than beneficial.
>(TL)
>I choose
>>to believe that underneath that view exists a human who is compassionate,
>>inclined to sharing and supportive of others. However when you devise
>>economic and governmental systems totally out of alignment with a million
>>years of growth in tribal and family sharing, you end up with the ethics
of
>>the Gulag as individuals follow their prime directive which is to survive.
>
>Yes, I would agree with this. Where we differ is that I feel you can't
>construct grand models of human systems by assuming certain essences, good
>or bad. Many different types of fair and workable governmental and economic
>systems have existed in times past (admittedly usually short-lived, till
>disrupted by a military type with superior weaponry) and have depended not
>on constitutional ideals but on human nature working within particular
>circumstances.
>
>... and a fundamental part of human nature is that individuals expect
>generosity to be repaid in one form and another, at some time or other, by
>the individual recipient or another. And this can only happen when there
>are long-term relationships between people who know one another quite well.
>It is my view that when generosity is extended out of one's immediate
>society, then it is blind and counter-productive -- and sometimes very
>dangerous.
>
>Keith
thomas 2
Well, that's an interesting assumption. To illustrate the difference in our
thinking, let me tell you an antecdote. As we were (family) watching the
news last night and commentators were reflecting on Clinton's visit to
Russia and how the Western World cannot do "anything" to help Russia and
that the Russian people where going to have to go through a period of pain,
I made this suggestion.
The free world should make an agreement to pay all the back wages of all the
workers in Russia who have not been paid. The ordinary person has worked to
try and make their country work and they have been denied payment. If the
free world made that committment, it would provide the kickstart at the
bottom of their economy that would save many lives, create immense goodwill
among the Russian people and perhaps save the world economy from further
crashes. This (loan) could be repaid over a 10 or 20 year period or we
could be excessively generous and give it as a gift, and yes, I agree with
your statement "individuals expect generosity to be repaid in one form and
another, at some time or other, by the individual recipient or another."
And I would expect that the goodwill we would get from the Russian people
would extend into the future for 100 years in terms of less aggression,
increased trade and reciprocal sharing.
The current solution will cause many needless deaths, will be seen by the
ordinary Russian as a betrayal from the West who promoted capitalism without
giving them the support and lessons they needed to make it work. Our lack
of generosity will also be be repaid in one form or another, at some time or
other, by the individual recipient or another, and that could be bitter
fruit indeed.
Respectfully,
Thomas Lunde
>
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>
>Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com
>6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
>Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>________________________________________________________________________
