Subject: Re: rights/responsibilities >Greetings, > >I received one response off list which I will share with you. The author >wishes to remain anonymous, having insufficient time to engage in ongoing >discussions. > >Steve Kurtz >--------------------------------------------------------- > >Dear Steve, > >Thanks for your posting Re: rights/responsibilities. Thomas said: >> > ( by the way, I see this as the >> > implied question, Does or should everyone have to work?) Mystery contributor: >Yes, I agree with your definition; "work as required human actions". >my answer is also YES. Thomas: Come on guys having a piss requires "human actions". Answer the question! "Does or should everyone have to work? And the collorary question, "What is work? Give me your definition. What you are doing here is playing the game of sniper. Someone who sits on the sidelines and takes shots without every revealing their position. Steve said? >You said: >> A passive, vegetative human cannot survive for many days independently; >> so someone's work is required for existence. Eating and breathing are >> not work in isolation, but normally work is required for >> sustenance/survival. > >It is true. The vegetative people are not responsible and thus no vision >for the future except an empty theory which cannot be proved because >they are not practical. Thomas: How did we get to vegetative people? Go back to the original essay. It raised a number of points, none of which you have addressed. 1. The fact that many people aren't working is the result of a particular set of economic theories developed by Milton Freidman such as the concept of fighting inflation by deliberately creating unemployment through a theoretical position called the "natural rate of unemployment". 2. These policies have become the basis for a whole slew of legislation and activities by the Central Bank which has deliberately created unemployment as a policy goal. As that unemployed group used social services - which is what they are there for - to protect themselves, the government used this as an excuse to cut social programs claiming we couldn't afford them. Business jumped on the bandwagon on payroll taxes and a call for an elimination of the minimum wage and other draconian measures under their banner of global competition. 3. A specific example with two comments from Ed Weick were used to validate my assumptions, neither or which have you noted or responded too. 4. Then came a partial analysis using a posting from Eva and a potential solution from Jay which both of you totally ignore. 5. Then there is a clip in which I allude is the result of these disastrous policy - totally ignored though I would certainly be willing to debate my conclusions. 6. Then my comments on Wilson comments and a possible insight as to how these abuse of power happen - not a word. >You said: >> I indicated that work necessitated those qualities, but not the reverse. > >Right again. Work necessitated at least a strong will power to hold >oneself together to be disciplined and being serious (not in talking but >in doing). Thomas: What is this "strong will power to hold oneself together to be disciplined and being serious" crap! Most people get up in the morning and go to work as a matter of course rather than using, "strong willpower'! Let's get real. > >> > Thomas said: >> > The key word here seems to be "responsibilities" and the implied question >> > is, "How, without remuneration could we expect members of society to work?" > >You said: >> The "remuneration" is what I called "rewards" - "community acceptance >> and solidarity" > >I think, gaining friend(s) is one of the rewards. Work, attitude and >non-arrogance manner yield friends; which results in yielding 'community >acceptance and solidarity'. Without responsible attitude, friends break >ties and community doesn't vote for those. Thomas: Again, the purpose of work is not friends, it is to earn money - in our society. We play to yield friends. If you get laid off or fired or quit, how many of your work friends remain your friends afterwards, damn few in my experience. My long term friends come from my interests, my family and my community. > >You said: >> Since the act of work has its own intentionally, that is reason enough! >> Value lies in the eye of the beholder. If the community doesn't value your >> acts, you have acted independently of communitarian responsibilities. > >Agree. Thomas: What do you mean "agree"? Agree with what? That a person cannot have or perform valuable actions independent of "communitarian responsibilities." What are we, a bunch of sheep that have to be so constrained that any action outside of communitarian responsibilities should be punished by no rewards, acknowledgment or respect? > >> > Thomas said: >> > >> > However, what should the community expect from everyone as cooperative >> > members? How about expecting them to feel secure and trusting. > >I shall answer this in away that "why should not the community expect >everyone as cooperative members". Otherwise the term "the community" do >not have to exist! How could one be trusted if he/she does prove >non-cooperative in the community? Thomas: Non co-cooperative does not mean against, it may be to offer alternatives, to critique, to bring in new information, it may mean resistance to community infringement of personal rights. Community does not mean identical, it means balancing all the various needs of the members while hopefully respecting them as human beings with individual needs. > >You said: >> That is a great idea. The community can decide, if excess resources (not >> only currency/credits) permit human actions (work)to provide the time, >> place and teachers. But the community decides, not you or I. >> Best case scenarios are always attractive. >Yes, the community decides! thus we should be cooperative. Thomas: In a democracy, the community may decide, but that does not eliminate protest or change. Again, this discussion is a long way from my original posting. > >> > "Why can't everyone be perfect" is the implied question here. >> >> No. Why can't behavior be encouraged that moves *closer* to a best case >> scenario? > >Good. The behavioral change from less responsible to more responsible is >badly needed. Responsibilities to the future benefit everyone. The >Future of Work should include working towards the Future Common Good. Thomas: What kind of statement is this! Are we back to Skinner and behavioral modification techniques based on the pleasure/pain principle? > >This comment is good too. >> In a way, your "here to experience" reminds me of the Beatles' song >> "All You Need Is Love". >This "here to experience" against the Buddhist philosophy of "here to >correct ourselves earnestly and to improve ourselves all time at every >second!". Thomas: Well, I'm glad you're arrogant enough to condemn one of the major philosophies of the world, one that has been around a lot longer than our Western Civilization. And yes, you have found me out, I grovel in apology, I am a New Ager who has arisen from that dark stain on our history called the Hippie Revolution. I believe in communes, free love, individual exploration of consciousness, government by consensus, back to the land, environmental respect, respect of life, sharing, arts and crafts as valuable ways other than factory work to express creativity. And what is even stranger, I believe that I can co-exist with people who have different values and allow them the space to experiment with life in their own way. I only get upset when their actions create pain in my space. That is why I wrote the essay condemning the economics of Milton Friedman. Those policies are restrictive, elitist, arbritratily assigning a whole class of people (the poor) to more hardship and then having the gall to blame the victim for increasing the discomfort of the rich and affluent. I am quite willing to carry on a debate about the original posting. I am not prepared to be led off into esoteric minor points that have little or nothing to do what I wrote. Steve, you posted: "Rather than attempt a detailed refutation of parts of Thomas Lunde's post of today, I'm merely going to point out a few things (once again) that this list seems resigned to ignore." If you want a debate, then do your analysis, if you and the mystery poster want to keep taking cheap shots, be prepared for an active rebuttal. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde
