Thomas Lunde wrote:
> Thomas: I guess, I disagree with both your answers. No, everyone should
> not have to work because work has not been adequately defined.
In your opinion!
> Required
> human actions is not a definition, it is a generalization. I use work as
> currently defined by economists as paid employment.
I hold economists opinions as less reliable than a coin flipper. Current
evidence is the bailout of several Nobel economists running Long Term
Capital Mgmt.
Do people "work" at studying, training, hobby activities, recreational
sports, healing themselves, trying to get relationships to be successful,
...???
> There are many
> legitimate reasons for a person at some time in their lives to not be
> engaged in paid employment.
I don't buy your definition of "work". But I agree with the above.
> To young, to old,
valid
> getting educated,
involves alot of "work"
> no paid work available,
Well, to survive, other intentional expenditures of human energy must
occur; I call that "work". Humans existed for many thousands of years
without money, but they "worked" to survive and reproduce.
> suffering medical problems,
Somebody's work is required for their survival, just as with too old/young.
> lazy,
If hungry, thirsty, cold...and able, the person *would work* for his/her
needs. If unable, it would fit the "medical" category.
> exploring other facets of
> being human, thinking, inventing, playing and on ad infinitum.
"Thinking" & "playing" are too general. :-) Leisure activities may be rest
or work IMO.
> I sorry, I
> have not found the world amendable to black and white answers or yes or no
> solutions.
Well, your B.I. is a specific "yes" solution you offer that I find
simplistic.
> >> How did we get to vegative people?
> >
> >They are the only people who can't (& don't) work.
>
> Thomas: I think with a little imagination, you can come up with more than
> two categories other than "can't" and "won't".
I said "don't", not "won't".
> >I claim that everyone is working, if not vegetative. Freidman is like all
> >neo-classical economists, deluded; and they are running like scared rabbits
> >now that the debt based money system is collapsing. If I have to pick one
> >primary factor in the breakdown it is debt-based, fiat money. All
> >economists do is speculate.
>
> Thomas: Slippery, slippery. Was there anything in my statement about debt
> based economies? No. So why go off on a tangent. If you want to discuss
> or analyze my essay, then do it on the contents of the essay, not on some
> privately held opinion that is tangent to my statements.
Please send a copy to me, and I will do so. I didn't save it.
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> >I assume you are referring to the US Fed. Well, they support the debt based
> >money system, and the policies to which you are referring are the
> >looseness/tightness of money supply. You are choosing to play intellectual
> >ball in the park created by the bankers.
> >Also, you define remuneration as fiat money/credits. That is an "artificial
> >turf" ballpark IMO, & it will not endure since it is unsustainable. A
> >trillion credits cannot, on their own sustain any life in any form.
>
> Thomas: No, what I am referring to is the choice made by the US FEd and the
> Canadian Central Banks that led to certain policies
FYI, all fed policies relate to debt based money & interest rates. The
"certain choices" are limited by that system.
> without explaining or
> exploring other possiblities such as full employment and slight inflation.
They don't need to "explore". The superrich don't want more than the little
inflation that we have had these past 5 years or so. (2-3%)
> What I am asking for is a response from the List, should anyone choose to
> make it, about whether they made the right choice. I have my opinion and I
> am interested in others.
> Thomas: Well, I don't think I accept the system at base as you claim.
> However, given that is the system at the moment, you are right,
> What I would be interested in is your ideas about "going forward" mean?
Since you apparently believe that there is perpetually ample sustenance,
healthy habitat, and excess production available, and you deny the
problematique as described by innumerable scientists, "going forward" to
you is a cornucopian fallacy.
> >> Thomas: What is this "strong will power to hold oneself together to be
> >> diciplined 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'!
> Thomas: Well then, let the mystery poster answer for him/herself and keep
> your nose out of it.
You are exhibiting considerable discipline and motivation in your responses
to me.
I suggest you know very well what Anon. meant. English is not Anon.'s first
language.
> Thomas: I am not discussing "biological life". I am talking about certain
> choices made based on an economic theory, what their results have been and
> some observations on why I think those kinds of choices are made.
We agree that the "system" is totally unsustainable. I claim that no
economic theory that is divorced from ecological sustainability can be
useful as part of the solution to the human predicament. You disagree.
> >> That a person cannot
> >> have or perform valuable actions independant of "communitarian
> >> responsibilities." What are we, a bunch of sheep that have to be so
> >> constrained that any action outside of communitarian responsibilites
> should
> >> be punished by no rewards, acknowledgement or respect?
> >
> >Self-valued (subjective) actions can be in isolation, but only a hermit
> >would exist without the interdependency of community (incl family, tribe).
> >You are assuming either/or; I didn't claim that. An interdependence of
> >'subjects'(people) is a dynamic of rights & responsibilities. Both are
> >required IMO.
>
> Thomas: And I would agree. However my contention is that those who have
> accepted certain responsibilities have discharged them in a way that is
> detrimental to a fairly large portion of the community and as such, I
> content that they have acted in an irresponsible way.
"Accepted", been selected, or *usurped*? I agree many are irresponsible &
in many areas.
> Now, what do we do
> about that as a community, accept, protest, invoke the law, wait for an
> election, publish, critique, are all valid expressions of the community and
> individuals within the community.
Agreed.
> >> Thomas: Non co-pooperative 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.
> >
> >That sounds like *responsibilities* to me!! I raised the issues of impacts
> >of actions on others. You said that meant "perfection". Now you're
> >indicating the work of living, as well as the work for money.
We are understanding each other, I believe.
> Thomas: There are two or more areas of responsibility as I choose to
> understand them. Those who having accepted responsibility should work in
> the best interest of all of the community.
I'm sure you've heard the expression: "power corrupts, absolute power
corrupts absolutely". Human greed is exacerbated by increases in relative
scarcity. That is, the tougher it is to thrive, the more effort & will is
directed to material well being. Overcrowded rats kill and eat each other.
Sure, we can agree that the superrich playing monopoly with earth are evil;
less than 500 families control more than 40% of all wealth (in currency
terms). What you/we think they "should" do is increasingly irrelevant to
them. Why...?
> Those who are at effect of those
> having accepted responsiblity have the responsibility of evaluating the
> actions taken.
Agreed. BTW, the "evaluating" is "work" IMO.
> As to perfectability, you wrote:
>
> Idling a car motor, running water taps unnecessarily, or engaging in
> behavior which harms ones *own* health - since the community bears the
> total cost in socialized health schemes or insurance premium hikes. And I
> also claim that human fertility impacts the Commons and each current and
> future member of society.
>
> The impied suggestion here is that if there were rules or everyone was
> "responsible" according to some defined criteria such as the betterment or
> society or the Commons, then we would be supporting "each current and future
> member of society." In principle, I can find some agreement with this
> thought, but if in practice, it means a Confucian list of all the prescribed
> behaviors that one can engage in,
There is no fixed, static "list". Whatever means is used to get majority
concerns converted into rules/laws is subject to revision based upon new
evidence. This is cybernetic system feedback. My point is that everyone
(not just leaders) has multiple responsibilities.
> then I am against it for the result it
> creates. Every behavior them becomes open to someone else's scrutiny and
> from that follows judgement and from that follows punishment.
Not "every behavior"; every behavior that is known to cause harm to others.
When someone causes harm to others, and that harm has been delineated in
research & resultant law, don't you think there should be compensation to
the harmed at the expense of the harmer? If not, anarchy results.
> That kind of
> society is commonly known as facism.
No. That is "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon". (Garrett Hardin,
Tragedy of The Commons)
> No set of rules is perfect, no set of
> rule enforcers are perfect, therefore to expect perfection is the quickest
> way to imperfection.
Agreed. All socially created rules should be subject to revision. The
problem seems to lie in the power of rule creation. However, a B.I.
approach is like a mild panacea, with if any benefit, only temporary. What
political system in power today (barring Cuba) would attempt to
redistribute from the superrich to the poor? As part of a wholesystem
revision of the monetary system (debt-based) and political power system,
there could be a place for it.
Please do send me another copy of your paper.
Thank you.
Steve Kurtz
