forwarded as I keep forget, that futurework is
not set for reply.
>
> (Pete Vincent:)
> >
> > I think the real problem is in the mechanics of it. The idea behind all
> > economic systems is to provide for the public good;
>
(me:)
>
> Sorry, you are wrong. The "mechanics" of economics have no human
> design features (at the moment) all previous systems and the
> present capitalist one are the result of accidental/random/
> chaotic relationship between people and their productive
> capabilities and the available resources.
> Presently, until the means of productions are owned and
> controlled privately, you cannot change much of the social/
> political system, whoever is in power Reagan/Clinton/etc,
> they cannot make a real difference. They are not in control.
>
>
>
> >
> > Harnessing individual selfishness effectively is an engineering problem,
>
>
> Now you are totally irrational. You cannot even define
> human selfishness, so how would you "harness" it?
>
>
>
> > It's something that requires conscious intelligent and recurrent
> > design, using all the tools available to the engineer, including
> > computer modelling and free space for idle tweeking. It's not going
> > to be solved by adherence to any sort of simple sloganeering approach
> > to economics.
>
>
> You cannot make any useful design, if you don't take
> into account the physical/chemical/biological/social/economical
> laws us humans were so good at discovering however much you
> are allowed to tweek. Socialism is made out a dogma by stalinist
> and capitalist, which doesn't mean it is one. It is exactly what you
> want, a conscious design of an economic/social system, that takes
> into account what was so far discovered about the laws of
> economics and human relations, and the physical sciences to
> make it really impressive.
> What's more, we also discovered now, that a few enlightened
> elites cannot do it for the rest of the people, it only works,
> if everyone understand it and participate in it. It expects
> people to be intelligent and responsible - which they are
> if they are allowed to be.
>
>
>
>
> > There are an infinite number of economic systems which
> > can be envisioned, with different divisions between the domain of
> > individual effort and collective will. The limit to what could be
> > modelled is your imagination. We could divide the dry land of the
> > planet equally among its human inhabitants, or leave everything
> > to private control except the collective public management of all
> > meals and food preparation, or we could... anything. I see it as a
> > very complex but not intractable problem, one best solved by leaving
> > behind all and any political baggage, and dealing with the nuts and
> > bolts.
> >
>
>
> Politics is supposed to make people interested in their future.
> Democracy is supposed to make them responsible for that future.
> Anyone wants to "imagine" these away is suspect in their
> sincerity. You could spell out how you would divide the
> world equally or any of the million good ideas you obviously
> have, in practice, without taking away the power from
> the present capitalist establishment? I tell you, it is not
> a secret, they like it the way it is.
>
> And that's why there is so much longwinded b.s. on this list.
> Most of you are part of this system, doing wery well thankyou
> verymuch, you do not REALLY want a change, you just want to
> get rid off the pangs of wierd guilty feelings about
> rest of humanity being so insanely wasted. sorry. that's my
> three rubles.
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
