>
> Your program is what, socialism?
>
and why not? Convincing capitalist to be capitalist in
a non-capitalist way is more difficult than socialism.
Eva
>
>
> At 12:23 PM 12/9/97 +0000, you wrote:
> >What you suggest is an interesting excercise
> >in democracy.
> >However I hate to disappoint you:
> >there will be no effective anti-monopoly
> >action, as bigger integration brings
> >bigger profit and that is what capitalism
> >has to do for survival. Besides, effectively,
> >monopolies/multinationals have the political power, not the
> >politicians.
> >sorry!
> >
> >Eva
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> I have a modest proposal for advancing the fight against monopoly.
> >> I read somewhere within the last week or so that--I believe the figure
> >> was--roughly 90% of our U.S. senators have an E-mail address. This
> >> discussion group, with its 270 or so computer/software experts, could no
> >> doubt ferret out that list of senatorial E-mail addresses in a trice. And
> >> does not the technology permit--once the 90 are known--a "consolidated"
> >> address that, with a single command, can send an E-mail message to all 90 of
> >> those listed/wired senators? Every citizen could then post a message to, in
> >> effect, the full Senate with the click of a mouse?
> >>
> >> Is the House--our 435 representatives in Congress--any less
> >> electronically wired? Probably not much, if any. They're in the business
> >> of communicating with their constituents back home. Wanna bet that the big
> >> lobbyists in Washington don't have a "master" list of E-mail addresses for
> >> all or substantially all of the U.S. Congress, one they routinely use to
> >> bombard it with their corporate special-interest propaganda? Push the
> >> 'send' button and it goes to virtually all 535 members of Congress.
> >>
> >> I'm going to be very much surprised if the technicians here tell us
> >> that they can't put together such a 1-button command to reach essentially
> >> the whole of America's legislature.
> >>
> >> My proposal has a Part II--those 1,000 U.S. judges I mentioned
> >> earlier, with their 4,000 or so "law clerks." They control U.S.
> >> antimonopoly policy. They crushed it in the '70s, '80s, and '90s and could
> >> restore it instanter if they wanted to. Do they have E-mail addresses? Of
> >> course. They're under the day-to-day command of a little known judicial
> >> bureaucracy in Washington, the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, which
> >> maintains the usual name-and-address mailing list--plus, I have no doubt, a
> >> comparable E-mail list for the full 1,000. Wouldn't it be nice to have that
> >> list? Shouldn't the U.S. public have it? Again, doesn't the technology
> >> permit the consolidation of these 1,000 E-mail addresses into a single
> >> 'list' address that would allow a post to be sent to all with a single push
> >> of the 'send' button?
> >>
> >> Will our 100 senators, 435 representatives, and 1,000 federal judges
> >> read their E-mail? You bet. Remember that even the Supreme Court reads the
> >> election returns. Mail to the powerful gets "screened" but--when it's
> >> important--it gets to the top. Congressional staff members sort through the
> >> daily mail. Law clerks ponder what the boss needs to see. Ann Landers
> >> receives thousands of letters per day but her staff is authorized to weed
> >> out only the chaff, from the crazies, the irrelevant, and so on. The
> >> kernels--the intelligent, well-written messages--are almost invariably read
> >> by the people to whom they're addressed. And they're taken very seriously
> >> indeed.
> >>
> >> The day we have an E-mail address that reaches all 535 members of
> >> Congress, and all of our 1,000 U.S. judges, we'll see the beginning of the
> >> end of Bill Gates' obscene wastes and monopoly profits--and of the rest of
> >> the nation's monopolies.
> >>
> >> My question, then, is this: Does the technology in 1997 permit
> >> us--the citizens of America--to reach electronically these l,535 people who
> >> control the nation's antimonopoly policy?
> >>
> >> Charles Mueller, Editor
> >> ANTITRUST LAW & ECONOMICS REVIEW
> >> http://webpages.metrolink.net/~cmueller
> >>
> >
>
