Dear Friends and Determined Defenders of The Old Order (DDoTOO),
Three mind-boggling replies to previous posts have been received since my
last post of 99-06-22 17:56:01 EDT, "community governance." They are
repeated below for the benefit of the Innocents on Burt's copy list.
mind-boggling reply #1.
In a 99-06-23 08:15:03 EDT post to list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Hans Sinn
responded to Yves Bajard's comments of 99-06-19 16:33:48 EDT on my earlier
note, "Devious Defenders of The Old Order (DDoTOO)," as follows:
>> "Dear Yves,
It appears that the discussion about strategies and tactics for
implementing the Tobin Tax is beginning to lead into the discussion of "the
global crisis" as such and from there into more personal questions, i.e.
how much thought we have given to the matter, what lead us to support the
Tobin Tax initiative in the first place and what are our underlying
philosophical or religious assumptions.
As I mentioned to John (Courtneidge), I am not averse to such a
discussion. But I am not sure if such personal discussion will help
the Tobin Tax initiative or if such enquiries will become a hindrance
to attac's stated objective.
For most people on the attac list, it seems, the implementation of the
Tobin Tax was (and is) the "common base of communication and
understanding". You, it seems, want us to develop something more and are
disappointed that most people on the attac list do not respond to your call
for further thought and action. However, if most people on the attac list
do not respond to your call, then it might well be that they are involved
in other issues. I would not infer from their silence that they are any
less interested than you to "avoid the imminent crash of our civilization"
- assuming they believe in such crash.
In the meantime, allow me a comment on what you assume to be common human
objectives: "to avoid the imminent crash of our civilization" and
"common survival of our civilization under decent and ecologically liveable
circumstances".
At first glance these objectives are reasonable and have proven themselves
in the course of over three million plus years. However, while these
objectives appear to be common they are not automatically universal. You
are probably aware that there are people do not share you interest in
survival and instead are earnestly looking forward to that which you want
so energetically to avoid "the crash of our civilization" - the end of time.
But I am not sure if you are aware of the number of people who do not share
your assumptions and expectations.
But "50 % of US college graduates await Jesus Christ's return. As Gallup
and Castelli observed in 1989, the United States is nearly unique in the
Western world with its unmatched combination of high levels of education
and high levels of religious belief and activity" writes Paul Boyer in
"When Time Shall be No More - Prophecy Belief in Modern American Culture",
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1992, 468 pp.)
Comments Paul Boyer "prophecy belief is rampant, our there - in the dark
beyond the campfire, so to speak - (but) academics have given these beliefs
little systematic attention." Fortunately, there have been more studies
since 1992 of the belief systems which prepare people for the demise of the
world and civilization as we know it. There is an excellent study by Damian
Thompson, The End of Time - Faith and Fear in the Shadow of the
Millennium, University Press of New England, 1996, 373 pp.
As a rational, civilized people, who have gone through a long period of
"Enlightenment", we are inclined to ignore or sidestep these otherworldly
expectations and the people who harbor and propagate them. But "beyond the
campfire", there exists indeed a world untouched by the sobering effects of
reason ( or people who after having tasted reason have gone back to
belief). Thus there are hundreds of millions of people whose "ultimate
concern" is, in spite of their enlightenment, salvation ( a place in the
world to come) rather than survival and preservation of the world as we know
it.
To such people who believe in the earlier and Biblical promises of
salvation the call for survival holds no strong attraction, regardless of
its urgency. We are not dealing here with a lunatic fringe, but a large
mass of people whose individual beliefs affect public policy.
The effects on public policy of religious end time beliefs were clearly
noticeably during the Presidency of Ronald Reagan, who himself believed in
an end time scenario. Caspar Weinberger, Reagan's Secretary of Defence,
when asked about in 1982 about his beliefs stated " I have read the Book of
Revelation and yes, I belive the world is coming to an end - by an act of
God, I hope - but everyday I think that time is running out."
As an environmentalist you will probably know about James Watt, who became
Reagen's Secretary of the Interior and responsible for the protection of
the environment. Watt when questioned at his confirmation hearing about
preserving the environment for future generation replied " I do not know
how many generations we can count on before the Lord returns."
I could go on about this at great and boring length. No doubt, a bit of
further research will show that in regard to the number of people who look
forward to the end which you dread has changed little since the Reagan
Presidency, at least not for the better.
This is a brief reply to your demand for more extensive discussion. My letter
demonstrates what we would get ourselves into if we were to digress from
the subject of the Tobin Tax and start to examine more personal beliefs
and opions. After only a bit of probing you will find that even in matters
which are simple and basic to you, such as your belief that survival is a
universal human objective, we will disagree.
Take care.
Hans.
(WSB: The promotion of the Tobin Tax serves the same purpose as the
promotion of a universal basic income, the promotion of the abolition of
interest (usury), or the promotion of One World Socialist Government. That is
to say, that each of these topics serves to preserve the status quo by
diverting public attention away from the basic, less expensive, and
technically valid solution to the malfunctions of our industrial society. My
experience with international productive systems strongly suggests that it is
simpler to address the defect of the whole system than to chase after the
symptoms which that systemic defect of omission produces in the sub-systems
of industrial society. I believe that Yves Bajard, John C. Turmel, this
writer, and others share common ground when we think; if we don't get a
global solution, we won't get any solution. WSB)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
mind-boggling reply #2.
Subj: message posting
Date: 99-06-23 10:20:35 EDT
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jetton Michael)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ('[EMAIL PROTECTED]')
(WSB: Notice that this message is not copied to any mail list. WSB)
Dear Mr Burt,
Although the emails which you have been sending are interesting enough to
read, they really don't belong (in my opinion as a subscriber) to the
European Social Policy list. Perhaps one message informing ESP readers
about a website archive of the message exchange would be sufficient to
inform those who might be interested, but if you could please refrain
from sending your messages to the maillists I think everyone would
appreciate the drop in internet traffic.
Regards,
Michael
(WSB: This proposal goes to the heart of my purpose in posting to twelve
mail lists. If any net three pro. subscribers (less con. subscribers ) of
any mail list which I post to will respond to this note, with copy to their
list, and second Mr. Jetton's proposal "please refrain from sending your
messages to the mail lists," I will promptly unsubscribe from each list with
net three pro. subscribers. Just one mail list with a few subscribers
interested in the basic, less expensive, and technically valid solution to
the malfunctions of our industrial society would be sufficient for my
porposes, and much more convenient than using the present twelve lists which
I presently post to. WSB)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
mind-boggling reply #3.
Subj: The Global Model Again (reply # 12 on 90522WSB.GMb)
Date: 99-06-23 15:32:24 EDT
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Lunde)
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This was an original post by WesBurt, here is the quote that caught my eye
and led me to order the book, which I am now in the process of reading.
Quote:
Hi folks,
For the past several weeks I have neglected my correspondence, listened to
the hot debates on lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, and surfed the internet in an effort to
refresh my perspective on our progress to date toward a sustainable global
society. It seems to me, that nothing has changed since Hilaire Belloc
declared on page 200 of his 1912 book, THE SERVILE STATE, that only two
solutions to the "capitalist anarchy" were available to us: "a reaction
towards well-divided property, or the reestablishment of servitude." I keep
hoping that the "reaction towards well-divided property" will once again
find a sponsor in the U.S.A.
>>>>>>>>>>>> end quote <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Thomas:
Some thoughts. I have been reading a book called The Ecology of Eden. The
author made a case that by the 15th century, European forests were denuded,
it's main agricultural lands already in production and most or all of the
land (worthwhile) owned. He further argues that the new World of the
Americas was necessary to provide relief for the excess population of Europe
or the problems of overpopulation would have had to be dealt with. Now,
note that this was before the Industrial age and the use of coal, steam,
petroleum and electricity which allowed Europe to increase agricultural
production considerably over the next 500 years. Given that these ideas
have some merit, I find that Hilaire's solution of everyone having a piece
of private property to do with as he will, naive thinking in which as
population increased holdings would become less and less until a family
might inherit land of such small size or productivity that it would not
allow them sufficiency.
His second solution, the reestablishment of servitude is becoming, whether
by accident or design the solution to "capitalist anarchy". First, the
majority of us earn our living through wages, which in a way, makes us wage
slaves. Without wages, we are forced onto the social services available
which lately in both our respective countries have begun to use WorkFare or
some variation to create a form of slavery.
Now, my thinking suggests that a redistribution of income via a Basic Income
would solve the problems inherent in both of Hilaire's solutions. He
correctly identified the problem but what gives a person freedom is the
ability to be self sufficient according to that individual's perceived
needs. We don't need land, we need income. Secondly, with a Basic Income,
a person is in a position of independance in regards to negotiating with an
employer for wages. While now, most of us have to take what is offered - a
form of slavery, with an independant income source, we would be able to say
yea or nay, if the wages offered did not meet our expectations.
I'm also surprised that the book, written in 1912 did not consider Georges
idea of abolishing private property and making property use subject to rent
which would provide the necessary income rather than taxes as a solution.
Well, those are my thoughts to date.
Respectfully,
Thomas Lunde
(WSB: I welcome Thomas Lunde's interest in Belloc's 1912 THE SERVILE STATE
and look forward to his finishing the book. But, Mr. Lunde is using a too
narrow definition of property = land = a family garden patch. Neither Henry
George in his 1879 PROGRESS AND POVERTY, nor Pope Leo XIII in his 1891
proposal of a "family wage (RERUM NOVARUM), nor Belloc in his 1912 proposal
of a wider distribution of property, used such a narrow definition of
property. All three of these serious reformers, IMO, along with Thomas
Paine, would have been happy to see their nation adopt stages one (children)
and two (mothers) of Bertram Russell's four stages of a Universal Basic
Income (UBI) paid from the income tax or payroll tax revenue of each nation.
(Re: my note, "Devious Defenders of The Old Order (DDoTOO)," 99-06-16
09:50:04 EDT). WSB)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end three mind-boggling replies <<<<<<<<<<<<<<
If 50% of Americans are looking for salvation in the next world and don't
give a damn about sustaining this world, as Hans Sinn asserted above, then
democratic processes are not likely to produce a sustainable global solution
which also corrects what ails the United States. My impression is that many
Americans and most non-Americans regard the U.S., its people, and its
government as the "Great Satan," the primary waster of the worlds resources,
and the world's bully; and if any practical global solution is placed on the
table, and just happened to make the U.S. a little more wealthy and powerful
than it presently is, then that solution will be rejected by a great majority
of people world wide, regardless of how urgently the rest of the world needs
that solution.
It was not always this way, as Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
points out on one page of his web site <http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/> with
a reference to Scripture in support of his world view. At URL
<http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/proposal.html#m0> we read:
"And Judah and Israel dwelt safely, every man under his vine and under his
fig tree, from Dan even to Beersheba, all the days of Solomon." (1 Kings 4:25)
Free communication (as, for instance, urged above) arises from and depends on
a base of personal security, so that the speaker(s) are not pressed to manage
their words strategically in the service of getting their needs met at the
"pleasure" of those to whom they speak. An essential aspect of such a base is
financial independence (subject, of course, to the universal contingencies of
being humanly mortal).
I therefore propose as a specific objective of all jobs (and other social
structures) that, whatever else they aim to accomplish, they also aim to make
the worker financially independent. One performance criterion on which
economic institutions (e.g., corporations and government agencies), and
persons in positions of power in those institutions should be evaluated,
therefore, is how well they do at freeing those over whom they have power
from their dependency, so that the latter cease to be subordinate and become
peers, and, if they continue to come to the workplace, they do so not because
they "have" to, but because they want to. Such an on-going referendum, in
which individuals ever again "voted with their feet", would, emphatically,
express their affirmation of the goodness of life in the particular social
order -- which might then justly be described as: material democracy." <<
>>>>>>>>>>>> end quote from Brad McCormick's page <<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Perhaps we need to poll the pros and cons to see if the U.S. has a public
opinion on this topic also.
Kind regards,
WesBurt
