Ayn Rand (play /ˈaɪn ˈrænd/;[1] born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum, February 2 [O.S. January 20] 1905 – March 6, 1982) was a Russian-American novelist, philosopher,[2] playwright, and screenwriter. She is known for her two best-selling novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged and for developing a philosophical system she called Objectivism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of de Bivort Lawrence Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 2:03 PM To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW: New Blogpost: The Mobile Revolution and the Rise and Rise of Possessive Individualism I'm greatly enjoying this discussion. Thanks to all. Who is the Alice you refer to, Ray? Cheers, Lawry On Jul 22, 2012, at 11:14 AM, Ray Harrell wrote: > Arthur, if corporations are individuals then what kind of individuals are > they? I would also point out as the late Louis Castaldi president of IBM > world in the 1960s said to me. "IBM is a socialist organization." > Lou was speaking as to the system of all corporations as governing > structures. He > didn't see a corporation as an individual but as a type of government. I > said to Lou, "why is it not a feudal government?" He said: "Look around > you, they are into community." He was speaking of the beautiful atrium > with the string quartet that all of the management and employees were > sharing. Lou was the last of the CEOs to make under a million dollars a > year. After he retired all hell broke loose and the angry Jewish girl from > Russia that had lost everything and escaped to America began to > justify her anger and her need to fight to live. Alice became Ayn Rand and > being > selfish was the highest good. She was the antithesis to Karl Marx. Not > one tenth as smart but perfect for a nation of wounded souls and scars. > Lou had been a partisan in the Italian underground during WWII and he > too had lost everything but somehow the scars only made him a realist. > Perhaps > it was the Italian culture. Alice's culture had been taken over by a group > that venerated a Jewish Messiah (Marx) but that didn't like individual Jews. > What a strange world it has been these 2000 years with people blaming > others for what they themselves then choose to do as they make excuses for > their > bad behavior. Unfortunately greed is addictive and most of Rand's wealthy > followers are like an anorexic looking at their bank account and screaming > that their ideal is never enough. Whether skinny or billionaire it is > still a pscho-pathology that has wounds and sin at its root. > > REH > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Arthur > Cordell > Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 10:33 AM > To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION'; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW: New Blogpost: The Mobile Revolution and > the Rise and Rise of Possessive Individualism > > We may be seeing an indication of technology and economic development. > Economic development, it seems, may be --in some ways--about moving > away from community to the individual. And in this case, without > other institutions that develop trust, development may be at odds with > social cohesion. > > arthur > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of michael > gurstein > Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 10:17 AM > To: [email protected]; 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, > EDUCATION' > Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW: New Blogpost: The Mobile Revolution and > the Rise and Rise of Possessive Individualism > > Thanks Mike, you've carried the argument forward into some interesting > and unexpected areas... > > Macpherson's discussion was based on a deep analysis and critique of > the foundation documents of political "liberalism" (whiggery)... > Locke, Hume, Hobbes, although it linked into and closely paralleled > the somewhat earlier discussions (Maine, Toennies, Durkheim... > describing the fall of medieval society and the rise of modern "contract" > based social relations. > > The Sociologists however, were focusing at the "social" level and > Macpherson and the Anglo's were discussing individuals and individual > rights. They were basically arguing the same thing but Macpherson > seems somehow more appropriate in this context since he (and those he > discusses) aren't beginning from the notion of a decline but rather > are looking at the role that individual property rights played in the > broader social (and political) transformation. > > (The underlying notion I'm trying to present in the blogpost is the > highly corrosive role that individualized and property defined > information (as determined through mobile communication) will likely > play in many currently somewhat "communally" structured rural > environments.) > > Best, > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike > Spencer > Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 11:07 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Futurework] Re: FW: New Blogpost: The Mobile Revolution and > the Rise and Rise of Possessive Individualism > > > Mike G. wrote: > >> http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/07/21/the-mobile-revolution-and-th >> e >> -rise- >> and-rise-of-possessive-individualism/ > > and in the referenced paper wrote: > > An example, in a recent excursion here in Ghana I happened to notice > that the local artisanal in-shore fishery consists largely of boats > with up to a dozen fishermen. When it comes time to haul in the nets > up to 30 or so villagers may be involved. These folks don't need to > know as individuals what the local price of fish might be in a > particular market (they aren't selling the fish as individuals).... > > .... > > So, in the vast majority of instances (and the design of both the > mobile systems and the individual applications almost require this) > the information is made available only on a one-to-one (individual to > individual) basis. Any follow-on as for example through the sharing of > this information with others say in the village is solely at the > discretion (and the responsibility) of the individual without there > being any formal or informal (let alone technical) structures to > support this (in fact community radio often becomes a means for > "community"integration of mobile communication but that is a subject > for another blogpost). > > In a village there's no privacy. So if Cousin Alice sends word to Bob > that fish prices are better up-town than down-town, everybody in the > village knows Bob had a visitor. They probably know from whom the > message comes and what it's about. In fact, the messenger may deliver the > message in public. > > So getting private info on the fish market will require deviousness > and subterfuge which will themselves be noticed by other villagers. > > Now Alice calls Bob on his mobile. No one knows what he learned and > probably can't guess who the call was from. > > Taking the Devil's Advocate role here, if the *possibility* of private > information leads to individuals abandoning communitarian behavior in > favor of maximizing personal gain, shouldn't we assume that > "possessive individualism" is the natural thing a la Friedman -- that > communal behavior was the result of surveillance, not of any deeply > felt commitment to community? If there were such a commitment, Bob > would immediately go tell Claire & Dennis the news and pretty soon everybody > would know. > > So is the moral here that privacy enables deviance and a local but > distributed panopticon ensures conformity to community values? > > Well, I haven't read Macpherson (whom you cite [1]) but perhaps I > should. I did read the cited Wikipedia page: > > WikiP> For Friedman, economic freedom needed to be protected because > WikiP> it ensured political freedom.[9] Friedman appeals to historical > WikiP> examples that demonstrate where the largest amount of political > WikiP> freedom is found the economic model has been capitalist. In > WikiP> Friedman's words, "history suggests...that capitalism is a > WikiP> necessary condition for political freedom."[10] Macpherson > WikiP> counters that the 19th-century examples that Friedman uses > WikiP> actually show that political freedom came first and those who > WikiP> gained this freedom, mainly property owning elites, used this > WikiP> new political freedom for their own best interests which meant > WikiP> to open the doors to unrestrained capitalism. It follows then, > WikiP> that capitalism will only be maintained as long as those who > WikiP> have political freedom deem it worthwhile. As the 19th century > WikiP> progressed and suffrage was expanded, there were corresponding > WikiP> restraints placed upon capitalism which indicates that > WikiP> political freedom and capitalism are at odds with one another. > WikiP> "At any rate", Macpherson contends, this "historical > WikiP> correlation scarcely suggests that capitalism is a necessary > WikiP> condition for political freedom. > > which makes sense to me as do the rest of the ideas attribute to him. > [2] > > Is the village panopticon a necessary political constraint on economic > activity? How does it scale to modern nation states and transnational > corporations? > > OTOH, how do the tangible, best-case benefits of ICT in the village > context scale to help we'uns sitting alone at our computers and > already more or less wedged in possessive-individualism mode? > > - Mike > > > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._B._Macpherson > > [2] Except for two sentences that I can't parse. > > -- > Michael Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada .~. > /V\ > [email protected] /( )\ > http://home.tallships.ca/mspencer/ ^^-^^ > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
