Your point is well taken Selma. The Utilitarians built modern economic
theory on the statement that systems with the most Utility would create the
greatest happiness. I think we are finding that to be a colossal over
simplification and thus a failure. Harry makes an interesting point about
land but, given the European property systems, I don't see how they could
change. In the words of their Savior I can only imagine it if they went
back into their Mother's belly and were born again. It is an issue of
culture and much will have to change for them to give up their ideas about
money, land and automobiles.
What it seems to come down to is this. One group believes that it is
impossible for humanity to design their governments for both maximum
efficiency, maximum freedom and maximum social welfare. They feel that
the power is more appropriately gathered in the hands of families that have
been successful at gathering wealth over those who have not. What they
ignore is that these same families and I include corporations in the concept
of family, have a vested interest in keeping the outer groups outside and
out of the loop. It is the old argument between the Founding Fathers here
which gave us the nightmare of the electoral college. That was a sop to
the wealthy who believed that only the landed should have the right to the
vote. I get regular mailings from the Cato Foundation, the so called
libertarian think tank which is founded by one of the most disfunctional
families on the planet, the Wichita Koch Oil brothers who have been in court
for years fighting each other. One can only wonder what freedom means to
such a family although they prattle on endlessly about it and fund Cato
which claims to be dedicated to it. The resent mailing sent a small
"pocket bible size" copy of the Declaration of Independance and the
Constitution. Cato also has on their board Thomas Szasz the Psychiatrist
who emptied the NY State mental hospitals and started the homeless epidemic
here when he claimed that mental illness was a chimera and a state run
social program for people to get free drugs and live comfortably on the back
of society's "productive souls." The legislators were all too happy to
cut off funds and follow this alleged "expert". The human suffering has
been unbelievable all in the name of Freedom.
So I would pose the question: Is it possible for humans to design a system
or systems that
1. build maximum social efficency without creating "losers" as the food to
energize the system's successes.
2. creates a reasonable freedom,
including the freedom to work,
the freedom to develop one's talents
the freedom from ignorance
the freedom from avoidable illness
the freedom from incompetance
the freedom from physical oppression
the freedom from unreasonable abuse by both public and private
systems.
3. create resonable social welfare design,
4. create an environment that is beautiful, balanced and that
-respects heritage
-lives in the moment
-stimulates and develops creativity.
-that leaves a world that does all of the above for our descendants
as well.
What do you think? The opposite of the above is "let it be." I'm an
Indian I never have believed in the virtue of "wildness."
Walk in balance
REH
----- Original Message -----
From: "Selma Singer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Ross James Swanston"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 10:22 AM
Subject: Re: Privatizing the Public: Whose agenda? At What Cost?
> Hi Ross,
>
> Your point about too much work interfering with the quality of life is
well
> taken. I think the whole issue of profits and power and money and 'making
> it' revolves around the idea that we value ourselves in terms of what we
> have; in terms of our possessions and accomplishments.
>
> A thought I've been playing with is that capitalism might work as one
> economic tool in a system that is based, in general, on other values.
Values
> that value humans for themselves. Such a system would not deny the
> importance of material comforts and convenience but would subsume their
> importance to other things; it would also recognize that basic material
> necessities must be met in order for other developments to occur.
>
> As I say, I'm just playing around with that and would welcome anyone
else's
> thoughts on some possible strategies that would be involved. For example,
> how would our educational and socialization strategies change if we were
to
> let children know that they were loved and considered precious even when
> they don't 'perform' the way we want them to. This is not to say that we
> should allow anti-social or self-destructive behavior. How might we do
that?
>
> Selma
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ross James Swanston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 4:58 AM
> Subject: Re: Privatizing the Public: Whose agenda? At What Cost?
>
>
> > At 10:13 AM 4/17/02 -0700, you wrote:
> >
> > > Selma,
> >
> > "It is a mystery to me, given what is constantly being revealed about
the
> > attempts of various corporations to strangle competition, how anyone can
> > argue that laissez-faire can work for the public good".
> >
> > I think that the problem is that in the attempts of various
corporations
> > to strangle competition and create monopolies with the ultimate goal of
> > unchallenged profits, we move into an ever faster world because we
> > shouldn't just single out corporations to blame - everybody is doing the
> > same thing.
> >
> > You are quite right Selma. Unfettered competition or laissez-faire
cannot
> > possibly work for the common good. I would define laissez-faire not so
> > much as the absence of competition, as Harry Pollard seems to imply, but
> > more to mean too much competition.
> >
> > To quote one or two of the facts to support that assertion. A litle
> while
> > ago, Karoshi, or working yourself to death was thought to be a uniquely
> > Japanese phenomenon, but now the Americans have taken over that
> distinction
> > as Matthew Reiss explains in a recent article. Under relentless
pressure
> > to be better than everybody else because of the consequences of too much
> > competition, Americans are now world leaders in overwork which of course
> > takes its toll on family life and reduces the general quality of life.
> As
> > Matthew Reiss shows, Americans now work an average of 1979 hours a year,
> > about three and a half weeks more than the Japanese, six and a half
weeks
> > more than the British and about twelve and a half weeks more than the
> Germans.
> >
> > Now how anyone can argue that all this can work for the benefit of all
is
> a
> > complete mystery to me. Sure, it is all a matter of trade-offs. What
> sort
> > of world do we want? Do we want profits or do we want quality of life?
> We
> > cannot have both because there is a conflict of values so for my money
and
> > since I put quality of life above material gain I am prepared to
> sacrifice
> > certain things to gain what I see as a better world.
> >
> > Well that's all for now
> >
> > Ross
> > >
> >
>
