Harry Pollard wrote:
>
> Brad,
>
> You blamed Tom for something I wrote.
I certainly do not intend to attribute to anyone anything
they did not say.
On the other hand, email seems to me
a kind of "semiotic soup", and I usually am interested
in addressing assertions (along with their affective
components, mystifications, etc., of course...) rather than
persons. When I do address a *person*, I think I do it
clearly -- the rifle and not the shotgun is my preferred
style.
>
> Of course at the end of your post you are describing the free market
> the way it should be - with choice available to you.
*If* free markets really were free in the sense of
every person having the "means" to be able to walk away
from any situation they did not feel was suitable to them,
and to be able to continue to pursue their lives
without serious impediment elsewhere, then I would
be all in favor of them.
What else could be appropriate
to a *who* (rather than a *what*!) than to freely
enter into or not enter into relationships according to
his or her unconstrained free and informed volition?
(Among others, this is at the root of Jurgen Habermas's
"discourse ethics" and "transcendental pragmatics of communication".)
But employees, whatever color their collars, generally
are not in such a condition. (Do you disagree?)
Perhaps The United States of America was closer to such
a "novus ordo seclorum" at the time of the Founding Fathers
than today?
On the other hand, the Founding Fathers,
as admirers of classical ideals, knew that
freedom *from* enterprise is the goal of
freedom *of* enterprise.
Does anyone know
where I can find the quote from John Adams where
he says something like that he has been a businessman
so that his sons could become doctors and lawyers so
that their sons could become artists and philosophers?
I would love to be able to quote it!
"Yours in discourse...."
\brad mccormick
>
> The problem with wage earners is that choice is usually closed to
> them. So, our job is to find out why.
>
> Or we can accept the consequences and try to make it easier for them.
> Give them food stamps, free medical, free child care, help with their
> housing costs and all the other things they need - except justice.
>
> Harry
>
> ________________________________
>
> Brad wrote:
>
> > Thomas Lunde wrote:
> > >
> > > Just remember that everyone prefers to cut costs - including
> > you,
> > >
> > [snip]
> >
> >
> > As for myself, I find that the only time I am
> > much interested in cutting costs is when I do not
> > have enough money to live decently. Push me up
> > against the wall, and I'll try to push the
> > wall if I can't push you, but, always, I
> > find it offensive not just to be pushed, but also
> > to be placed in a situation in which me pushing
> > is a desideratum.
> >
> > Of course I do not want to throw money away, but
> > I do not dicker about the price if I can afford it and
> > it is not a rip-off and
> > if the qualities and the quality I seek are in the product.
> >
> > I think it is pretty much the same with
> > negotiating the price for a purchase as for
> > negotiating a raise at work: If you don't get it
> > without asking and you can go some place else,
> > just leave, since even if they grant you
> > what you ask for, it probably won't be what
> > you want.
> >
> > Don't buy junk.
> > Get a Carpet Cat.
> > (--Carpet Cat floor sweeper ad slogan)
> >
> > \brad mccormick
> >
> >
> >
> > > There is an alternative. Raise wages! For the working
> > > person, it is only take home pay that counts. If the wages
> > > stay the same and costs keep increasing, then the net effect
> > > is the loss of income and lifestyle. Business has tried to
> > > promise the working person by implying that if we allow them
> > > free competitive reign they will lower prices so we can have
> > > more goods - and there has been a lot of truth in that
> > > assumption - in many cases lower costs have made a working
> > > man's paycheck buy more. But costs cannot be cut
> > > indefinetly, there is a place where cost cutting leads to
> > > lower quality and more planned obeslence which means that
> > > savings from quality and durability are lost. It would be
> > > better to build a car that was easy to repair and upgrade
> > > and had a life span of 20 or 30 years, rather than 10.
> > >
> > > Respectfully,
> > >
> > > Thomas Lunde
>
> ******************************
> Harry Pollard
> Henry George School of LA
> Box 655
> Tujunga CA 91042
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Tel: (818) 352-4141
> Fax: (818) 353-2242
> *******************************
--
Let your light so shine before men,
that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16)
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
<![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
