You probably don't think so, as you may have tossed it off before going elsewhere, but this is one of your best. I enjoyed it.
Starbucks, like Walmart, stands in for the chains that "menace" the small towns.
You may have noticed Karen's great post to me. That girl is good (at my age, practically every woman is a girl). I intend to say something about the economics of Main Street to her in my reply. Unfortunately, economists don't much touch this. It's left to real estate professionals who are more interested in sales than analysis.
The city is (or should be) the epitome of civilized living. Everything you want or need should be close to you. Spent the first 30 years of my life in London.
However, I'm well conditioned to families of deer making a nuisance of themselves, rattlers and black widows, dogs barking everywhere - and even the very occasional mountain lion.
Also, earthquakes, floods, mud, and fires make life interesting. (They do seem more wholesome than muggings and traffic jams.
Harry -----------------------------------------------------
Ray wrote:
Very stressed Harry,
But you keep bringing up Starbucks. That was someone else. I have a Starbucks downstairs and can walk less than a block to get to it. I would not however, like a sweatshop downstairs and the pollution from the plants and mines that were simply in my small town gave us both asthma and lead poison. I would not wish the same off on you. As for the Saint Lawrence, those big plants have destroyed the economy of Akwasasne Reservation making their land a mess and the river which is sacred and carries many of their ceremonials, a toxic problem. Sort of like putting a sewer plant upstream from the worshippers on the Ganges. But that is not unusual. The Indian people in South Dakota are struggling to rescue the remains of their ancestors from one of the ancient burial grounds in the US as the bulldozers dig them up for recreation. http://www.indiancountry.com/article/1055358290
They did it to the ancient peace city Chota in Tennessee and the difference now being that the old tradition of Indian law has come back due to the money generated by Casinos. Instead of leisure creating art which we always had, leisure and money creates lawyers.
But I am a man from the prairies who loves the city. As long as the factories are located far enough away to make it safe for the very closely packed city dwellers I'm happy having retail establishments close by. I would also add that the art and science of architecture and serious urban planning should be exercised for the good of all. People who are dumb aesthetically create nightmares. People who aren't plan for the best, humane and most stimulating environments. All other people live on the outskirts. Many things can be located in the city if you are willing to assign serious liability of damages if poorly planned. We even have a sewer plant under a park and thus far it seems to work OK although there are big problems with asthma in Harlem where the plant is located. Whether the problem relates is still under question. I believe that most of these issues have to do with what you said. The assignment of responsibility. Science is beginning to make us understand the implications of our environment on our brain development, our creativity and our future existance. If a person is creating destruction then it must be stopped no matter what the loss of their personal indulgence.
As for red doorsteps. That is a Shibboleth. A phrase that is used in an argument to put something or someone you don't like on the other side of an absurdity. In the good neighborhoods in Republican libertarian Tulsa, Oklahoma if a neighbor lets their house run down, doesn't cut the grass and has too many cats, they will be served a summons because it lowers the monetary value of the property in the neighborhood. None of these Libertarians defend that person's right to be a slob in their neighborhood and hurt their house value. After all they moved out of the inner city because they didn't want to live next door to blacks either. It just depends upon who rights are being hurt as to where they stand. I have to work now.
Ray Evans Harrell
----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ray Evans Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 12:13 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Fruits of Work.
Ray,
Respect and mutual responsibility means that where you cannot avoid interference you step back rather than intrude. If an appreciable number of people want to get a morning coffee from Starbucks, I think they should be allowed to get it.
I have never bought a coffee from Starbucks. Should I be allowed to stop others from buying one?
We don't have a Starbucks in Tujunga - though we've just had a McDonald's open up (which may mean we are now part of the civilized world.
We do have a drive-in coffee shop about 2 miles away. When it opened, I wondered how long it would last - a drive-in just for coffee? That was 5 years ago. It's still there. When my San Diego kids visit, on Sunday morning one drives down to get coffees. It comes back in a large plastic cup. It has to be hot in order to be drinkable when it arrives home. (Don't hold it between your knees.)
In the grey climate of small English council houses (low-cost government housing) a lady painted her doorstep red - this was back in the fifties before Thatcher freed the houses into the hands of their tenants.
The local council met to discuss this overwhelmingly important matter. After all, if one person did it, perhaps others would paint their doorsteps - maybe purple, pink, or puce. The chaste grey of the neighborhood would be gone.
The lady was ordered to return her doorstep to grey, and the community breathed easier again. (The council were petty upstart snots.)
I cannot imagine you, Ray. taking the side of the council against this lone butterfly spreading her wings. Yet, there may be people living in the community who don't like red. Should they step back rather than intrude?
Arthur is a good bloke but he simply loves regulations. He likes to settle back and doze in a bed full of laws. He would love California that in one year passed 1,400 laws. - about 26 a week.
This discussion revolved around Walmart - the largest retailer by far in the US.
In other words, Americans like to shop at Walmart. I suppose Arthur would say 'they are "seduced" by the consumer economy and (fritter) away their earnings on ephemeralities.'
Be that as it may, they are making their own decisions and though we may sneer a little at their lack of intellectual awareness, I rather think they know better how to make the pennies work than the sophisticates with pockets full of folding money.
Because they have to.
I would hazard a guess that many of these "community regulations" are designed less to create an oasis of culture, than to keep out undesirables. But maybe I'm just jaundiced.
Harry
---------------------------------------------------------
Ray wrote:
>Everyone interferes with each others lives. The point is respect and mutual >responsibility. Then you work out what is the most humane for all. These >absolute laws are worse than useless, they are genocidal. Reason is >limited by the limits of your argument. Basic rule number one in debate. > >REH
**************************************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: (818) 352-4141 -- Fax: (818) 353-2242 http://home.attbi.com/~haledward ****************************************************
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 6/10/2003
