Thanks, Thomas, for a well considered response. I don't think our
differences of opinion on this matter can ever be resolved by reason, they
can only be tempered by experience. My opinion is that debating governance
remains just that -- debating. I would recommend that you get ahold of a
1977 book titled _Sabotage_ by Geoff Brown for one account of the vagaries
of micro-governance and counter-strategy. My own views on the potential for
change at the top are very much influenced by Charles Lindblom's discussion
of policy incrementalism and the science of "muddling through". And I might
add that Lindblom's influence on my thinking has itself been incremental.
>Subject: Re: FW - Debating goverance
>
>
>>Thomas Lunde wrote,
>>
>>>Now as I have noted on FW before, when you start to examine the concept of
>>>Future-work, it soon passes beyond, shorter work weeks and other technical
>>>changes into a study of the ideas of economics and from there we find that
>>>it is the laws and directions of governments that actually will determine
>>>what the future of work will be.
>>
>
>Tom Walker said:
>
>>I agree with Thomas' observation that this is what happens. But I disagree
>>with his conclusion that the "top of the heap" is the proper starting place
>>for the debate. What Thomas casually refers to as "technical changes" are
>>the substantive conditions under which different structures of governance
>>might be possible. In our society, paid work is the microstructure of
>>governance. Perhaps people find top of the heap questions easier to talk
>>about because they are harder to do anything about.
>
>>Tom Walker
>
>Thomas:
>
>Governance is a structure, if I can presume to build a picture in your mind,
>in which the apex consititutes a very small number of individuals whose
>actions create a framework in which the majority - literally all of us -
>play out the drama of our lives. It is like a pyramid. Within the lower
>99.999% of the pyramid, we, the majority are constrained, directed and
>guided by legalistic forms, much like parking our automobile at a Mall is
>controlled by the designers of the mall. One example that comes to mind is
>the lineup at the local bank. It used to be a series of linear lines, you
>chose which line you thought would get you to the teller quickest. Then it
>was changed to one long line in which the first person took the first
>available teller. Then if became a line that was controlled by little
>chrome posts that had us stand in a snake like lineup which conserved floor
>space for the bank. Now, if you walk into a bank, even if there is no one
>ahead of you, you are forced by the arrangement of the chrome posts to
>follow the snake like path to get to a teller. Whenever I am forced to do
>this, I get angry, as I feel I am responsible enough to just walk in a
>straight line to the nearest teller.
>
>The same control has been imposed on us through Voice Mail. You dial up
>Bell Telephone and you are forced to wait through a pre-recorded message
>that lists your options according to the doors they want you to go through.
>Should you have a request that can only be answered by a human, you finally
>learn you can select that option which throws you into a waiting pattern and
>forces you to listen to their advertising while waiting for the operator.
>The operator then comes on and starts interrogating you, your name, your
>phone number, your address, finally after 5 to 7 minutes of wasting your
>time, you are finally allowed by the structure to ask the question you
>originally wanted to ask.
>
>Slowly but surely, we are being strangled in our choices as they impose
>their options on us, not for our convience or needs but for their convience
>or needs. This is governance in operation. Now, I can spend a year of my
>life arguing with Bell or the Bank or the designer of a Mall and perhaps I
>might get a small change in their procedure - a technical change - or I can
>ask that a law be passed by the small number at the apex of the structure
>that would outlaw the controlling of consumers by corporate controls.
>However, under the current governance, the chances of me, an individual
>impacting them to make a change is really remote because they have designed
>a governance structure in which the needs of people are not important,
>rather the need to retain power through re-election is the primary
>consideration.
>
>Tom Walker wrote:
>
>Conversely, bottom of
>>the heap questions are harder to talk about because they indicate courses
>of
>>direct action that have personal consequences. It is the "sanctions"
>>involved in those personal cons
