On Monday 24 March 2003 17:10, Michael Lane wrote: > Now suppose I am a mother at home. I am participating, making an undoubted > contribution to society and doing what I do best.
Michael Lane here puts his finger on what gives the lie to the idea of universal leisure. Over fifty percent of earth's poulation fall into the category of people who will run a home and raise a family, and I have discovered that, after years of being a 'busy company executive' working long hours at the 'office', my wife worked harder than I ever worked in bringing up four children and cooking, washing, ironing, cleaning, for her 'busy executive husband.' The only contribution I made was bringing money into the bank account. People are actually dignified by useful employment. The idea lying beneath the surface of Social Credit that all citizens should get their slice of the cake while they enjoy their leisure has bugged me for a long time. To counter the objection, we may just have to extend the notion of useful employment to include activities which today are frowned upon -- like fishing to put food on the table, or juggling in the street to amuse the people passing by. Even begging is hard work, but some wouldn't change it for an office job. Jessop. ------------------------------ > Open Letter to Norm Kurland > Center for Economic and Social Justice (binary economics) > (following 45-minute phone conversation) > > Dear Norm, > > "When the loom weaves by itself, and the plectrum makes music by itself, > there will be no more slaves" (Aristotle). You quoted this and said, the > loom does weave by itself, and the plectrum does make music by itself, and > we still have slaves! Since we don't need so many workers, let everyone > become an owner. Not just a receiver of dividends, you said. > Participation is everything, you said. > > Now suppose I am a mother at home. I am participating, making an undoubted > contribution to society and doing what I do best. Why do you want to > burden me with responsibility for the loom, when all I want is the cloth? > I don't know anything about looms, I have no desire to learn anything about > looms, and I don't care to make decisions about them. The only decision I > want to make is what kind of cloth I want, and about that I will be very > fussy. That's how I excercise my voice over the loom. > > So by all means, let me own the loom and receive dividends. Indeed, it is > my right. But don't ask me to take a creative interest in it. There are > plenty of people who do take a creative interest in it, who for that reason > will do it much better than I. I have my creative interest right here at > home. > > The loom weaves by itself, and the plectrum makes music buy itself, so we > should indeed have leisure. Right there is all the justification you need > for a dividend to every person. I will spend my leisure as a full-time > mother and homemaker, because that is what I love best. Why give me > "leisure" and then tell me I am to take a Justice-Based Management course > so that I can learn to exercise "power and accountability" in regard to my > loom? > > > This ties in with Douglas's observations on political democracy: he said > we will get what we want when, through our representatives, we make the > executive accountable for results (which are simple), rather than > instituting programs and methods (which are complex) ourselves. The > executive is expertise at our service, and the way to make it serve us is > to keep in on the hook as far as results go. If we dictate programs and > methods and the executive carries them out, we can't complain about the > results. But if we dictate results and the executive doesn't produce them, > we can complain: "Most people are quite aware that it is absurd to tell > their shoemakers how to make shoes but reasonable to complain that their > shoes hurt" (Brief for the Prosecution, p. 64). > > It is the same with economic democracy. Public control of the loom, > whether concentrated (socialism) or dispersed (distributism) is like > telling shoemakers how to make shoes. A public dividend, on the other > hand, without any further ownership responsibilities, enables me to be > fussy about what sort of cloth I want and get it. It gives full scope to > the creativity of the artists of industry to compete in serving my needs. > > Michael Lane > Triumph of the Past > ==^^=============================================================== This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84IaC.bcVIgP.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^^===============================================================
