John,
You and Keith Wilde in particular do not wish to recognise the independent
productiveness of non-human capital. I have noticed before that what seems=
unacceptable is the idea that non-human things can take an initiative or at=
least a part in production, have volition as it were, can act, produce and
contribute to production without human aid (although they generally do it
better with human aid).
I chose the example, given below, to illustrate that non-human things -- in=
this case, even a wall -- do active, positive things and physics books us=
e
words such as "push" (which implies positive action and volition) when,
obviously, a wall is not a human being but we only have human vocabulary to=
describe things. At this moment I am looking at a physics book which says
"When you push or pull there's an opposite force" and goes on to explain
that when you push or pull something you can feel an opposite force pushing=
or pulling the other way. A diagram shows a man pulling on a spring and th=
e
comment is that the spring is pulling back. Similarly, with a diagram of a=
man pushing on a wall -- the comment says that if the wall was not pushing
the wall would move or fall over.
Do you accept that the physics book accurately portrays the situation?
And do not fish breed etc without human intervention? And trees grow? Are
there not automatic machines (even though they require occaisonal
maintenance and repair?). And is not the sun an independent contributor to=
production (even though it cannot be owned?
And, frankly, if you do not understand that a driverless lorry, (like a
driverless train) really does have no driver, then I cannot help you any
more and I suggest, for the sake of the others on this elist, that we end
the subject.
Rodney Shakespeare.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John M=E9daille" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Social Credit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 4:05 PM
Subject: Spam Alert: Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Sun, cow, fish, machine,
hydroelectric dam=3D,=3D3D =3D3D3Di
At 10:23 PM 7/21/2003 +0100, Rodney Shakespeare wrote:
>John,
>I specifically asked for your -- and Keith's response -- on the
following:-=3D
>
>"Could I try a little physics example? If you push on a wall, the wall
>pushes back becasue you, and it, remain in balance. That is basic
physics.=3D
>
>Now you and Keith would deny that the wall pushes back becasue you would
sa=3D
>y
>the wall has no volition. And yet the "pushing" happens even if no humans=
>are involved e.g. tables are pulled down by gravity and the floor pushes
>back so that they remain in balance."
What is the relevance to the question of "independent" productivity? Were
is any "productivity" involved in the example? How does this relate to the
"productivity" of driverless lorries?
John C. M=E9daille
"A dead thing can go with the stream...
but only a living thing can go against it."
-G. K. Chesterton
http://www.medaille.com/distributivism.htm
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--^----------------------------------------------------------------
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84IaC.bcQuHz.Um9kbmV5
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^----------------------------------------------------------------
--^----------------------------------------------------------------
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
--^----------------------------------------------------------------
