Dear Thomas,
> Thomas: Come on guys having a piss requires "human actions".
At some future date, if you live long enough, you will undoubtedly need to
make an effort to urinate.
> Answer the
> question! "Does or should everyone have to work? And the collorary
> question, "What is work? Give me your definition.
I did both in plain English. "Yes" , and "required human actions". If you
choose another definition, it is up to you to state it.
> Someone who sits on the sidelines and takes
> shots without every revealing their position.
What do you call my above quoted statement?
>
> How did we get to vegative people?
They are the only people who can't (& don't) work.
> 1. The fact that many people aren't working is the result of a particular
> set of economic theories developed by Milton Freidman such as the concept of
> fighting inflation by deliberately creating unemployment through a
> theoritical position called the "natural rate of unemployment".
I claim that everyone is working, if not vegetative. Freidman is like all
neo-classical economists, deluded; and they are running like scared rabbits
now that the debt based money system is collapsing. If I have to pick one
primary factor in the breakdown it is debt-based, fiat money. All
economists do is speculate.
> 2. These policies have become the basis for a whole slew of legislation
> and activities by the Central Bank which has deliberately created
> unemployment as a policy goal.
I assume you are referring to the US Fed. Well, they support the debt based
money system, and the policies to which you are referring are the
looseness/tightness of money supply. You are choosing to play intellectual
ball in the park created by the bankers.
Also, you define remuneration as fiat money/credits. That is an "artificial
turf" ballpark IMO, & it will not endure since it is unsustainable. A
trillion credits cannot, on their own sustain any life in any form.
> As that unemployed group used social
> services - which is what they are there for - to protect themselves, the
> government used this as an excuse to cut social programs claiming we
> couldn't afford them. Business jumped on the bandwagon on payroll taxes and
> a call for an elimination of the minimum wage and other draconian measures
> under their banner of global competition.
Your axe is social justice; mine is long term habitat health and
minimization of scarcity induced conflicts. You accept the system at base,
and plea for redistribution of credits. My view is equal slices of an
insufficient renewable pie results in maximum suffering and dieoff. Of
course, you may not think the pie is insufficient!
Re Ed Weick, Eva, & Jay, I suggest that they speak for themselves. I will
not engage a subject at one level, when I hold that it is contingent upon a
more fundamental physical base that is continually eroding and decreasing
human options going forward.
> Thomas: What is this "strong will power to hold oneself together to be
> diciplined and being serious" crap! Most people get up in the morning and
> go to work as a matter of course rather than using, "strong willpower'!
> Let's get real.
You have now used a second bodily function in your 'analysis'. Your
pronouncements of epistemology and ontology impress me not. (not my words
quoted above BTW)
> Thomas: Again, the purpose of work is not friends, it is to earn money - in
> our society.
That is currently one purpose for work in this system. Do you think
biological life depends on credits (ecology on economy) or the reverse?
> That a person cannot
> have or perform valuable actions independant of "communitarian
> responsibilities." What are we, a bunch of sheep that have to be so
> constrained that any action outside of communitarian responsibilites should
> be punished by no rewards, acknowledgement or respect?
Self-valued (subjective) actions can be in isolation, but only a hermit
would exist without the interdependency of community (incl family, tribe).
You are assuming either/or; I didn't claim that. An interdependence of
'subjects'(people) is a dynamic of rights & responsibilities. Both are
required IMO.
> Thomas: Non co-pooperative does not mean against, it may be to offer
> alternatives, to critique, to bring in new information, it may mean
> resistance to community infringement of personal rights. Community does not
> mean identical, it means balancing all the various needs of the members
> while hopefully respecting them as human beings with individual needs.
That sounds like *responsibilities* to me!! I raised the issues of impacts
of actions on others. You said that meant "perfection". Now you're
indicating the work of living, as well as the work for money.
SK:
> >> No. Why can't behavior be encouraged that moves *closer* to a best case
> >> scenario?
Anon:
> >Good. The behavioral change from less responsible to more responsible is
> >badly needed. Responsibilities to the future benefit everyone. The
> >Future of Work should include working towards the Future Common Good.
>
> Thomas: What kind of statement is this! Are we back to Skinner and
> behavioral modification techniques based on the pleasure/pain principle?
> >
I have no idea how the above two statements (oughts) lead to your
statement. Dynamics of groups provide a constant feedback system which
modifies member behavior. No director is required. Pleasure and pain are
part of the feedback as described by humans in everyday life.
Anon:
> This "here to experience" against the Buddhist philosophy of "here to
> >correct ourselves earnestly and to improve ourselves all time at every
> >second!".
>
> Thomas: Well, I'm glad you're arrogant enough to condemn one of the major
> philosophies of the world, one that has been around a lot longer than our
> Western Civilization.
You totally misread Anon. I believe Anon states that your "here to
experience" is contrary to ("against") Buddhist philosophy, which Anon
probably supports. I suggest you look in the mirror when calling people
"arrogant". Re your:
> I believe in communes, free love, individual
> exploration of consciousness, government by consensus, back to the land,
> environmental respect, respect of life, sharing, arts and crafts as valuable
> ways other than factory work to express creativity.
I've got no problems with any of that although consensus loses potential as
the size of the group increases, but hasten to say that wishing for utopia
doesn't create it; cooperative work(human action) is the best method I know
of. I disagree with Milton Freidman, too, but dissemination of credits -by
itself- is not a solution to world problems. And it is "work" only for the
disseminator! :-)
Steve Kurtz
Fitzwilliam NH
