Did you ever read Robert Ardrey's books? (The Territorial Imperative, etc). He was popular in the 70s. He came under criticism by the then crop of sociologists and anthropologists (particularly Montague Ashley and his anti-aggressiveness beliefs you swear by -- but who is now considered very much out of date by modern anthropologists). But, of course, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since Ardrey's popularity and the present crop of anthropologists, evolutionary psychologists and so on have much more developed ideas. (Also, many of them are too young to have read him.) As far as I know the subject there is no strong incoherence with Ardrey's basic ideas in the present field. He doesn't appear in the academic literature because he was an amatuer (playwright).
However, it seems to me very much that Georgism, Ardreyism, modern anthropology, and my own economic interpretations of status/inclusion in the social group are all quite harmonious.
Just a thought.
I have become largely persuaded (by you) over the years on FW that Georgism is basically correct. But how to proceed with it. We are now into an era of great fiscal complexity in which the idea of simplification would be anathema to our civil services and politicians, adn so on. One can't turn the clock back in this way, except with partial introductions of land/property taxes.
However, if my basic idea is correct (new consumer goods are bought for status, and that the professional classes which are the trend-setters are at the point of not adding any more -- no time -- then, despite the productivity growth we may be at the point of a consumer recession. The average American consumer can't get it going 'cos he strapped with debt.
Keith
At 03:00 17/12/03 -0800, you wrote:
Chris and Art,
Such agreement among us!
The problem in every country is the hemorrhaging of production into the hands of the landholders. As I posted earlier, Marx saw this and pointed out that the Industrial Revolution was financed by the landholders. (He said more - that "surplus value" inevitably was swallowed into land rent - but who reads Volume Three of Das Kapital?
I saw a recent estimate (knowledgeable guess) that the land of the US totaled $30 trillion. A nation paying for something that was initially provided by God - or was a gift of nature (choose one).
My objection to the Basic Income is that it is an attempt - as are so many others - to take back some of that Economic Rent and distribute it to the people who pay the Rent.
Why not take it all?
It's a privilege for the tenant gets nothing back for the land Rent he pays. As everyone should know by now, I am against all privilege.
Justice is infinitely more preferable.
Harry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel: +44 1225 311636; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
