Two Articles of Economic Rights Responsibilities, again
Hi folks, Here's the third of three you missed. Yours for the New Year, WesBurt ~ Subj: Two Articles of Economic Rights Responsibilities Date: 01/05/2000 10:25:39 AM Eastern Standard Time From: WesBurt CC:WesBurt BCC: deleted by WSB Hi folks, This four year old post below says just what is missing from the noosphere which regulates the workforce and their dependents at 270 degrees on the macro model Figure 6. It seems an appropriate followup to my last three posts which were not distributed by lists [EMAIL PROTECTED], basicinco [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], and [EMAIL PROTECTED] oo.ca. Kind regards to all, Wesburt Begin four year old post Subj:#181-0, Two Articles of Economic Rights Responsibilities Date: 96-02-16 21:04:45 EST To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Stuart B. Weeks Dir. The Center for American Studies at Concord, Massachusetts. Dear Mr. Weeks: Here are two rarely acknowledged, and often misrepresented, articles of economic rights and responsibilities which have been handed down to us by succeeding generations of patriarchs, prophets, and poets. These articles were ancient when Moses broke the first two tables of the Law and hid the second two tables in the Ark of the Covenant to keep the Whole Law from becoming the public property of the Israelites. The first article is a statement of the Economic Right of a person or capital asset while in development, and still dependent on external support. The second is a statement of the Economic Responsibility of a person or capital asset while in production, and capable of being independent of all external support. Together, the two articles are the moral authority which enables and defines the optimum financial structure of a community, a corporation, or a commonwealth. Where the people have sufficient vision to teach and conform to the two articles, the people prosper. Where the two articles are violated to a sufficient degree, the wealthy, healthy, intelligent, and powerful part of the population (the WHIPs) may still prosper for a while, but the people slowly perish. We are most familiar with a poetic version of these two articles which Karl Marx borrowed from Louis Blanc, who in turn, probably got the sense of them from Thomas Paine's AGRARIAN JUSTICE or THE RIGHT'S OF MAN, part II. Marx then presented them in the inverse order and out of sequence with their consequent effects, when he wrote in his 1875 CRITIQUE OF THE GOTHA PROGRAM: "After labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development of the individual, and the springs of cooperative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"" In this sequence Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and their successors gave the world a seventy-two year experiment with communism which failed in the USSR and is losing ground everywhere else. Surely Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and their successors did not intend the consequent results; that the Soviet Union should fail, that the future as visualized by 19th and 20th century intellectuals should revert to a Democratic Capitalism in which the human assets are as well capitalized as the physical assets. I am pleased to propose the two articles, which express the economic keynote of an optimum community, corporation, or commonwealth, in the sequence in which they naturally occur in the lifecycle of each individual reproducible productive capital or human asset. They are numbered as they might have been listed among the twelve Moral Commandments promulgated at Mt. Sinai, of which we are taught only ten; or as they might have been listed among the first twelve "articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America," of which the States ratified only ten in 1789 to constitute the American Bill of Rights. Fortunately for us, the omission of these two articles did not become critical in America until the onset of industrialization in the 1890s. #5, TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEED, while in development and dependent on external support. Only when this article has been satisfied throughout the development period of the capital or human asset, will "the springs of cooperative wealth flow more abundantly" when the asset begins to produce, as every successful businessman has learned the hard way. #6, FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY, while in production and independent of external support. This article prescribes, not an equalization of condition at the margin of subsistence by taxation of all income in excess of subsistence exemptions, as some people claim, but a "Flat Tax"
Re: rights/responsibilities(Tor)
One important clarification: TF: It is certainly not right to construct a conflict between social justice and ecological concerns! SK: I don't think it is a construction; rather it is reality - the result of very rapid growth both in human numbers and in the impacts of rapid technological change on the planet. -- I strongly support a narrowing of the gap between haves have nots as long as part of the actions include self-empowerment of women for reproductive decisions, contraceptive devices instructions in safe sex, *and* instruction/training of those currently dependent upon relief to be as self-sufficient as possible. The "conflict" in "reality" is that much so-called humanitarian effort serves to increase dependency, increase numbers dependent, increase fertility, and guarantee the need for *more aid* tomorrow. As the aid is finite variable based upon physical systems and economic cycles, the perverse result is *more suffering* tomorrow both quantitatively and qualitatively than would occur if these destructive attempts at aid were not taken. There need not be this "conflict", but religious foreign culture based charities tend to replace original (sustainable) cultures/economies with cash crops or factory labor, thus dependent lives. The medicine sent was addictive poison. Steve
Re: rights/responsibilities
Steve Kurtz wrote: Dear Thomas, 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! It is certainly not right to construct a conflict between social justice and ecological concerns! Therefore I do not think that the solution to overpopulation is to starve the "unnecessary" people to death, or hope for their annihilation by war and plague. Today it looks like that the European populations are trying to eliminate themselves. I no country in Europe are so many children born that the children will replace their parents generation. In Italy the population will be reduced by 50% within a century, since the average woman in Italy gives birth to less than 1.4 child. Some countries are producing more children than they can raise and feed - but in Europe so few children are born, and have been born after 1970, that the development of European societies will be hampered few decades ahead. The reason is I guess that women in Europe are free to decide themselves how many children they will have. The most important reason to overpopulation is the supression of women in those countries which are producing more children than they can feed. To prevent overpopulation one has to given poor women a larger slice of the pie, an equal slice of the pie, and education and the possibility to run their own lives. -- All the best Tor Førde
Re: rights/responsibilities
-Original Message- From: Steve Kurtz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: futurework [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: September 25, 1998 11:35 AM Subject: Re: rights/responsibilities 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. Thomas: That may very well be true. But using it as a definition of work is pretty succint. My Oxford dictionary uses a whole column - more than almost any other word in the dictionary to describe the various meanings of work. I think that trying to work with a generalization such as " required human actions" is like describing life as breathing. Though there may be some truth in both statements, neither gives enough information to apply to real world situations. 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. Thomas: I guess, I disagree with both your answers. No, everyone should not have to work because work has not been adequately defined. Required human actions is not a definition, it is a generalization. I use work as currently defined by economists as paid employment. There are many legitimate reasons for a person at some time in their lives to not be engaged in paid employment. To young, to old, getting educated, no paid work available, suffering medical problems, lazy, exploring other facets of being human, thinking, inventing, playing and on ad infinitum. I sorry, I have not found the world amendable to black and white answers or yes or no solutions. Someone who sits on the sidelines and takes shots without every revealing their position. What do you call my above quoted statement? Thomas: And I have told you what I think of your above quoted statement - it's to general. How did we get to vegative people? They are the only people who can't ( don't) work. Thomas: I think with a little imagination, you can come up with more than two categories other than "can't" and "won't". 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. Thomas: Slippery, slippery. Was there anything in my statement about debt based economies? No. So why go off on a tangent. If you want to discuss or analyze my essay, then do it on the contents of the essay, not on some privately held opinion that is tangent to my statements. 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. Thomas: No, what I am referring to is the choice made by the US FEd and the Canadian Central Banks that led to certain policies without explaining or exploring other possiblities such as full employment and slight inflation. What I am asking for is a response from the List, should anyone choose to make it, about whether they made the right choice. I have my opinion and I am interested in others. 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! Thomas: Well, I don't think I accept the syst
Re: rights/responsibilities
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. Resp
Re: rights/responsibilities
Greetings, I received one response off list which I will share with you. The author wishes to remain anonymous, having insufficient time to engage in ongoing discussions. Steve Kurtz - Dear Steve, Thanks for your posting Re: rights/responsibilities. ( by the way, I see this as the implied question, Does or should everyone have to work?) Yes, I agree with your definition; "work as required human actions". my answer is also YES. You said: A passive, vegetative human cannot survive for many days independently; so someone's work is required for existence. Eating and breathing are not work in isolation, but normally work is required for sustenance/survival. It is true. The vegetative people are not responsible and thus no vision for the future except an empty theory which cannot be proved because they are not practical. You said: I indicated that work necessitated those qualities, but not the reverse. Right again. Work necessitated at least a strong will power to hold oneself together to be diciplined and being serious (not in talking but in doing). Thomas said: The key word here seems to be "responsibilities" and the implied question is, "How, without renumeration could we expect members of society to work?" You said: The "remuneration" is what I called "rewards" - "community acceptance and solidarity" I think, gaining friend(s) is one of the rewards. Work, attitude and non-arogance manner yield friends; which results in yielding 'community acceptance and solidarity'. Without responsible attitude, friends break ties and community doesn't vote for those. You said: Since the act of work has its own intentionality, that is reason enough! Value lies in the eye of the beholder. If the community doesn't value your acts, you have acted independently of communitarian responsibilities. Agree. Thomas said: However, what should the community expect from everyone as cooperative members? How about expecting them to feel secure and trusting. I shall answer this in away that "why should not the community expect everyone as cooperative members". Otherwise the term "the community" do not have to exist! How could one be trusted if he/she does prove non-cooperative in the community? You said: That is a great idea. The community can decide, if excess resources (not only currency/credits) permit human actions (work)to provide the time, place and teachers. But the community decides, not you or I. Best case scenarios are always attractive. Yes, the community decides! thus we should be cooperative. "Why can't everyone be perfect" is the implied question here. No. Why can't behavior be encouraged that moves *closer* to a best case scenario? 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. This comment is good too. In a way, your "here to experience" reminds me of the Beatles' song "All You Need Is Love". This "here to experience" against the Buddhist philosophy of "here to correct ourselves earnestly and to improve ourselves all time at every second!". Sincerely,
Re: rights/responsibilities
Dear Steve: So glad you answered with questions, the proper form of debate is not challenge or personal confrontation but questioning the information, rationale and assumptions that form the basis of anothers statement. -Original Message- From: Steve Kurtz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: futurework [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: September 22, 1998 1:58 PM Subject: rights/responsibilities Greetings, Rather than attempt a detailed refutation of parts of Thomas Lunde's post of today, I'm merely going to point out a few things (once again) that this list seems resigned to ignore. Work, a form of human action, involves intention, motivation, purpose. Otherwise it would be described as "movement". Whether the process involves monetary reward, barter, or self-subsistance via hunting, gathering, or agriculture, a willful decision to act is made. Thomas: This question formed around the word "work" ( by the way, I see this as the implied question, Does or should everyone have to work?) was one that was dealt with at the Conference. You see, there is a gamut of understandings of the word "work", from one extreme, only that which produces renumeration, to the other extreme, that to exist is to engage in work. No particular answer was arrived at, though a strong point was made that the economist's valuation of work did not cover many activities such as housework, child rearing, care of the aged or infirm, acts of charity and good will and mowing the lawn. You seem to indicate that you hold work as being the result of wilful decision to act. Would that include housework? Would it include sex? Would it include thinking? Wouldn't each of these activities be the result of "a wilful decision to act"? I agree that it is desirable for communities to share when deemed necessary(within the group, and also with outsiders but probably less frequently), and that is the norm in my view of history. However, there are responsibilities demanded by these communities of their members. These require effort and will, as does work. The rewards are community acceptance and solidarity. Thomas: The key word here seems to be "responsibilities" and the implied question is, "How, without renumeration could we expect members of society to work?" I guess we are down to who will pick up the garbage if we give everyone a Basic Income? That's like asking who will take the laundry to the washing machine? The answer is whoever agrees too, or whoever wants too, otherwise we will soon run out of clean clothes and someone will have to act. So far, I see very few people who voluntarily wear dirty clothes as a result of not being responsible or for any other reason except that they might be too poor to afford to wash their clothes, or perhaps even have a home to wash them in. Another tack on this, let us imagine that I belong to a community that supports me through a Basic Income. And I, fool that I am, I follow my interests, which happen to be walking my dog, a totally non-productive activity. After several years of this, I awake from my unemployed stupor and realize that I know how much exercise a dog needs to be healthy and so because I like walking dogs so much, I offer to walk several of my neighbours dogs so that they will stay healthy. Now, they can't pay me, at least not enough to make me self sufficient, but after another several years, I notice some things about how dogs socialize and learn through play from each other. I decide to become a dog trainer while I'm walking the dogs. No one can pay me enough for my efforts though all are appreciative of the healthy well behaved dogs they have. And because of this security in their lives, they don't feel so guilty about not taking their dogs for walks and therefore they don't have as much stress, in fact they actually have a little pleasure. Now let's say my humble efforts, prevented a child from being attacked and a worker from having a heart attack through reduced stress. None of this is provable, though I'm sure statistics could be found to justify almost anything. Have I performed a valuable service to my community? Was it the result of responsibility or was it because I found it interesting? A basic income is not a bad thing IMO. However, what should the community expect from everyone as cooperative members? Why the avoidance of this issue? Just as second hand smoke, toxic waste spills, acid rain from smokestack emissions, nuclear leaks, water pollution... have become recognized as infringements on the common good, so should every seemingly innocent human action be considered. Thomas: However, what should the community expect from everyone as cooperative members? How about expecting them to feel secure and trusting that through an act of fate or accident they will not be disenfranchised from the money economy? How about having the feeling that you can stop long enough to take some extra training. How a
Re: rights/responsibilities
Thomas Lunde wrote: ( by the way, I see this as the implied question, Does or should everyone have to work?) Since I define work as required human actions, my answer is YES. ... to exist is to engage in work. A passive, vegetative human cannot survive for many days independently; so someone's work is required for existence. Eating and breathing are not work in isolation, but normally work is required for sustenance/survival. a strong point was made that the economist's valuation of work did not cover many activities such as housework, child rearing, care of the aged or infirm, acts of charity and good will and mowing the lawn. all are work IMO You seem to indicate that you hold work as being the result of wilful decision to act. I indicated that work necessitated those qualities, but not the reverse. Would that include housework? Would it include sex? Would it include thinking? Wouldn't each of these activities be the result of "a wilful decision to act"? Yes. And some of the incidences of those acts constitute "work". I agree that it is desirable for communities to share when deemed necessary(within the group, and also with outsiders but probably less frequently), and that is the norm in my view of history. However, there are responsibilities demanded by these communities of their members. These require effort and will, as does work. The rewards are community acceptance and solidarity. Thomas: The key word here seems to be "responsibilities" and the implied question is, "How, without renumeration could we expect members of society to work?" The "remuneration" is what I called "rewards" - "community acceptance and solidarity" Since the act of work has its own intentionality, that is reason enough! I guess we are down to who will pick up the garbage if we give everyone a Basic Income? ... This is a bogus problem in a community that has members with time to do that work. Rules will be determined and responsibilities allocated. History shows that it gets done. The how who are societally determined. Human values, which vary somewhat individually, will result in decisions getting the dirty work done, basic income or not. Note that I didn't attempt to refute the B.I., but implied it was insufficient as a solution to the problematique. Another tack on this, let us imagine that I belong to a community that supports me through a Basic Income. And I, fool that I am, I follow my interests, which happen to be walking my dog, a totally non-productive activity. After several years of this, I awake from my unemployed stupor and realize that I know how much exercise a dog needs to be healthy and so because I like walking dogs so much, I offer to walk several of my neighbours dogs so that they will stay healthy. Now, they can't pay me, (snip) Now let's say my humble efforts, prevented a child from being attacked and a worker from having a heart attack through reduced stress. None of this is provable, though I'm sure statistics could be found to justify almost anything. Did you ever consider trying your hand at creative writing? :-) Have I performed a valuable service to my community? Was it the result of responsibility or was it because I found it interesting? Value lies in the eye of the beholder. If the community doesn't value your acts, you have acted independently of communitarian responsibilities. A basic income is not a bad thing IMO. However, what should the community expect from everyone as cooperative members? Why the avoidance of this issue? Just as second hand smoke, toxic waste spills, acid rain from smokestack emissions, nuclear leaks, water pollution... have become recognized as infringements on the common good, so should every seemingly innocent human action be considered. Thomas: However, what should the community expect from everyone as cooperative members? How about expecting them to feel secure and trusting Manna from heaven? I don't believe in that stuff. Back to the cornucopian fallacy again. Every day that our species increases in number, it gets less secure: http://library.utoronto.ca/www/pcs/eps.htm that through an act of fate or accident they will not be disenfranchised from the money economy? How about having the feeling that you can stop long enough to take some extra training. That is a great idea. The community can decide, if excess resources (not only currency/credits) permit human actions (work)to provide the time, place and teachers. But the community decides, not you or I. Best case scenarios are always attractive. How about taking a year or two off from your forty year work life to enjoy your children? How about getting involved for several years in a community project that interests you? Work doesn't seem to me so burdensome when I'm doing what I want to do rather than what I have to do. Best case scenarios are always attractive. Idling a car motor, running water taps
