Re: competition/contradiction
Eva Durant's fellow socialist wrote: Now to answer the second question of how can there be successful production without competition? Of course under capitalism there cannot be. The Meriden co-operative in the Midlands and scores of other co-ops prove it that you cannot have a socialist island in a capitalist sea. That is only possible under socialism. I am assuming that your debater is saying that people would just laze around and do nothing if they didn't have to compete, or is he saying that the capitalists would not invest if it wasn't for competition? I am not quite clear what you mean here. The point is that competition gives an incentive to build better products than the competitors. If there's only one company that builds cars, they have no incentive to improve the quality of their cars, because everyone who buys a car has no choice but to buy _their_ car. Your obsessive referral to capitalism is inappropriate. The above principle applies to anything... science, sports, arts, medicine, political parties, you name it. However, I would answer the age old (and extremely boring) argument of competition against co-operation first with some anthropology. It is now generally accepted that once we came out of the trees, stood up on the savannah and started congregating in groups it was labour (i.e. co-operation) that made us human. Wrong. Actually it was the use of tools that discerned us (together with some other primates, more precisely), anatomically possible thanks to our opponable thumbs. Co-operative labour exists among various animal species (e.g. bees, ants etc.). Language, which is the sole prerogative of humans Wrong again. (Unless you're talking of written language, but there were human cultures without that too.) Homo sapiens is basically co-operative, because without co-operation we would still be animals. . It is inherent in humans to co-operate at every stage and it is total bunkum to say that their initial instinct is to outdo each other. Your black-and-white painting misses the most important thing (the shades): The proponents of competition certainly don't want to abolish co-operation. (Not even the free-marketeers would want that, because without co-operation, no corporation could exist.) IT TAKES BOTH. But you seem to propose the abolition of competition. I am positive that it is only the fact that you work 60/70 hours a week and you are dog tired, that your ideas would only be nicked by the boss, if you came up with them which creates the impression nowadays that workers are thick and lazy and have no ideas. Well, the social programme I recently wrote about is a clear example of the opposite: These individuals "worked" (err were sitting around) only 35 hours a week and they were BEGGED FOR own ideas by their "boss" (me) -- not to nick their ideas, of course, but for them to have some work -- but STILL, they were lazy and had no (useful) ideas. So much so that MY ideas I gave them did not work (what can you do if nobody works?). Unfortunately, such real-life experiences are not reported in your favourite theory books, so they're not part of your picture. Will all this do? Or do you need any other points? Having said that, I still can't see what is the point of arguing with hopeless morons on the Internet, you could spend your time much more profitably by starting to read the Marxist classics again and then get involved in the movement. Yeah, that sounds like religious fanatism. "Read only the bible/koran/etc. and get involved in the O[cto]pus Dei/Talibani/etc. ..." Right, stop wasting your precious time arguing with us hopeless morons on the Internet. "Ora et labora!" Chris P.S.: These attempts to support religion with science remind me of a funny attempt I recently read on another list (funny because the writer was deadly serious about it and was NOT intending a parody!!): # Superb "peer reviewed" references attesting to the credentials and # credibility of Jesus are found in the Old Testaments prophets who lived # and prophesied at least 700 years before the birth of Jesus. The lives # not merely the livelihood of these prophets depended on the accurate # fulfillment of both short and long term prophesies. A false prophecy was # punishable by death and several of these prophets lived to a ripe old # age. Some 300 of these prophecies made by several prophets(the ultimate # peer reviewers!) are said to apply to Jesus and at least 30 of them # clearly describe occurrences in the life of Jesus and thus provide # flawless peer reviews (note: the credibility of the O.T. is also superb # since the books were faithfully and accurately copied and transcribed by # generations of scribes and there is little doubt as to their accuracy or # authenticity). # Applying scientific logic, mathematics and statistics, the compound # probability of 35 future events applying to one
Re: (Humor) Microsoft Democracy(TM)
Satire aside, it is obvious that fully developed direct electronic democracy is just a few years away. And we can expect the computer companies to develop special software to accommodate it. And we can expect the computer hackers to develop special software to fake the votes. Like video telephones, electronic voting is a technical solution that won't be feasible due to the "human factor". Yes, you're right, it could only worked if power and privilages were not involved in the decision-making process and all the channels of information were totally transparent for everyone. Guess what - this means an alternative social structure... Eva --Chris
Re: (Humor) Microsoft Democracy(TM)
FWP wrote: Satire aside, it is obvious that fully developed direct electronic democracy is just a few years away. And we can expect the computer companies to develop special software to accommodate it. And we can expect the computer hackers to develop special software to fake the votes. Like video telephones, electronic voting is a technical solution that won't be feasible due to the "human factor". --Chris
Re: (Humor) Microsoft Democracy(TM)
Satire aside, it is obvious that fully developed direct electronic democracy is just a few years away. And we can expect the computer companies to develop special software to accommodate it. And we can expect the computer hackers to develop special software to fake the votes. Like video telephones, electronic voting is a technical solution that won't be feasible due to the "human factor". Yes, you're right, it could only worked if power and privilages were not involved in the decision-making process and all the channels of information were totally transparent for everyone. Guess what - this means an alternative social structure... Eva I guess we'll have to wait till we get to heaven. Throughout human history, many social structures have been tried, and power and privilege have existed in all of them. I fail to understand how can anyone can believe that our essential nature as humans - part angel, part brute, part compassionate, part cruel, part intelligent and thoughful, part stupid and cruel, essentially tribal - can be changed simply by altering the institutions through which we work as societies. How much proof do we need that we are what we are? Ed Weick
PLEASE PRINT THIS OUT AND TAPE IT TO YOUR REFRIGERATOR!
- Original Message - From: Durant [EMAIL PROTECTED] So how do you decide who's having a grip on reality and the best solution without having all the options and reasoning offered listened to? I have told you at least 40 TIMES in the last few years. Now, PLEASE PRINT THIS OUT AND TAPE IT TO YOUR REFRIGERATOR! The scientific method is the ONLY WAY to know the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this: 1 Observe some aspect of the universe. 2 Invent a theory that is consistent with what you have observed. 3 Use the theory to make predictions. 4 Test those predictions by experiments or further observations. 5 Modify the theory in the light of your results. Go to step 3. [ http://www.xnet.com/~blatura/skep_1.html ] Although not normally thought of as "science", these are the same steps that are taken to develop most contingency plans (i.e., fire and police rescues, military exercises, LIFE BOAT DRILLS, etc.) In short, there are only two kinds of information: "scientific" and "other". Only "scientific" information can save the passengers of the Titanic. Two days from now Eva -- when you have forgotten this conversation -- please visit your refrigerator for enlightement. Jay
Democracy is the opiate of the masses.
Jan: I know one thing for certain: it's not you and people who harbour such ideas, going to save the world, you just make things more difficult for Jan has political ambitions and provides a good study of the political character. We notice at once that the political character can not actually admit the Titanic is indeed sinking, because that would put him in the untenable position of having to supply a solution -- which he obviously can't do. The democratic process is best thought of as "government by popularity contest". And since, as Lord Russell (and many others) have pointed out, the certainty of a lie is more popular than the uncertainty of the truth, the democratic process selects for the best liars. In our society, the political character must excel at lies -- excel at doubletalk and "doublethink" -- in order to win his popularity contest: "His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which canceled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself - that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink." -- George Orwell, 1984 In our society, the function of the political character is to not to actually solve problems -- our Founding Fathers reserved "problem solving" for the moneyed-class. Madison even went so far as to boast that "the true distinction" between ancient regimes and the proposed experiment in government "lies in the total exclusion of the people in their collective capacity." http://dieoff.com/page168.htm ] In our society, the function of the political character is to simply reassure and calm the common herd animals with soothing, meaningless sounds. To paraphrase Marx: "Democracy is the opiate of the masses." Jay
Genetic Hazard Reassurance Fund
Rather than argue the merits of the case for or against genetic modification, why not create a Genetic Hazard Reassurance Fund? Nationally, regionally, internationally? We are repeatedly reassured that genetically modified food is completely safe. There is, therefore, absolutely zero risk for those biotech corporations who hold this view to underwrite a large fund. To the extent that government shares this view, it could participate in the fund also. The fund would only be called upon in the event of proven hazardous genetic consequences -- when it would be used to indemnify victims generously. Since there is absolutely zero risk for the corporations (as proven by their scientists) they should have no hesitation in guaranteeing indemnification of the order of a million pounds per person affected, for example -- since according to them such consequences will never arise. Such underwriting of risk would be a public relations gesture demonstrating that the corporations were prepared to place their profits and viability at risk. This approach would be better than endeavouring to argue the case because, as with nuclear power station safety, it is not the arguments that persuade but the incidents. Biotech is awaiting its Chernobyl and Three Mile Island incidents. But since for the biotech corporations there is not the remotest chance of such incidents happening (as was argued so vigorously by the nuclear power corporations), why not encourage the biotech establish a large Genetic Hazard Reassurance Fund? Those with insurance skills could usefully draft out the terms of such a fund for comment by biotech corporations -- unless the corporations care to draft one themselves. The fund might also envisage the equivalent of the "decommissioning" cost of nuclear power stations -- namely the costs of removing unwanted genetic modifications from the environment -- although this situation, according to them, will of course never arise. It is time that those patenting innovations should be held directly responsible for the hazardous consequences of that innovation -- but without inhibiting initiatives of whose safety they are convinced. As with large lotteries, the risk is effectively exported to others who should be inidividually rewarded if they become victims of the innovation. ** Anthony Judge Director, Communications and Research Union of International Associations Rue Washington 40 B-1050 Brussels, BELGIUM Tel:(32 2) 640.18.08 Fax:(32 2) 643 61 99 WWW: http://www.uia.org/ E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] What we need to understand may only be expressible in a language that we do not know **
Re: Genetic Hazard Reassurance Fund
Director Anthony Judge: The concept of creating underwriting for a large Biotech and Genetic Hazards Reassurrance Fund is an noteworthy proposal. The problem I can forsee, is the economics of risk spreading versus economics of risk exposure. Many large corporations would underwrite such a fund, but the political and economic purpose would not be to pervent the risk of exposure to the public, but rather to spread the risk, economically, so that the pool of biotech firms could continue to produce and distribute the risks to which the public or environment would contune to be exposed. What is needed of course, is a multi-national or global set of higher standards, protocols and regulations adopted by all countries by treaty or compact, that would pervent the risks in the first place, or create a precedent for punitive damages, beyond treble damages, to economically punish a transgressing entity to the point of making it unprofitable to continue to produce harm and unacceptable risks. I beleive that both the fund, and the law or international laws are needed, and ought to be developed into a cohesive unified system. This would permit fair research to further scientific knowledge, and promote an economic incentive to comply and also find and fund ways to limit the risk of exposure, rather than just spread the risks, and pass the cost onto the consumer or public. Anthony Judge wrote: Rather than argue the merits of the case for or against genetic modification, why not create a Genetic Hazard Reassurance Fund? Nationally, regionally, internationally? We are repeatedly reassured that genetically modified food is completely safe. There is, therefore, absolutely zero risk for those biotech corporations who hold this view to underwrite a large fund. To the extent that government shares this view, it could participate in the fund also. The fund would only be called upon in the event of proven hazardous genetic consequences -- when it would be used to indemnify victims generously. Since there is absolutely zero risk for the corporations (as proven by their scientists) they should have no hesitation in guaranteeing indemnification of the order of a million pounds per person affected, for example -- since according to them such consequences will never arise. Such underwriting of risk would be a public relations gesture demonstrating that the corporations were prepared to place their profits and viability at risk. This approach would be better than endeavouring to argue the case because, as with nuclear power station safety, it is not the arguments that persuade but the incidents. Biotech is awaiting its Chernobyl and Three Mile Island incidents. But since for the biotech corporations there is not the remotest chance of such incidents happening (as was argued so vigorously by the nuclear power corporations), why not encourage the biotech establish a large Genetic Hazard Reassurance Fund? Those with insurance skills could usefully draft out the terms of such a fund for comment by biotech corporations -- unless the corporations care to draft one themselves. The fund might also envisage the equivalent of the "decommissioning" cost of nuclear power stations -- namely the costs of removing unwanted genetic modifications from the environment -- although this situation, according to them, will of course never arise. It is time that those patenting innovations should be held directly responsible for the hazardous consequences of that innovation -- but without inhibiting initiatives of whose safety they are convinced. As with large lotteries, the risk is effectively exported to others who should be inidividually rewarded if they become victims of the innovation. ** Anthony Judge Director, Communications and Research Union of International Associations Rue Washington 40 B- What we need to understand may only be expressible in a language that we do not know ** -- ROBERT G. LORGE LORGE LORGE LAW FIRM POST OFFICE BOX 14704 MADISON WISCONSIN 53714-0704 TELEPHONE OR FAX: 608-244-0608 http://www.lawfirm.net MAILTO:[EMAIL PROTECTED] HR PBIf you have any questions please A HREF="MAILTO:[EMAIL PROTECTED]"e-mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A/B/P PBOr try my webpage at A HREF="http://www.lawfirm.net"http://www.lawfirm.net/A/B/P
Re: (Humor) Microsoft Democracy(TM)
Eva wrote: And we can expect the computer hackers to develop special software to fake the votes. Like video telephones, electronic voting is a technical solution that won't be feasible due to the "human factor". Yes, you're right, it could only worked if power and privilages were not involved in the decision-making process and all the channels of information were totally transparent for everyone. Guess what - this means an alternative social structure... Would anyone _want_ all the channels of information to be totally transparent for everyone ? Would you want that everyone can see what you vote ? (Given your exhibitionism on the list, it seems you do, but you can't seriously expect that from everyone.) Anyway, you missed the point. Even if "all the channels of information were totally transparent for everyone", there would be technical ways to fake the electronic votes. And what about those without internet access ? Would you exclude them from voting ? You elitist, you. ;-) Feasibility and transparency aside, electronic voting is the "prototype" of an Orwellian "1984" society... (not only if the software is from M$) --Chris
Re: (Humor) Microsoft Democracy(TM)
Yes, you're right, it could only worked if power and privilages were not involved in the decision-making process and all the channels of information were totally transparent for everyone. Guess what - this means an alternative social structure... Eva I guess we'll have to wait till we get to heaven. Throughout human history, many social structures have been tried, and power and privilege have existed in all of them. I fail to understand how can anyone can believe that our essential nature as humans - part angel, part brute, part compassionate, part cruel, part intelligent and thoughful, part stupid and cruel, essentially tribal - can be changed simply by altering the institutions through which we work as societies. How much proof do we need that we are what we are? Classless society happened to humans for 100K + years, our relatively short written history chronicled only the class society that also happened to us - with it's exploitation, privilege, cruelty, etc. I cannot see why we couldn't make it again - this time because we want to and can. We all prefer to be intelligent, trying to be compassionate, thoughtful etc. and when we cannot control those animal behaviours we call ourself "inhumane" or even "animal" so why should should we aim to live down to this model if it is not absolutely necessary? Who says it is? I don't know about you, but in my getting to be longish life I haven't met people who aimed at the "animal" category. And I travelled quite widely. Eva Ed Weick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PLEASE PRINT THIS OUT AND TAPE IT TO YOUR REFRIGERATOR!
So how do you know which is the best scientific solution if there is no chance of listening to all the options? You are maybe not aware of this, but often scientists arrive at different solutions, especially in circumstances when there isn't sufficient data due to the circumstances. Stop being stroppy with me, you could be wrong, and my enquiry is valid. Otherwise you wouln't be getting all worked up. Eva (BA BSc(hon), PGCE, scientist even.) So how do you decide who's having a grip on reality and the best solution without having all the options and reasoning offered listened to? I have told you at least 40 TIMES in the last few years. Now, PLEASE PRINT THIS OUT AND TAPE IT TO YOUR REFRIGERATOR! The scientific method is the ONLY WAY to know the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this: 1 Observe some aspect of the universe. 2 Invent a theory that is consistent with what you have observed. 3 Use the theory to make predictions. 4 Test those predictions by experiments or further observations. 5 Modify the theory in the light of your results. Go to step 3. [ http://www.xnet.com/~blatura/skep_1.html ] Although not normally thought of as "science", these are the same steps that are taken to develop most contingency plans (i.e., fire and police rescues, military exercises, LIFE BOAT DRILLS, etc.) In short, there are only two kinds of information: "scientific" and "other". Only "scientific" information can save the passengers of the Titanic. Two days from now Eva -- when you have forgotten this conversation -- please visit your refrigerator for enlightement. Jay [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Democracy is the opiate of the masses.
I don't know why Jay wastes so much energy on his scientocracy scheme which just ain't never gonna happen. Unfortunately, I agree, dieoff could happen. So Jay's scheme is much like announcing on the Titanic that there will be a forum on improving vessel designs. In the circumstances, it would be much more practical to work with what you've got. So far as I know, democracy is working passably well in some countries such as the Scandinavian nations and the Netherlands. So maybe Jay's notion of democracy is limited to what's found in the USA--and I'll admit that what we have in Canada is only modestly better and has been deteriorating. It is a cheap copout to claim that politicians by their very nature are liars. I have met a certain number who, I believed, were public-spirited people trying to make a difference in their community. So why doesn't the political process work better in Canada and the USA and many other countries? I believe a large part of the answer is that we allow corporations to fund political parties and their election campaigns. The people at the top in a party end up not wanting to rock the boat for their so-generous donors. In some nations a great part of the election campaign is financed out of public funds, so that elected officials will not be beholden. I know it won't be easy to bring about a change like this. But it's possible. An 89-year old grandmother is walking coast-to-coast in the USA to promote a petition for campaign finance reform. One posting on this list mentioned that George Soros is bankrolling some efforts in that direction. It could happen that our democracy could become ... more democratic. Ranting at people that they have to set up a scientocracy is asking for the impossible to happen. Victor Milne FIGHT THE BASTARDS! An anti-neoconservative website at http://www3.sympatico.ca/pat-vic/pat-vic/ LONESOME ACRES RIDING STABLE at http://www3.sympatico.ca/pat-vic/ -Original Message- From: Jay Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Futurework [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: February 24, 1999 11:51 AM Subject: Democracy is the opiate of the masses. Jan: I know one thing for certain: it's not you and people who harbour such ideas, going to save the world, you just make things more difficult for Jan has political ambitions and provides a good study of the political character. We notice at once that the political character can not actually admit the Titanic is indeed sinking, because that would put him in the untenable position of having to supply a solution -- which he obviously can't do. The democratic process is best thought of as "government by popularity contest". And since, as Lord Russell (and many others) have pointed out, the certainty of a lie is more popular than the uncertainty of the truth, the democratic process selects for the best liars. In our society, the political character must excel at lies -- excel at doubletalk and "doublethink" -- in order to win his popularity contest: "His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which canceled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself - that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink." -- George Orwell, 1984 In our society, the function of the political character is to not to actually solve problems -- our Founding Fathers reserved "problem solving" for the moneyed-class. Madison even went so far as to boast that "the true distinction" between ancient regimes and the proposed experiment in government "lies in the total exclusion of the people in their collective capacity." http://dieoff.com/page168.htm ] In our society, the function of the political character is to simply reassure and calm the common herd animals with soothing, meaningless sounds. To paraphrase Marx: "Democracy is the opiate of the masses." Jay
Re: (Humor) Microsoft Democracy(TM)
Eva: Classless society happened to humans for 100K + years, our relatively short written history chronicled only the class society that also happened to us - with it's exploitation, privilege, cruelty, etc. You can believe that if you like, but I doubt very much that the first 100K of human were without class and cruelty. But then of course none of us were present, so how can we know? Incidentally, there is a very good novel written on the theme of prehistoric cleverness and cruelty -- Willian Golding's "The Inheritors", which deals with an encounter between Neanderthal and modern man. Golding is better known for "Lord of the Flies", which carries a somewhat similar message, though the setting is modern. Believe me, I too would like to believe that a series of social transformations, such as going from hunting and gathering to agriculture and thence to industry, accounts for the class system and resultant exploitation. But I really have no evidence that exploitation did not exist in earlier systems. And not only that. It is people themselves who brought about the transformations, and for their own ends. That is, the class system was not imposed on us by aliens from outer space. We created it, probably a very long time ago, and amplified and broadened it each time some new innovation made it possible to do so. Hunters were displaced by farmers, and farmers by industrialists, and each time those who were displaced became the lumpenproletariat who had to work for the farmers or the industrialists. Perhaps the driving cause is our need to invent and innovate, but that is something that we can't help doing. It is a consequence of having large brains and opposable thumbs, or some such thing. Ed Weick
Re: Democracy is the opiate of the masses.
- Original Message - From: Franklin Wayne Poley [EMAIL PROTECTED] What alternative would you propose? How about if you were to become King Jay I ? Would that work better? A careful analysis of a problem is the first step in solving that problem. If "democracy" is government by the common herd animals, then you don't have it now. Once you see things as they really are -- a plutocracy -- then you can start making constructive suggestions. Jay
Re: Democracy is the opiate of the masses.
- Original Message - From: Victor Milne [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is a cheap copout to claim that politicians by their very nature are liars. I have met a certain number who, I believed, were public-spirited people trying to make a difference in their community. Trying to make a difference? So what? People have been trying to make a difference ever since people existed. And today, our water laps the portholes of our Titanic. When one's ship is on its way down, the only thing that matters is results. Rather than wasting time on a make-believe political system, wouldn't it make more sense to petition the rich directly for relief? Jay
Re: Democracy is the opiate of the masses.
On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, Jay Hanson wrote: - Original Message - From: Franklin Wayne Poley [EMAIL PROTECTED] What alternative would you propose? How about if you were to become King Jay I ? Would that work better? A careful analysis of a problem is the first step in solving that problem. If "democracy" is government by the common herd animals, then you don't have it now. Is that how you regard your neighbours? People on this list? Are you better? Once you see things as they really are -- a plutocracy -- then you can start making constructive suggestions. Are you one of the plutocrats? An aspiring plutocrat? King, maybe. FWP. *** [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send "Subscribe Future.Cities" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] See http://users.uniserve.com/~culturex ***
Re: Democracy is the opiate of the masses.
- Original Message - From: Franklin Wayne Poley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is that how you regard your neighbours? People on this list? Are you better? ... and the good ship Titanic takes her final plunge into the icy blackness. Our final scene is of a panicing herd -- arms waving and running in circles -- totally preoccupied with the political correctness of it all. God! What a waste of time. I am leaving this list for a while. C U later, Jay
