RE: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites

2004-01-13 Thread Harry Pollard








Ray,



You are good at
throwing in emotive words. It doesn't help thinking, but is surely produces
lots of mood and feeling. One of the descriptions of greed is Reprehensible
acquisitiveness; insatiable desire for wealth (personified as one of the deadly
sins).



Did I ever
suggest that? Never! In fact when I pointed out to Brad and your desire might
be to produce the perfect poem, he got a little annoyed. He too saw only the
worst.



Yet, we needn't
get so esoteric. We need to eat today and we need to eat tomorrow. We are
likely to need to eat every day until the end of our lives. No matter the food
we eat today - a desire for food continues throughout our lives. You would no
doubt call that greedy.



People' s
desires are many. Probably the only one we can be sure all of is survival. If
we do not survive the rest is silence. From thereon, our desires stretch in
front of us. No doubt they form a hierarchy in which some desires are more
attractive, or more necessary, than others. As we fulfill a desire, another one
is likely to pop open in front of us. There is probably not much that is more
attractive than Man's unlimited desires as he crests the hill and finds beyond
it another hill -- and beyond that another.



Incidentally,
the hierarchy was an Ayn Rand contention.



We call the
brain damaged person a vegetable because he has no desires. Our desires are the
motivating force behind our actions. I have no desire to put my leg up on a
ballet bar. I do have a desire to play the violin, or piano, or any musical
instrument. But, it is way down in my hierarchy of desires. I prefer to needle
you because youre worth it.



For young
people to go through the agonizing stretching that goes with ballet, they must
be a very greedy for fame and fortune. What a terrible thing! They should spend
their time learning to cook doughnuts and a while they are opening the oven
they should consider how much easier that is then accomplishing a balletic
maneuver.



I doubt I could
get through an initial demi-pliƩ without breaking an ankle.



I don't say we
have unlimited desires. I observe it. Your major problem is that
you subjectively see rather than objectively observe.



As for our
 seeking to satisfy our desires with the least exertion this is so
much a matter of common sense that almost it brooks no argument. Without this
sensible attitude there would have been no reason to invent the wheel, or the
yoke, or a better mousetrap.



Also, the less
time and exertion we spend on accomplishing something -- the more time and
exertion we have to accomplish something else. Fits in well with the
unlimited desires assumption, doesn't it?



Ray, you don't
get it. And while you allow emotional attitudes to obstruct your clear thinking,
I fear you never will. Nevertheless, I'll keep working on your underbrush



Harry





 
Henry George School of Social Science 
of Los Angeles 
Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 
Tel: 818 352-4141--Fax: 818 353-2242 
http://haledward.home.comcast.net 
 
 











From: Ray Evans
Harrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004
6:42 AM
To: Harry Pollard;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites







No Harry, you don't get it. It is in the
attitude (mood + feeling = action)of the language. First you
say people are unlimited in their greed and then you say that they try to
satisfy their greed with the least possible effort.
If the design is static that is one thing but if it is an issue of process and
direction that is another. Your model is a 19th century mechanical
static model rather than a 21st centurydynamic one.(Not
your land use model by the way, just your model for human work.)












If you had taken that ballet bar you would understand the
issue of antagonist motion and intent. Two muscles move a bone to
do work. The ideal is to have as perfect a balance between tension
in both muscles to supply the energy to do the work. In a
waythe specifics of what you say are left over from those incomplete
bowing lessons on the violin. If you had completed them then you
would have understood intent beyond the mechanics of the bones.  Too much
relaxation doesn't motivatelife while too much tension creates a Charley
Horse or locked muscle. If the muscle is damaged and you must do
therapy then you are forced to start from themost exertion
and build tension or as the Therapists say strength. If
the muscle is normal then you begin from an excess of tension and energy i.e.
enthusiasm and relax and find the efficiency. 











But that is not the American system. The problem
withthe Americansystem is not that it needs to relax but
thatit is like a fragmented computer thatneeds
defragging. That is like a nervous system that isn't connecting to
the muscles. If you wish to use the relaxation routeto
efficiencyyou must have

RE: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites

2004-01-09 Thread Harry Pollard
Chris,

Nothing wrong with heredity.

It depends on how you got what you leave.

Harry


Henry George School of Social Science
of Los Angeles
Box 655  Tujunga  CA  91042
Tel: 818 352-4141  --  Fax: 818 353-2242
http://haledward.home.comcast.net

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Christoph Reuss
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 4:13 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites

Harry Pollard wrote:
 Considerable difference between land and buildings.

Houses are usually bought together with the land they're built on
(and surroundings).  Now, if the land costs 10-100 times more
than
it should, just so a few heirs can reap billions, then this has a
considerable impact on house prices (and also on everything
else!).
This is what makes the high subsidies to house construction
necessary
-- paying the excessive land prices instead of house construction
itself!
(which the people could afford _without_ subsidies)

It seems that the issue of excessive heredity is a taboo issue
even
on this list...  the BI proponents prefer to tinker with symptoms
and band-aids instead of addressing the basic causes of
injustice.



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 1/2/2004
 

___
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework


Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites

2004-01-07 Thread Ray Evans Harrell



No Harry, you don't get it. It is in the 
attitude (mood + feeling = action)of the language. First you 
say people are unlimited in their greed and then you say that they try to 
satisfy their greed with the least possible 
effort. If the design is static that is one thing 
but if it is an issue of process and direction that is another. Your 
model is a 19th century mechanical static model rather than a 21st 
centurydynamic one.(Not your land use model by the way, 
just your model for human work.) 

If you had taken that ballet bar you would understand the 
issue of antagonist motion and intent. Two muscles move a bone to do 
work. The ideal is to have as perfect a balance between tension in 
both muscles to supply the energy to do the work. In a waythe 
specifics of what you say are left over from those incomplete bowing lessons on 
the violin. If you had completed them then you would have understood 
intent beyond the mechanics of the bones.  Too much relaxation doesn't 
motivatelife while too much tension creates a Charley Horse or locked 
muscle. If the muscle is damaged and you must do therapy then you 
are forced to start from "themost exertion" and build tension or as the 
Therapists say "strength". If the muscle is normal then you begin 
from an excess of tension and energy i.e. enthusiasm and relax and find the 
efficiency. 

But that is not the American system. The 
problem withthe Americansystem is not that it needs to relax but 
thatit is like a fragmented computer thatneeds 
defragging. That is like a nervous system that isn't connecting to 
the muscles. If you wish to use the relaxation routeto 
efficiencyyou must have two things. 1. an efficient connection from 
themind through the nervous system to the muscle with sufficient 
nutritional energy and 2. the ability to manipulate tension and relaxation 
in the antagonists.  The intent can be to pull or to 
lengthen. In an alreadyprepared system if you wish to 
get any work done then you come from above in the levels of tension (enthusiasm) 
and relax down into it.From a higher tension down to the 
ideal not from an implied lower tension reaching up. 

In your model you use the word "unlimited" and 
"desires". The definition of "Unlimited Desires" is greed and 
greed is chaotic if unfocused and psychopathic if focused i.e. it has no 
morality. So your energy source is either chaotic i.e. 
fragmented or focused and criminal. That is why Martha Stewart is on 
trial as was Bill Gates and the economic community doesn't get it because they 
all suffer from a mild form of psycho-pathology induced by a philosophy of 
cynicism. They are basically Sociopaths getting away with what ever 
the system says they may. They are disconnected from their 
moral center and inducing chaos. Chaos is creative but so are Wolves 
in the environment. Chaos culls the herd as do wolves. 
Steven Hawking would have been culled in that model and Einstein would have 
never survived the first few years when he was gestating. 


Dancers say you use "extension tension" built in the 
specific focus of technique. As my first assumption 
states. "Everything in reality begins with the body" because 
everything we know about reality is through the filter of the body's perceptions 
and the history of culture. if either are incomplete then you don't 
have the tools to work much less think about work. The model for 
work and energy comes from the efficient kinetic structures of the 
body,. Your assumptions are static rather than 
dynamic. i have to go to work. You should go take 
a ballet class and I don't have time to train your perceptions. We 
both are running out of time. At our ages it would however help your 
brain if you picked up the violin again, took a ballet class (not yoga, you need 
rhythm) or even singing lessons. Join Keith in the choir. 


REH 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Harry Pollard 
  To: 'Ray Evans Harrell' ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 4:51 
  AM
  Subject: RE: [Futurework] FW Basic Income 
  sites
  
  
  Ray,
  
  You still 
  havent got it.
  
  The second 
  assumption doesnt say do as little as 
possible.
  
  It doesnt 
  imply: Trying 
  to do just enough to get by is the road to 
  laziness.
  
  It simply says we try to be 
  efficient in satisfying our desires with the least 
  exertion.
  
  But our unlimited desires keep 
  driving us on, and if we are efficient we will be able to satisfy more of 
  them.
  
  Youll get it eventually  but you 
  have a little underbrush clearing to do first.
  
  Harry
  
   Henry 
  George School of Social Science of 
  Los Angeles 
  Box 
  655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 
  818 352-4141--Fax: 818 353-2242 http://haledward.home.comcast.net   
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECT

RE: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites

2004-01-06 Thread Harry Pollard








Charles,



I didnt
exactly say that.



(he
suggests that in order to get what we need and want we will need to work for
ten thousand years.)



I said the possibility of machines doing
all our work for us is a fantasy that wont take place for a thousand or
ten thousand years. I know people dont want to work because they stop
working at every opportunity. Even if they are doing something they like doing
they try to get it accomplished with the least exertion. In that way, they can accomplish
more of what they like to do.



Mental and physical exertion is all we
have. If we dont husband it, we will become fatigued, or sleep. Then we
cant do anything. So, it is quite sensible to learn how to use less
exertion to do things.



There is the influence of the Protestant
Ethic that makes us feel uncomfortable if we get something worthwhile for
nothing. We feel we aught to earn it.



But, essentially, we try to avoid
exertion if we can.



Look around, observe, but also check
yourself.



Harry





 
Henry George School of Social Science 
of Los Angeles 
Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 
Tel: 818 352-4141--Fax: 818 353-2242 
http://haledward.home.comcast.net 
 
 











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Charles Brass
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004
11:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites







Harry Pollard said:











People don't want to work. They want the
results of working. Until all of us have everything we want, there will
be a need for production and service - and satiety is a long time away.
Service provision is the hallmark of an advanced economy. We are a long way
from finding the services we would like. There should be a constant demand for
people to work - a demand that is never
satisfied. The idea of machines taking over requiring us to sit with
folded hands is fantasy - and will be for a thousand or ten thousand years.






This is a somewhat confused and contradictory
position. On one hand Harry asserts that people don't want to work, then
he suggests that in order to get what we need and want we will need to work for
ten thousand years.











I suggest people do want to work. They want to make a
contribution, to be busy, to feel that they are engaged in something meaningful
and useful.






The problem is that most of what the Industrial Revolution provided under the
name 'work' was meaningless, or dehumanising.











We have come a long way, however, since the invention of the
steam engine (though you might not know it they way much of the discourse
happens today) - and we can now provide people with all the meaning and purpose
they require, and all the goods and services they require. 











All we have to do is think a bit laterally, and stop
believing that 'the marketplace' (and the institutions which flow from the
marketplace) create wealth and value - and believing that the best people can
do is capture some of this value for themselves by 'working' in the
marketplace.











Now, I know that there is much debate about the meaning and
nature of 'the marketplace' on this list (yes I read it all even if I only
comment occasionally). So I must say I have no problem with the notion of
markets as places where prices are cleared - but I certainly do have a problem
with our (mostly implicit) belief that marketplaces are critical to the wealth
and value in the world in the twentyfirst century.











Work is getting something done. A job is getting done
what someone else wants. We could now organise ourselves to get done what
we want, in ways we want - but we find it hard to confront the thinking errors
we have made in the past.























Charles Brass














---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 1/2/2004
 

  

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 1/2/2004
 
___
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework


RE: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites

2004-01-06 Thread Harry Pollard
Ray,

You believe we like to work, but when we don't like to work, you
call it drudgery.

If we liked work, we would be doing things the same way we have
always done them. We avoid work (actually exertion) and thereby
get more done with less time and energy and then have time for
music and suchlike.

Ask the peasant who toils from dawn to dusk whether he likes
work. He'll tell you. 

We like to satisfy our desires and that is why we work - because
we must. If our work coincides with what we like doing then we
get a greater reward from what we do. If we can be happy at what
we do, that is good too.

But, tell someone they can choose to get the same salary but have
every afternoon off do you really think they will say no?


Harry


Henry George School of Social Science
of Los Angeles
Box 655  Tujunga  CA  91042
Tel: 818 352-4141  --  Fax: 818 353-2242
http://haledward.home.comcast.net

 

-Original Message-
From: Ray Evans Harrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 8:02 PM
To: Harry Pollard; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites

Arthur,  I believe this post makes clear the division between
what Harry has
been saying and what I believe so if I may simply say.   I
believe that
people do want to work from childhood up.   That the results of
work are
often a surprise, like Mountain climbing.That the problem is
to plan for
the human drive to work and to use it wisely and balance it with
the other
elements of life as well.   But my daughter taught me that people
love to
work at what they want to work at.   But wanting to work is
instinctual.
Wise work is grown.The work will tell you what the result
will be as you
do the work.   Real significant work is usually a surprise and
mistakes
often open doorways into success.Drudgery is the pollution of
the drive
to work and we struggle to escape it but real work.   We all love
that
unless we have been ruined by the world.

REH

 

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 1/2/2004
 

___
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework


RE: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites

2004-01-06 Thread Cordell . Arthur
Harry,

When you teach, is it work?  Or play?  Or both?

Would you engage in that activity if you were not paid?

arthur

-Original Message-
From: Harry Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 5, 2004 7:54 PM
To: 'Thomas Lunde'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites


Tom,

You said:

Though I applaud your stated goal, it sounds like the old
survival of the
fittest argument to me with slightly different rules.  In other
words, if a
person produces nothing of value according the current market,
or if for a year or two he is unemployed due to circumstances
beyond his control - well, no bounties for you my friend - please
go die somewhere

If a person produces nothing of value, why should he able to
claim anything from me. I would be happy (say) to provide him
with food if he provides me with clothes. But, if he cannot
produce anything I want, why should I give him anything of mine?

Well, it might be charitable for me to work an extra few hours a
week and give the result to him, but this has nothing to do with
justice.

It is perhaps charity. But, charity has nothing to do with
justice. However, perhaps I won't give him anything (because I
don't want to).

He needn't worry. You will give him food, clothing and shelter.

Won't you?

If a person is unable to work because he is ill, or something,
then that's all right because you will support him. If, however,
he cannot find work because the economic system makes it
impossible, I suggest we get to work to find out why work (which
is always needed because there is so much to so) doesn't seem to
be available.

Of course if we spend all our time slapping palliatives on the
problems, we won't have time to think about why some people are
in trouble. Anyway, giving charity does give us a certain sense
of well-being and perhaps even a trace of superiority.

If you do nothing to find out why such societal problems occur,
you are certainly maintaining injustice.

If you force me to contribute to the unfortunate people in your
examples you are also committing an injustice.

Incidentally, the Basic Income as it is offered is an obvious
palliative. It does nothing to lessen the injustice that spurs
support for it, but worse, it diverts attention to the real
causes of poverty and deprivation.

Of course, there is no God of Work. However, nothing can be
produced by us without exertion (or Labor, or Work).

We don't like to exert and do so only because we must - if we are
to get the things we want. That may be the psychological pressure
for us to think longingly of machines doing all the work for us,
or a Basic Income that will give us what we need without working.

But, I'll leave the psychological analysis to those who love to
do it. 


Harry


Henry George School of Social Science
of Los Angeles
Box 655  Tujunga  CA  91042
Tel: 818 352-4141  --  Fax: 818 353-2242
http://haledward.home.comcast.net

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thomas
Lunde
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 2:45 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites


 Tom,
 
 As you have probably gathered, I have been working for most of
 the last 50 years to obtain justice for all. Justice doesn't
mean
 a chicken in every pot, or a BI. IT means no more than that a
 person will keep what he produces and shares equally the
bounties
 of nature.

Thomas:

Though I applaud your stated goal, it sounds like the ol survival
of the
fittest argument to me with slightly different rules.  In other
words, if a
person produces nothing of value according the current market,
or if for a year or two he is unemployed due to circumstances
beyond his control - well, no bounties for you my friend - please
go die somewhere.

 So, the problem with some of your remarks is that there are
 consequences.

 Such as the threshold, something that occurs often in economics
 but is given a variety of names.

 If one gets $900 for no work - but $1,100 (net after taxes
$800)
 if you work - why should you work? I might choose unemployment
 plus welfare as a preferred alternative (perhaps with some
 off-tax work under the counter). This is done everywhere now.

Thomas:

Ah, the God of Work, how will we ever dethrone him.  I would work
because I had aspirations to have more than the Basic Income.

snip



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 1/2/2004
 

___
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
___
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework


RE: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites

2004-01-06 Thread Harry Pollard








Arthur,



Change that to evidence
and commonsense suggest that machines taking over requiring us to sit with
folded hands is fantasy. Where is your evidence that something different may
occur? Of course you can conjecture, But then you can conjecture about God.



Where did I say
organized work will last a thousand years?



I think you are
the theologian calling the non-theologian black.



Harry





 
Henry George School of Social Science 
of Los Angeles 
Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 
Tel: 818 352-4141--Fax: 818 353-2242 
http://haledward.home.comcast.net 
 
 











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004
7:55 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites







Bravo Charles.











Harry's theology is that organized work
will last a thousand years, maybe 10 thousand. A belief system.











We have to begin the transition of society
from one of full employment to one of full engagement (and this would include
all sorts of work --including the arts)











arthur











-Original Message-
From: Charles Brass
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004
2:08 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites



Harry Pollard said:











People don't want to work. They want the
results of working. Until all of us have everything we want, there will
be a need for production and service - and satiety is a long time away. Service
provision is the hallmark of an advanced economy. We are a long way from
finding the services we would like. There should be a constant demand for
people to work - a demand that is never
satisfied. The idea of machines taking over requiring us to sit with
folded hands is fantasy - and will be for a thousand or ten thousand years.






This is a somewhat confused and contradictory
position. On one hand Harry asserts that people don't want to work, then
he suggests that in order to get what we need and want we will need to work for
ten thousand years.











I suggest people do want to work. They want to make a
contribution, to be busy, to feel that they are engaged in something meaningful
and useful.






The problem is that most of what the Industrial Revolution provided under the
name 'work' was meaningless, or dehumanising.











We have come a long way, however, since the invention of the
steam engine (though you might not know it they way much of the discourse
happens today) - and we can now provide people with all the meaning and purpose
they require, and all the goods and services they require. 











All we have to do is think a bit laterally, and stop
believing that 'the marketplace' (and the institutions which flow from the
marketplace) create wealth and value - and believing that the best people can
do is capture some of this value for themselves by 'working' in the
marketplace.











Now, I know that there is much debate about the meaning and
nature of 'the marketplace' on this list (yes I read it all even if I only
comment occasionally). So I must say I have no problem with the notion of
markets as places where prices are cleared - but I certainly do have a problem
with our (mostly implicit) belief that marketplaces are critical to the wealth
and value in the world in the twentyfirst century.











Work is getting something done. A job is getting done
what someone else wants. We could now organise ourselves to get done what
we want, in ways we want - but we find it hard to confront the thinking errors
we have made in the past.























Charles Brass
Chairman
futures foundation
phone:1300 727328
(International 61 3 9459 0244)
fax: 61 3 9459 0344
PO Box 122
Fairfield
3078
www.futurists.net.au











the mission of the futures foundation is:
...to engage all Australians in creating a better future...
















---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 1/2/2004
 

  

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 1/2/2004
 ___
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework


RE: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites

2004-01-05 Thread Cordell . Arthur



Because, I think, we are frustrated. For many of us the facts are 
in and the next policy steps are clear. Res ipsa 
loquitor.

But 
which levers do we push to begin the move toward BI? To begin the 
discussion of what future for work?

Far 
easier to comment and throw darts at one or another politicians or political 
actions. 

How do 
you see things from your part of the world? Constructive suggestions are 
clealy needed as you can see.

arthur



  -Original Message-From: Charles Brass 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, January 5, 2004 1:48 
  AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: 
  [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites
  Arthur and Ray Harrell replied to my recent post 
  about the difference between the future of work and the future of 
  employment.
  
  As part of his reply Arthur said:
  
  We 
  have to begin the transition of society from one of full employment to one of 
  full engagement (and this would include all sorts of work --including the 
  arts)
  
  What I muse about is why we are discussing the 
  potential assassination of Tony Blair on this site, 
  and not how to bring about the sort of transition which Arthur proposes - and 
  I heartily endorse?
  
  
  
  
  Charles BrassChairmanfutures 
  foundationphone:1300 727328(International 61 3 9459 0244)fax: 61 3 
  9459 0344PO Box 122Fairfield 3078www.futurists.net.au
  
  the mission of the futures foundation 
  is:"...to engage all Australians in creating a better 
  future..."
___
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework


RE: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites

2004-01-05 Thread Harry Pollard
Tom,

You said:

Though I applaud your stated goal, it sounds like the old
survival of the
fittest argument to me with slightly different rules.  In other
words, if a
person produces nothing of value according the current market,
or if for a year or two he is unemployed due to circumstances
beyond his control - well, no bounties for you my friend - please
go die somewhere

If a person produces nothing of value, why should he able to
claim anything from me. I would be happy (say) to provide him
with food if he provides me with clothes. But, if he cannot
produce anything I want, why should I give him anything of mine?

Well, it might be charitable for me to work an extra few hours a
week and give the result to him, but this has nothing to do with
justice.

It is perhaps charity. But, charity has nothing to do with
justice. However, perhaps I won't give him anything (because I
don't want to).

He needn't worry. You will give him food, clothing and shelter.

Won't you?

If a person is unable to work because he is ill, or something,
then that's all right because you will support him. If, however,
he cannot find work because the economic system makes it
impossible, I suggest we get to work to find out why work (which
is always needed because there is so much to so) doesn't seem to
be available.

Of course if we spend all our time slapping palliatives on the
problems, we won't have time to think about why some people are
in trouble. Anyway, giving charity does give us a certain sense
of well-being and perhaps even a trace of superiority.

If you do nothing to find out why such societal problems occur,
you are certainly maintaining injustice.

If you force me to contribute to the unfortunate people in your
examples you are also committing an injustice.

Incidentally, the Basic Income as it is offered is an obvious
palliative. It does nothing to lessen the injustice that spurs
support for it, but worse, it diverts attention to the real
causes of poverty and deprivation.

Of course, there is no God of Work. However, nothing can be
produced by us without exertion (or Labor, or Work).

We don't like to exert and do so only because we must - if we are
to get the things we want. That may be the psychological pressure
for us to think longingly of machines doing all the work for us,
or a Basic Income that will give us what we need without working.

But, I'll leave the psychological analysis to those who love to
do it. 


Harry


Henry George School of Social Science
of Los Angeles
Box 655  Tujunga  CA  91042
Tel: 818 352-4141  --  Fax: 818 353-2242
http://haledward.home.comcast.net

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thomas
Lunde
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 2:45 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites


 Tom,
 
 As you have probably gathered, I have been working for most of
 the last 50 years to obtain justice for all. Justice doesn't
mean
 a chicken in every pot, or a BI. IT means no more than that a
 person will keep what he produces and shares equally the
bounties
 of nature.

Thomas:

Though I applaud your stated goal, it sounds like the ol survival
of the
fittest argument to me with slightly different rules.  In other
words, if a
person produces nothing of value according the current market,
or if for a year or two he is unemployed due to circumstances
beyond his control - well, no bounties for you my friend - please
go die somewhere.

 So, the problem with some of your remarks is that there are
 consequences.

 Such as the threshold, something that occurs often in economics
 but is given a variety of names.

 If one gets $900 for no work - but $1,100 (net after taxes
$800)
 if you work - why should you work? I might choose unemployment
 plus welfare as a preferred alternative (perhaps with some
 off-tax work under the counter). This is done everywhere now.

Thomas:

Ah, the God of Work, how will we ever dethrone him.  I would work
because I had aspirations to have more than the Basic Income.

snip



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 1/2/2004
 

___
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework


Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites

2004-01-04 Thread Ray Evans Harrell



That's better Arthur. Another problem with Harry's 
second assumptionis thatit comes from the bottom up. Do 
as little as possible. Efficiency determines that one should have a 
balance of tension to relaxation in the doing of work and that under energy 
means garbage and that over tension means locking and eventual 
breakdown. But if you want to do something you have to start from 
above the product and not below it. Trying to do just enough to get 
by is the road to laziness and chaos. Coming from above and 
relaxing into the product creates a more efficient balance with a guarantee of 
the correct amount of energy to do the job. Being conservative about 
either end is also wasteful and chaotic. Too much or too little is 
destructive. The creation of a temperate balance is the goal in my 
mind. In voice teaching we say that voices are built from the top 
down and not from the bottom up. Some people use entropy as a 
metaphor. The scientists and Bohm experts on the list might explain that 
better than I can but it seems the same principle. 

REH 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 10:54 
  AM
  Subject: RE: [Futurework] FW Basic Income 
  sites
  
  Bravo Charles.
  
  Harry's theology is that organized work will last a thousand years, 
  maybe 10 thousand. A belief system.
  
  We 
  have to begin the transition of society from one of full employment to one of 
  full engagement (and this would include all sorts of work --including the 
  arts)
  
  arthur
  
  
-Original Message-From: Charles Brass 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 2:08 
AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: 
Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites
Harry Pollard said:

People don't want to work. They 
want the results of working. Until all of us have everything we want, 
there will be a need for production and service - and satiety is a long time 
away. Service provision is the hallmark of an advanced economy. We are 
a long way from finding the services we would like. There should be a 
constant demand for people to work - a demand that is 
neversatisfied. The idea of machines taking over requiring us to 
sit with folded hands is fantasy - and will be for a thousand or ten 
thousand years.
This is a somewhat confused and contradictory 
position. On one hand Harry asserts that people don't want to work, 
then he suggests that in order to get what we need and want we will need to 
work for ten thousand years.

I suggest people do want to work. They 
want to make a contribution, to be busy, to feel that they are engaged in 
something meaningful and useful.
The problem is that most of what the Industrial Revolution provided 
under the name 'work' was meaningless, or dehumanising.

We have come a long way, however, since the invention of the steam 
engine (though you might not know it they way much of the discourse happens 
today) - and we can now provide people with all the meaning and purpose they 
require, and all the goods and services they require. 

All we have to do is think a bit laterally, and stop believing that 
'the marketplace' (and the institutions which flow from the marketplace) 
create wealth and value - and believing that the best people can do is 
capture some of this value for themselves by 'working' in the 
marketplace.

Now, I know that there is much debate about the meaning and nature of 
'the marketplace' on this list (yes I read it all even if I only comment 
occasionally). So I must say I have no problem with the notion of 
markets as places where prices are cleared - but I certainly do have a 
problem with our (mostly implicit) belief that marketplaces are critical to 
the wealth and value in the world in the twentyfirst century.

Work is getting something done. A job is getting done what 
someone else wants. We could now organise ourselves to get done what 
we want, in ways we want - but we find it hard to confront the thinking 
errors we have made in the past.



Charles BrassChairmanfutures 
foundationphone:1300 727328(International 61 3 9459 0244)fax: 61 
3 9459 0344PO Box 122Fairfield 3078www.futurists.net.au

the mission of the futures foundation 
is:"...to engage all Australians in creating a better 
future..."
  
  

  ___Futurework mailing 
  list[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
___
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework


RE: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites

2004-01-04 Thread Harry Pollard
Title: Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites








Thomas,



Now, the
marketplace is the reason for our rotten system of government?



Really, this
gets better and better, and funnier and funnier.



Harry



 
Henry George School of Social Science 
of Los Angeles 
Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 
Tel: 818 352-4141--Fax: 818 353-2242 
http://haledward.home.comcast.net 
 
 











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Thomas Lunde
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003
11:59 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites





Ed: 

Well said! My orientation is much like yours. I see a Basic Income
to be enabling in the development of a human being. I see governance that
helps people achieve their goals as a benevolent government. And why
shouldn't we have a benevolent government? We are the people who have to
live under our representatives rules. Why can we not demand that those
rules be benevolent rather punitive or restrictive. Oh, it's the economy!
The god of marketplace will not allow a benevolent government! Well
which is the dog and which is the tail. Try running a marketplace without
a government. But through devices like the War Measures Act a government
can sure run an economy.












---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 12/15/2003
 

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 1/2/2004
 
___
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework


Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites

2004-01-04 Thread Charles Brass



Arthur and Ray Harrell replied to my recent post 
about the difference between the future of work and the future of 
employment.

As part of his reply Arthur said:

We 
have to begin the transition of society from one of full employment to one of 
full engagement (and this would include all sorts of work --including the 
arts)

What I muse about is why we are discussing the potential 
assassination of Tony Blair on this site, and not how 
to bring about the sort of transition which Arthur proposes - and I heartily 
endorse?




Charles BrassChairmanfutures 
foundationphone:1300 727328(International 61 3 9459 0244)fax: 61 3 
9459 0344PO Box 122Fairfield 3078www.futurists.net.au

the mission of the futures foundation is:"...to 
engage all Australians in creating a better 
future..."
___
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework


Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites

2004-01-02 Thread Ray Evans Harrell

Arthur, let me try it again:
Drudgery is the pollution of the drive to work and we struggle to escape it
by real work.   We all love that  unless we have been ruined by the world.

REH

- Original Message - 
From: Ray Evans Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Harry Pollard [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 11:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites


 Arthur,  I believe this post makes clear the division between what Harry
has
 been saying and what I believe so if I may simply say.   I believe that
 people do want to work from childhood up.   That the results of work are
 often a surprise, like Mountain climbing.That the problem is to plan
for
 the human drive to work and to use it wisely and balance it with the other
 elements of life as well.   But my daughter taught me that people love to
 work at what they want to work at.   But wanting to work is instinctual.
 Wise work is grown.The work will tell you what the result will be as
you
 do the work.   Real significant work is usually a surprise and mistakes
 often open doorways into success.Drudgery is the pollution of the
drive
 to work and we struggle to escape it but real work.   We all love that
 unless we have been ruined by the world.

 REH


 - Original Message - 
 From: Harry Pollard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 10:05 PM
 Subject: RE: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites


  Arthur,
 
  Something must be done to stop us concentrating on making jobs.
 
  People don't want to work. They want the results of working.
  Until  all of us have everything we want, there will be a need
  for production and service - and satiety is a long time away.
 
  Service provision is the hallmark of an advanced economy. We are
  a long way from finding the services we would like. There should
  be a constant demand for people to work - a demand that is never
  satisfied.
 
  The idea of machines taking over requiring us to sit with folded
  hands is fantasy - and will be for a thousand or ten thousand
  years.
 
  Incidentally, there was a good Jack Williamson science fiction
  story With Folded Hands written about 50 years ago. It was
  about machines handling our affairs and keeping us from harm.
 
  Maybe nothing much changes.
 
  Harry
 
  
  Henry George School of Social Science
  of Los Angeles
  Box 655  Tujunga  CA  91042
  Tel: 818 352-4141  --  Fax: 818 353-2242
  http://haledward.home.comcast.net
  
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 6:59 PM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: RE: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites
 
  Chris,
 
  Don't you think that at some point, at some time, there will be
  fewer
  workers needed in a highly productive economy?  What then?  How
  do we get
  income to those who are no longer employed?  Shouldn't we begin
  to think
  about the transition to a new, new economy.  One where the
  production
  problem is solved.  It is here where basic income can play an
  important
  role.
 
  arthur
 
 
 
  ---
  Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
  Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
  Version: 6.0.557 / Virus Database: 349 - Release Date: 12/30/2003
 
 
  ___
  Futurework mailing list
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework


 ___
 Futurework mailing list
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework



___
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework