Michael,
Please be clearer when you re-post. You wrote the below, not I. Then you
commented on what you wrote.
> On Sat, 17 Oct 1998, Steve Kurtz wrote:
> > > In Canada and in most developed countries, with citizenship goes certain
> > > "rights/entitlements". The specifics of these vary and may be argued but
> > > the overall framework is seldom completely in doubt. These entitlements
> > > are a "call" on the "commonweal".
>
> The "commonweal" is not separated from the citizenry but in the usual
> practise, only a portion of the population will make a direct call on
> this...all may call, but few will choose..
>
> The State is expected/obliged to deliver and must organize itself (and
> find the resources) to deliver... this may set up a virtuous circle where
> the State establishes the capacity to deliver, where none may have existed
> before and so on...
>
> All are equal in responsiblities (as in rights) but some (those with
> more resources to carry out those responsiblities) are more equal
> than others
I did write this:
> > This can be seen as problematic if the "commonweal" is separated
> > conceptually from the citizenry in toto. Exactly who is being called upon?
> > Whose responsibility is it to deliver? Everybody can't call upon some
> > abstract system to deliver the goods. We all are part of the system, & have
> > a responsibility to co-create it for mutual benefit. Can't have all rights
> > & no responsibilities!
> >
> > Would economic development lead to a better per capita life? I recall an
> > article about the likely conditions in China should everyone there get a
> > refrigerator, TV, & car.
> > And China isn't alone. GDP/GNP is not necessarily an indicator of quality
> > of life. At least two other alternative indicators exist (one is GPI, I
> > think). Both have substantial sustainable environmental & health
> > components.
(MG):
> This is a different and a much more extensive discussion...
Perhaps your first comments were meant to address my first paragraph above?
re your immediately above comment, I don't agree. I was referring to this
statement by you implying (at least!) economic development as
unquestionably positive:
"Responding directly to these to achieve lasting economic development has
proven enormously difficult."
SK:
> > Money can be printed; real (natural & technological)wealth is a bit
> > tougher. Who does the granting of what? Sounds great, though.
MG:
> Why just printing money...more money for an "entitlement" of universal
> primary education (backed by the prestige/program funds/influence of
> the UN) and less money for an "optional" additional fighter
> aircraft for example...
I was responding to:
> one way of getting around this
> difficulty/complexity is to, just by fiat grant an "entitlement"...to a
> basic income, shelter, education, a job...whatever.
All money in the developed world is "fiat". Granting entitlements by fiat
implies no transfer of resources-goods-energy from other activities. The
"less money for...fighter" is a political choice. And I agree with your
chosen example BTW. But my comments were meant to indicate (like re basic
income discussion) that real progress comes not out of fiat; the laws of
physics still apply. I do agree that "mindsets" - cultural memories and
values - are very powerful. But education and value shifts are, IMO,
unlikely to be altered by phantom entitlements. Charismatic leaders would
likely have a better chance at change.
Steve
