-----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 system at base as you claim.
However, given that is the system at the moment, you are right, I am
interested in the current system attempting to reflect a more equitable
system of redistribution. What galls me is the deliberate management of the
system to create unemployment and then to claim that those unemployed are
lazy, unproductive, and feeding of the work/renumeration of other workers.
>
>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: Well, I guess I did let them speak for themselves, I just placed
their words in my stream of thought. If they have a problem with it, I'm
sure I'll hear about it. What I would be interested in is your ideas about
"going forward" mean?
>
>> 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: Well then, let the mystery poster answer for him/herself and keep
your nose out of it.
>
>> 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?
Thomas: I am not discussing "biological life". I am talking about certain
choices made based on an economic theory, what their results have been and
some observations on why I think those kinds of choices are made.
>
>> 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: And I would agree. However my contention is that those who have
accepted certain responsibilities have discharged them in a way that is
detrimental to a fairly large portion of the community and as such, I
content that they have acted in an irresponsible way. Now, what do we do
about that as a community, accept, protest, invoke the law, wait for an
election, publish, critique, are all valid expressions of the community and
individuals within the community.
>
>> 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.
Thomas: There are two or more areas of responsibility as I choose to
understand them. Those who having accepted responsibility should work in
the best interest of all of the community. Those who are at effect of those
having accepted responsiblity have the responsibility of evaluating the
actions taken.
As to perfectability, you wrote:
Idling a car motor, running water taps unnecessarily, or engaging in
behavior which harms ones *own* health - since the community bears the
total cost in socialized health schemes or insurance premium hikes. And I
also claim that human fertility impacts the Commons and each current and
future member of society.
The impied suggestion here is that if there were rules or everyone was
"responsible" according to some defined criteria such as the betterment or
society or the Commons, then we would be supporting "each current and future
member of society." In principle, I can find some agreement with this
thought, but if in practice, it means a Confucian list of all the prescribed
behaviors that one can engage in, then I am against it for the result it
creates. Every behavior them becomes open to someone else's scrutiny and
from that follows judgement and from that follows punishment. That kind of
society is commonly known as facism. No set of rules is perfect, no set of
rule enforcers are perfect, therefore to expect perfection is the quickest
way to imperfection.
Respectfully,
Thomas Lunde
>
>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. Responsibilities to the future benefit everyone. The
>> >Future of Work should include working towards the Future Common Good.
>>
>> Thomas: What kind of statement is this! Are we back to Skinner and
>> behavioral modification techniques based on the pleasure/pain principle?
>> >
>
>I have no idea how the above two statements (oughts) lead to your
>statement. Dynamics of groups provide a constant feedback system which
>modifies member behavior. No director is required. Pleasure and pain are
>part of the feedback as described by humans in everyday life.
>
>Anon:
>> This "here to experience" against the Buddhist philosophy of "here to
>> >correct ourselves earnestly and to improve ourselves all time at every
>> >second!".
>>
>> Thomas: Well, I'm glad you're arrogant enough to condemn one of the
major
>> philosophies of the world, one that has been around a lot longer than our
>> Western Civilization.
>
>You totally misread Anon. I believe Anon states that your "here to
>experience" is contrary to ("against") Buddhist philosophy, which Anon
>probably supports. I suggest you look in the mirror when calling people
>"arrogant". Re your:
>
>> I believe in communes, free love, individual
>> exploration of consciousness, government by consensus, back to the land,
>> environmental respect, respect of life, sharing, arts and crafts as
valuable
>> ways other than factory work to express creativity.
>
>I've got no problems with any of that although consensus loses potential as
>the size of the group increases, but hasten to say that wishing for utopia
>doesn't create it; cooperative work(human action) is the best method I know
>of. I disagree with Milton Freidman, too, but dissemination of credits -by
>itself- is not a solution to world problems. And it is "work" only for the
>disseminator! :-)
>
>
>Steve Kurtz
>Fitzwilliam NH
