cj#291> Dialog re/Human Rights & NWO


Richard Moore

>Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 14:03:53 -0700
>From: •••@••.••• (Joe Ferguson)
>To: •••@••.•••
>Subject: A Problem in the article
>    Hi Richard,

Dear Joe,

Thanks for your note.


>Upon this re-reading, I came upon a question.  It is in the section
>where you present your case why the NWO must be anti-human rights at its
>core.  The second reason is its insatiable expansionism.  You claim all
>flavors of capitalism share this trait.  I have a problem with this
>broad characterization.  I basically understand the notion that the most
>benign forms of capitalism are expansionist, but everything that grows is
>not unhealthy, like cancer is.  Taking this pure position seems to lead to
>the notion that flowers are bad, that healthy children are bad (because
>they grow).

I can look at this again and perhaps clarify.  The way I learned it is that
an important aspect of successful life forms are the self-limiting
mechanisms.  Such as limiting the number of pups in a troop of hunting
dogs, or limiting the number of predators per acre so they don't starve or
deplete the prey stock.  Flowers and children only grow to a certain size.
Cancer has the characteristic that it just keeps growing.  It isn't
particularly poisonous or harmful, it just crowds everything else out.
It's the _boundlessness_ of the growth that is toxic.

>One thing I dig about your thinking is you don't get too far from
>reality, so I guess I'm criticizing this part of the article.  As pure
>theory, maybe there is a better model for the world than free enterprise
>and capital evolving side-by-side with peoples' ability to govern themselves
>in a socially responsible, democratic way, but during our lifetime, I don't
>think we can deliver that.

I think it all comes down to having concious control over the conditions of
our lives, which is what democracy should mean.  Things like cars, or
corporations, or whatever, are not themselves the problem.  It's that we
have no control over anything, that it all grows somehow on its own.
There's no concious human decision making about what we do and don't want
as a society.  The government is supposed to enable that function, but it
fails to do so.

Suppose a car rolls down a driveway and injures a child.  We wouldn't say
that cars should all be destroyed as a way of avoiding that danger. Rather,
it is necessary that someone have the responsibility to set the hand brake.
Our whole society/economy is careening down hill with no one at the wheel.
The problem isn't the brakes or the carburetor -- its lack of control.

This is a critical time of historical change.  The mechanisms we still
have, at least on paper, for having any control over our lives, are being
systematically dismantled, sort of like tracks of a railway being pulled
up.  After that, it's nearly impossible to go back, to reclaim what you
had.  If we can't make any improvements now, it will be much harder for our
descendents.  It isn't something that sort of happens on its own over time.



 Posted by      Richard K. Moore <•••@••.•••>
                Wexford, Ireland (USA citizen)
                Editor: The Cyberjournal (@CPSR.ORG)

See the CyberLib at:
See Cyber-Rights library:

You are encouraged to forward and cross-post messages and online materials
for non-commercial use, provided they are copied in their entirety, with
all headers, signatures, etc., intact.