@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 12:36:19 -0800 Sender: •••@••.••• (John Lowry) Subject: Re: cj#328> Yves: Democracy, technocrats & things... > ... ... >Comments, anyone? > >Yves Leclerc > You may well be right, but, since the problems stem from an overconcentration of power, we won't know until there is a decentralization of property, from which power derives. Therefore, it seems to me, before we make any other changes to the "structure" of things, we must alter the system of property relations so that the collective intelligence is employed in self-governance. I believe we can do this in three ways: discourage absentee ownership through a significant tax on "excess" wealth; counter the irrespobsibile effects of "limited liability" incorporation by federalizing the charter of large, interstate corporations, and stipulating that their governing bodies be composed of a balanced representation of the full spectrum of "stakeholder" interests; and an intense program of national service as an integrated part of basic education (as Yves and others have suggested). When these three structural changes have been implemented, the picture we face will be quite different. John @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Editor> It seems that John has sensible proposals about property ownership, and Yves has sensible proposals about systems of self-governance. It seems to me it would be counter-productive to put either topic on a back burner while the other is pursued. For any such changes to occur -- and to be framed in a way that accomplishes the intended goals -- a progressive constituency of formidable proportions would need to be brought into some kind of organized existence. People could get behind programs like yours if they could see a comprehensive agenda/platform that makes sense. Isolated proposals always wash up on the shores of legislative compromise, and lead inevitably to more of the same. People realize this, and only workable, comprehensive agendas can hope to rouse the body-politic from its hypnotic torpor. Politics and economics must be dealt with as inter-locking systems. Furthermore, isn't it necessary that proposals such as yours (both Yves & John) be put on the table for discussion toward a unified platform? I'm not making accusations, but it would (IMHO) be counter-productive to keep each proposal as inviolate or as "owned" by the originator. -rkm @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Share: