cj#331> re: Democracy, technocrats & things…


Richard Moore

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.




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.