[Kory Yamashita]

Just to refine what you're saying, Milton...

Economic Deregulation = good

right??

Not sure if I agree.. but I want to point out:

Environmental Deregulation = bad

[Milton]

Kory, I was being facetious about the "deregulation is a good thing". That is what the busithugs say, every night and every day. So, if we get rid of the trade treaties then we can build an economy that accounts for pollution and environmental degradation before whatever it is has been built. When they were debating whether to allow the construction of nuclear power plants in Canada, many moons ago, the arguement eventually boiled down to what will we do with the nuclear waste. The answer they came back with was, " it will take ten years to construct our first nuclear reactor and we will have done the necessary R &D to safely handle the nuclear waste by the time the plant is finished. The public took it on good faith. Oops! I don't think you can deregulate the environment, you can despoil or even destroy it so that we can't live in it anymore.

[Kory Yamashita]

Milton, your first message was pretty clear. Not sure what I was thinking about when I responded. I think we need to build a society that isn't economy-based. Money should be used for micro-economics only. Macro-economics should be dealt with while taking into consideration such things as environmental concerns and social concerns. But I guess a medium of exchange is probably still necessary. (will ponder this til tomorrow). But I think what I mean is that capitalist motivation should be on a smaller scale (local, regional, etc), while the greater good of the community is served on the larger scale. Guess that makes me a Commie. But the only downfall of Communism is its tendency to not work in practice. If we can find other motivational incentives, why not explore a more communist type of governance? At least it's BUILT to favour the greater good rather than the privileged few.

[Reverend Blair]

Busithugs? I like it. I don't think we'll ever get away from the models of economies though. It is something that's been around since our distant ancestors were making spear-heads for each other. We do nee to start looking at economies in a grown-up manner though. That means regulating the heck out of business and taking a long-term approach to policies, especially when it comes to the environment. Using Kyoto as an example, the question shouldn't be whether or not global warming is a problem, but how to institute Kyoto in a way that benefits us environmentally and economically.

[KevinGagnon]

Kory, I'm starting to think maybe I have a communist side to me. I think Paul Hellyer has one of the best approaches to deal with the economy that would be for the good of the people. Although it seems anti-corporation his ideas, there really about change to the way corporations are run.

It would be hard for corporations to adopt what he suggest in his economic ideas, but in the long term it would actually benefit the corporations that adopt it. I think if someone can lead the way for corporations to do good, that corporation would reap allot of the awards of the people who would flock to that company for products or services.

Kory, do you think maybe a communist government would work if it was implemented in a fully transparent way. All the meetings being open to the public. All the meetings being open to the press. Maybe the only downfall to a communist system is the fact that the government has too many opportunities to become corrupted.

Kevin

[Kory Yamashita]

Kevin, I think the downfall of a fully communist regime would fail because communism inherently lacks motivation for the common folk. If everyone recieves what they deserve based on need, why should I work harder than the next guy? Of course, this assumes an absolute communism. There are a great deal of in-between steps as well. But somehow, in the wake of the end of the Cold War, I think absolute capitalism somehow got a false clean image. And because of that, we're thrust into these multinational trade treaties before international regulations exist. </P> However, I don't really believe that either a fully capitalist or fully communist government could work in the longterm. Our economy was built to be both resilient and tough. (resilience means it can absorb a lot of energy and still return to its original stage; toughness means it absorbs a lot of energy as it falls apart as well). Well, IMO, we're past the stage of resilience and the global economy is falling apart. </P> Somwhere between communism and capitalism there must be some equilibrium that meets the basic living needs of the people, while providing some means to assuage human greed. If there's no capitalism, there's no way for people to fulfill their lusts for greed, other than a dictatorial power takeover. This lusting for money and power is probably the most destructive human force. But it is also motivation, pure and simple. And it's natural. People MUST indulge, and so a structure must be provided for these people to indulge. That's the reason we need capitalism. It's just a way of tricking the uncivilized to act in a more civilised manner. But it doesn't work in pure capitalism because it's not a structure WITHIN the system; it's a structure that CONSUMES the system. That's the problem with free trade and huge corporations. Because without government-imposed standards, the majority will keep buying the cheapest, the biggest, the "best". And as a result, employees in Taiwan can't break the 5 cents a day spiral. </P> Kevin, so I kinda deviated from your questions a bit. But I think absolute communism CAN work for a small enough of same-minded people. However, on a national level, we must find some middle grounds where ideology (communism) meets practicality (capitalism) and they can keep each other balanced and provide basic services to the people of the country, but also provide an infrastructure to assuage that overwhelming human quality of greed.

[KevinGagnon]

Can't ask for a better response then that

[Milton]

I don't agree that greed is a quality or that it is natural. I think it is a learned response. The biggest problem any communist country would face is the ruthless attack of the capitalist countries. Can't allow the working class to see that they don't need the ruling class.

[Kory Yamashita]

Milton, even if what you say is true, just because greed is acquired after birth doesn't mean it's any less natural. It's evolved into our nature and is handed down from generation to generation. And so greed IS a natural quality (note: I say it is A quality, not that it is OF quality; quality being interchangeable with "property" or "characteristic") because it has evolved into the behaviour of humans presumeably BEFORE any concept of "civilization" existed. Maybe greed is "uncivilized" but isn't that what "natural" is? Doesn't "natural" just mean something that isn't a product of civilized human intellect? </P> So capitalism is just society's bending to the natural powers of greed. Intellectually, it's easy to see that communism would be better for almost everyone (with the exception of that ever-shrinking economic elite) involved than capitalism is, but great masses of people are still unwilling to support it. "It just couldn't work," they say. Or, "People are just too corrupt." But they're wrong in that. Not EVERYONE is greedy and not EVERYONE is corrupt. There will ALWAYS be greedy people, no matter what. There's no way to change that. But there's no reason that the rest of the world ought to suffer at the hands of a few extremely rich. See, the greedy WILL always exist, but there's no reason we should let them rule. </P> So I guess that's why I say we need something between capitalist and communist. There will always be greedy people trying to gain more power, but if their absolute power is limited in absolute scope so that they no longer destroy the world for the rest of us, then who cares? Give them money, give them property and riches. If everyone has an equal chance from birth, it doesn't bother me a bit if some people are extremely rich while others only get by with a bare minimum of property. Because if there is equal chance from the cradle onwards, then it is a only through disinterest in material wealth that people would end up "poor". And as long as they're not starving or sick, then there's no problem that they're poor if they dont' care about money. </p> This, of course, is limited by environmental and population constraints. I guess it just comes down to the concept of basic rights. I believe that people should have the ability to do whatever they choose just up to the point where it infringes on another person's equal rights. A very basic concept, really...

[Poz]

Kory, have you read John Rawls' "Thoery of Justice" by any chance? He tries to pass off a similar idea of everyone getting an even chance from the cradle. The basic idea of the book is that people meet in the "origianl position", a hypothecial place where noone has any idea what their fortunes and misfortunes are. In this original position the basic principles of justice are determined, pretty much it comes to down making sure everyone has a relatively equal chance and that if anyone makes gains for themselves it must benefit society as a whole.

It is actually much more in depth than that and it is a THICK read as far as political theory goes. But amazingly, and also not surprisingly, many of the critics say Rawls' is just defending the status quo in the USA. As odd as it may sound these arguements have validity as south of the border is supposedly the land of opportunity and the land of the free.

[canuck]

<P>Hello all, here's my first post.</p> First, there's this independent film titled <a href="http://thecorporation.tv">The Corporation</a>. Watch it, I highly recommend it. <P>The thing about the way business works is that <b>corporations can only profit from the environment by exploiting its resources as quickly as possible</b>. That is not to say that said businesses can't operate in a sustainable manner and still be profitable, its just that they (the corporations as legally defined "people") are bound by law to make as much money as possible for its shareholders (people who <i>own</i> the "person"). Now, the whole fallacy of this situation is the fact that the <i>economy</i> is dependent upon <b>everything</b> that the <i>environment</i> (nature) can produce. Without earth's resources, the economy would not exist and yet these parasitic, psycopathic entities (corporations) will do everything in their power to assure their unhindered consumption of said resources.</p> Cheers.

[whelan costen]

Welcome to vive Canuck, great first post...I agree the corporations seem to have the law on their side, whatever they want they get, the people come last, the environment isn't even on the list except to exploit. It is a waste waste society, take whatever you can get and leave your garbage behind. We the people who are still sane and haven't been totally corrupted must stand up and say no!

[Jesse]

Hey, welcome! I agree that the Corporation is a great film, and it will definitely teach people some things. I think that more companies can operate sustainably and still profit; Ray Anderson (featured in the movie) has made that a priority of his company, and there's no reason that can't spread.

[Milton]

Welcome Canuck, I think the movement to revoke corporations charters if they are convicted of felonies is a good idea and I also don't think that they should have a claim to artificial personhood. I think corporation executives and boards of directors should be sent to jail when necessary, for instance the entire tobacco industry boards of directors and corporate executives should be jailed for criminal negligence, man slaughter and murder. The corps should be liquidated with no return to shareholders and they should not be allowed to write off their losses at tax time either. I wouldn't stop there either, grrrr!

[Guest]

[QUOTE BY= Poz] "Thoery of Justice" <br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> In Platos the Republic Socrates noted the flaw in the administration of the Judical system.<br /> <br /> Justice is the art of theft, to practiced to the benefit of our friends and harm of our enemies.<br /> <br /> Several subsequent pages werew devoted to the difficulty in the state differentiating between friends and enemies.<br /> <br /> Dennis Baker