Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on July 11, 2006 04:51 AM
I think it's important not to equate preference for something better with lack of appreciation of what is. It's precisely because of understanding the status quo that I personally want change.
Rather than accepting the received wisdom of competition for example, I dare to question it. I note the increasing frequency with which 'elected' 'representatives' tell us improvements are not possible as it would make us less competitive. This runs the gamut from healthcare to environmental protection where their cynical stance is that the only proof deemed acceptable to justify appropriate action is disaster itself.
Clearly there is a role for competition but at the moment it is out of control at the behest of corporations and elements of the investor elite imho, and serving as Noam Chomsky points out to socialise risk and privatise profit.
We're told it's a flat world. It is for global capital alright, playing nation against nation as the working stock compete for crumbs of employment from their table. Does anyone else find that relationship offensive? Smacks of the Lord and Tenant situation of yore. Whither freedom?
International co-operation is necessary to solve global issues, but with certain nations bought politicians refusing to do anything that might interfere with the orgy of wealth concentration, one vote per person is replaced by one vote per dollar (or Riyal).
So I for one am dedicated to trying out alternative social arrangements based on better things than selfishness, from food-buying groups to workers co-operatives. While considering theory is beneficial and I continue to do so, action and results are required to find our way and retreive civilisation and our environment from it's current diabolical path. Try it. Learn from it. Improve it. So forgive those of us who don't flail about endlessly in a quagmire of academic FUD.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:Politics and iCommons
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 11, 2006 04:51 AMRather than accepting the received wisdom of competition for example, I dare to question it. I note the increasing frequency with which 'elected' 'representatives' tell us improvements are not possible as it would make us less competitive. This runs the gamut from healthcare to environmental protection where their cynical stance is that the only proof deemed acceptable to justify appropriate action is disaster itself.
Clearly there is a role for competition but at the moment it is out of control at the behest of corporations and elements of the investor elite imho, and serving as Noam Chomsky points out to socialise risk and privatise profit.
We're told it's a flat world. It is for global capital alright, playing nation against nation as the working stock compete for crumbs of employment from their table. Does anyone else find that relationship offensive? Smacks of the Lord and Tenant situation of yore. Whither freedom?
International co-operation is necessary to solve global issues, but with certain nations bought politicians refusing to do anything that might interfere with the orgy of wealth concentration, one vote per person is replaced by one vote per dollar (or Riyal).
So I for one am dedicated to trying out alternative social arrangements based on better things than selfishness, from food-buying groups to workers co-operatives. While considering theory is beneficial and I continue to do so, action and results are required to find our way and retreive civilisation and our environment from it's current diabolical path. Try it. Learn from it. Improve it. So forgive those of us who don't flail about endlessly in a quagmire of academic FUD.
#