ECO11

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

>>I call it the "metaphysics penalty" plus "poor boundary awareness"
>>analogous to communism. What's yours is mine.

It is tempting to confuse the move from ownership to stewardship
as a move towards communism.

The primary problem with communism was central plan, having
someone tell you what you could make, who you could sell it too, and
what you could charge for it. As there is no single human being or
group of human beings smart enough to span an entire civlization and
its markets, this was doomed to failure, not to mention the seeping in
of corruption, tempation and seduction at the highest places of power.
Pretty soon the top level people are running the place for themselves
at the expense of everyone else.

In a free market, each person is allowed to make these decisions
himself, what to make, who to sell it to, and how much to charge.

It is tempting to consider that the RIGHT to do these things
comes from OWNERSHIP of the means of production and the product and
perhaps one find its hard to conceive how a free market can run in an
environment of stewardship rather than ownership. Certainly this
needs to be hashed out.

I bring you back to the forest and the boat. Ownership of land
is probably one of the most fudamental and most ridiculous basis of
production and product ownership, because ultimately everything comes
from the land. Who owns the land? Those that take it by force, end
of story.

Now you consider a more spiritual concept that everyone owns the
land, then everyone owns the tree in the forest. Who then owns the
boat invented by and made by one man from the tree?

DO not the people who own the tree the boat was made from,
and who supported and put the civilization there so the man could
invent and make the boat, have some claim to the boat?

The arguements between total ownership and total slavery tend to
leave out a middle path that is more favorable to spiritual
development, probably best described by stewardship, but not
completely delineated by it.

Lots of non producers would love to have everyone own everything,
so they can suck off the work of the producers. These of course push
things towards very tight ownership in the name of "I produced it, so
I own it so you have no rights to it!"

This leads to welfare states at the point of a gun, which by
definition are a form of communism, "from each according to his
ability and to each according to his need." But who determines ability
and need? So we have a central government again, which pushes the
'welfare of the people' party line, while actually lining their own
pockets with the scam.

Homer

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Sep 13 03:06:31 EDT 2010
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/eco11.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFMjc16URT1lqxE3HERAvN2AJ9BpclUNRKYOxqx/KkuIP4swBWCvwCfdDAZ
tY8d5Fn9VSp7Xvks3bYoa5k=
=2qh3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l