brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (07/15/85)
In article <2210@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: >> (Moi:) >> To suggest that the value of a human being's work is based on some tables >> in the government is demeaning. It reduces us to cogs. Deciding value >> is (* surprise *) a value judgement, and it should be subjective. > > I know some clerical staff who would *love* to be demeaned by having > an independant authority decide how much they should be paid in > general; their pay/conditions could not get much worse than they > are now. I'm surprised you think it less demeaning for the value > of a human being's work to be based on random market forces or a > hiring criterion based on getting the most for the least. > So what if the clerical staff don't find it demeaning to have somebody else come in, uninvited, and evaluate their worth. Many do find it demeaning and they are not provided with any option in the matter under EPFWOEV laws. Also, what are "random" market forces? Market forces are the forces of people, REAL people whom you seem very unconcerned about. I suspect they rather resent being called random factors. Most kinda think they have free will. > > Not at all necessary; what is necessary is that the decision be made > people/persons who can make such a determination independently and > without prejudice. Also it is possible that people == state can be > true you know. Well, you're not going to get away with this one. I have yet to see a shred of evidence that the people and the state are the same in today's world. When they do become the same, through the use of computer networks (NOT particpatory democracy, btw) then almost all of my political goals will have been realized. Currently: Anarchy: No state Dictatorship: "L'etat, c'est moi", as a certain French king once said Theocracy: The state is the church Soviet Union: The state is the Kremlin Executive Representative Democracy: The state is ~ the cabinet (This is the one Canada is closest to most of the time) U.S.A. : the state is the President, Congress and Courts balancing one another. Representative democracy: The state is the legislature. Participatory democracy: The state is any given 51% of the people, varying from issue to issue. Computer Netonomic society: The state is the people. (You can guess which of the above is of my design!) -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (07/17/85)
. . > >> To suggest that the value of a human being's work is based on some tables > >> in the government is demeaning. It reduces us to cogs. Deciding value > >> is (* surprise *) a value judgement, and it should be subjective. > > > > I know some clerical staff who would *love* to be demeaned by having > > an independant authority decide how much they should be paid in > > general; their pay/conditions could not get much worse than they > > are now. I'm surprised you think it less demeaning for the value > > of a human being's work to be based on random market forces or a > > hiring criterion based on getting the most for the least. > > > > So what if the clerical staff don't find it demeaning to have somebody > else come in, uninvited, and evaluate their worth. Many do find it demeaning > and they are not provided with any option in the matter under EPFWOEV laws. The point was that many people would find it no more (probably less) demeaning to have an independent body decide on their renumeration than a "boss" whose motivations are hardly what is fair but rather how to maximize profit. Maximizing profit does not include considerations like human dignity, allowing people (employees) to lead reasonable lifestyles etc. There are many people who are consistently demeaned by our system. I expect people who plan to "come out on top" in our society to resist things like EPFWOEV since it would likely reduce the gap between them and those below but to attack it on the grounds that it is demeaning is hardly credible. > Also, what are "random" market forces? Market forces are the forces of > people, REAL people whom you seem very unconcerned about. I suspect they > rather resent being called random factors. Most kinda think they have free > will. Market forces consist of a lot more than "people"; want an example? weather and oranges and demand for pickers (and therefore probably the wages for pickers). > > > > > Not at all necessary; what is necessary is that the decision be made > > people/persons who can make such a determination independently and > > without prejudice. Also it is possible that people == state can be > > true you know. > > Well, you're not going to get away with this one. I have yet to see a Well I'm not trying to "get away" with anything at all. To make the point more verbosely: at times the actions of the state accurately reflect the wishes of the people. . . > Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 John Chapman
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (07/17/85)
> Currently: > > Anarchy: No state > Dictatorship: "L'etat, c'est moi", as a certain French king once said > Theocracy: The state is the church > Soviet Union: The state is the Kremlin > Executive Representative Democracy: The state is ~ the cabinet > (This is the one Canada is closest to most of the time) > U.S.A. : the state is the President, Congress and Courts balancing one another. > Representative democracy: The state is the legislature. > Participatory democracy: The state is any given 51% of the people, varying > from issue to issue. > Computer Netonomic society: The state is the people. > > (You can guess which of the above is of my design!) > -- > Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 ok, I will guess: none of the above. Brad Templeton: the state is the people with money (at least judging from everything else I have ever heard or read from you). -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie