What If Our Knees Bent the Other Way?
Summary
- There are 15 posts — by 9 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Jack Ferman at 2009 Sep 05 03:54 UTC
(Inspired by Gallagher, the watermelon-smashing comedian, who asked, "If your knees bent the other way, what would a chair look like?") We humans are quite the mixture. We are selfish, competitive, individualistic creatures. And we are also selfless, cooperative, social creatures. It's a miracle we're not constantly confused. In the United States, we've set up our economic system to appeal to our competitive, individualistic side. If we each pursue our self-interest, the "market" will rule. (Not really, of course, but play along with me.) And then we use government to mitigate the excesses of competititon. So we have anti-trust laws, we have environmental legislation, we prohibit usury --well, we did once upon a time. And when we are lax in checking the excesses of our competitive urges, sometimes we bail out the too-big-to-fail perpetrators of the excesses. Here's where Gallagher comes in. What if our knees bent the other way? What if our economic system was set up to encourage our cooperative, social natures? And what if we used government to deal with the excesses of cooperation? Kind of a weird thought, isn't it -- the "excesses of cooperation"? It's almost oxymoronic. Maybe if we just hyper-extended our knees a little bit. Chuck Turchick Minneapolis, Minnesota
Hello Chuck: I enjoyed your illustration of the competetive-cooperatist continuum in America and agree that we have aspects of both in our core American identity. Conservatives argue that capitalism and the civil society are necessary bedfellows and that free men tend to be generous men who cooperate with their neighbors. The sense of community among early American settlers was strong. As it was in my small community growing up. Psychologically speaking, people can only cooperate when they are well-differentiated. So, how would we set up a cooperative economic system? Kevin Kervick Pennsylvania
> (Inspired by Gallagher, the watermelon-smashing comedian, who asked, "If > your knees bent the other way, what would a chair look like?") > > We humans are quite the mixture. We are selfish, competitive, > individualistic creatures. And we are also selfless, cooperative, social > creatures. It's a miracle we're not constantly confused. > > In the United States, we've set up our economic system to appeal to our > competitive, individualistic side. If we each pursue our self-interest, > the "market" will rule. (Not really, of course, but play along with me.) > And then we use government to mitigate the excesses of competititon. So we > have anti-trust laws, we have environmental legislation, we prohibit > usury --well, we did once upon a time. And when we are lax in checking the > excesses of our competitive urges, sometimes we bail out the > too-big-to-fail perpetrators of the excesses. > > Here's where Gallagher comes in. What if our knees bent the other way? > What if our economic system was set up to encourage our cooperative, > social natures? And what if we used government to deal with the excesses > of cooperation? Kind of a weird thought, isn't it -- the "excesses of > cooperation"? It's almost oxymoronic. > > Maybe if we just hyper-extended our knees a little bit. > > Chuck Turchick > Minneapolis, Minnesota > Chuck Turchick > Phillips, Minneapolis > Info about Chuck Turchick: > http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/BRsb3AExmzRJSAb5zoswr > > View all messages on this topic at: > http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/3JpZLrD2pM1YKLSpIEWp8m > ----------------------------------------- > To post, e-mail: <email obscured> > Use "Reply-to-All" via e-mail to post publicly. > To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on" > in subject, then send to: <email obscured> > > More information about United States Issues Forum: > http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/us > > E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules > ----------------------------------------- > Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net > > Rules: Be civil - No name calling, personal attacks, etc. > http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/us/charter > You may post only once every 12 hours - no corrections, etc. > Complaints to: <email obscured>
Political wonks are a well-differentiated group. For that reason alone, they are miserable wretches by choice. By simply expanding their field of vision to the entire human race, a political wonk could be happy for someone, somewhere. Both parties find ways to justify an argument for free trade, but only at the expense of the well-differentiated (special interest) groups. The lobbying of special interest groups have even placed free trade, and government regulation, as polar opposites, which they are not. The adage of one bad apple spoiling the whole barrel does not apply to these areas of cooperation in global policy making. In short, there are world citizens, who are well adjusted, practical people, and there are political wonks, who embrace the misery that is their due. Tim Nelson Golden Valley, Minnesota
Funny, Tim. Maybe you should invest in a big mallet and a crop of watermelons. Our knees bend the way they do because our bodies evolved that way; postulating an economic system based on a feature of human natures that does not exist is fine for a rather unfunny Gallegher show, but I'm afraid it does not make any sense to customize a system to any particular feature of the human psyche, e.g., that's what's wrong with any version of the conservative fusion of the last several decades and what's wrong with any ideologically based system imposed on society by extremist ideologues: it can't fit and it won't work. I believe the cooperative economic system that Kevin and Chuck discuss is actually socialism and the first thing necessary to set it up would be to abandon conservative values. Kevin is going to have to explain "well-differentiated" and how it is precursor for cooperation; I don't get it. What really seems to work is abandoning all of the crazy ideas for how six billion plus human beings live together on a planet, in favor of pragmatism on the micro and macro levels, because when it all comes down to the crunch, the only thing that matters is that it works. Things usually work folks accept and adapt to the reality of any given environment; wonks and ideologues, religious or political or whatever, can stifle the creativity and industry that can give us what we need, but they can also help to point the way when we've gone horribly off the path. Cooperatives of various types work when people come together to provide goods and services to one another at the best possible price; but they only seem to make sense to me on the micro level as a part of a larger regulated market system, e.g., even socialist countries are only providing for basic needs of their citizens, done much better than we do, while the whole thing depends on resources, goods, and services received and provided for in a larger system. The markets must control things eventually, just as the environment evolves all life on earth. When North Sea oil runs out, the kind of socialism that most usually point to as good or any system anywhere that depends on finite resources, won't matter a great deal as far as quality of life. Our knees don't bend the other way and they never will unless some clown hits them with a big mallet. Here's to discovering all the ways things can bend without breaking.
First of all, the default position on cooperation is not socialism. Socialism is not (necessarily) cooperative, but it can be--depends. Socialism means centralized STATE control. Cooperatives means democratic, owner control. Simple, clear distinction. The cooperative movement (HUGE in the Midwest in past decades since the middle of the 19th century), was totally "owner" controlled. How about rural electrification? How about dairy/grain coops, how about gasoline coops, and etc. Good histories out there for the unenlightened. To learn how an entire STATE (North Dakota) was run as a cooperative, all you have to do is a little (real) historical research into the Non-partisan League. Note the "non-partisan" part of this name--why it succeeded. Perhaps the most EXCELLENT example of highly functional cooperatives, was/is the Spanish Mondragon network. It is an anarchist model (note: anarchist, not anarchy). See Wikipedia for brief article. Note the word "Corporation" in their title. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragón_Cooperative_Corporation It was started by a Catholic priest, but implemented by anarchists. Here's the cooperative website: http://www.mcc.es/ing/index.asp And a video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7565584850785786404# There is much more research, of course, for the more seriously inclined. Most folks don't want to research--just proclaim. So how about everybody taking a couple of days off of this topic, reading, and coming back to argue whether indeed cooperatives can work.
-----Original Message----- From: Bill Kahn <email obscured>] Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 9:01 AM To: <email obscured> Subject: Re: [US] What If Our Knees Bent the Other Way? Funny, Tim. Maybe you should invest in a big mallet and a crop of watermelons. Our knees bend the way they do because our bodies evolved that way; postulating an economic system based on a feature of human natures that does not exist is fine for a rather unfunny Gallegher show, but I'm afraid it does not make any sense to customize a system to any particular feature of the human psyche, e.g., that's what's wrong with any version of the conservative fusion of the last several decades and what's wrong with any ideologically based system imposed on society by extremist ideologues: it can't fit and it won't work. I believe the cooperative economic system that Kevin and Chuck discuss is actually socialism and the first thing necessary to set it up would be to abandon conservative values. Kevin is going to have to explain "well-differentiated" and how it is precursor for cooperation; I don't get it. What really seems to work is abandoning all of the crazy ideas for how six billion plus human beings live together on a planet, in favor of pragmatism on the micro and macro levels, because when it all comes down to the crunch, the only thing that matters is that it works. Things usually work folks accept and adapt to the reality of any given environment; wonks and ideologues, religious or political or whatever, can stifle the creativity and industry that can give us what we need, but they can also help to point the way when we've gone horribly off the path. Cooperatives of various types work when people come together to provide goods and services to one another at the best possible price; but they only seem to make sense to me on the micro level as a part of a larger regulated market system, e.g., even socialist countries are only providing for basic needs of their citizens, done much better than we do, while the whole thing depends on resources, goods, and services received and provided for in a larger system. The markets must control things eventually, just as the environment evolves all life on earth. When North Sea oil runs out, the kind of socialism that most usually point to as good or any system anywhere that depends on finite resources, won't matter a great deal as far as quality of life. Our knees don't bend the other way and they never will unless some clown hits them with a big mallet. Here's to discovering all the ways things can bend without breaking. Bill Kahn Prospect Park East River Road, Minneapolis Info about Bill Kahn: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/billkahn View all messages on this topic at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/IMAG1AjUgIICqxdC5zOGO ----------------------------------------- To post, e-mail: <email obscured> Use "Reply-to-All" via e-mail to post publicly. To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on" in subject, then send to: <email obscured> More information about United States Issues Forum: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/us E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules ----------------------------------------- Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net Rules: Be civil - No name calling, personal attacks, etc. http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/us/charter You may post only once every 12 hours - no corrections, etc. Complaints to: <email obscured>
I responded to Kevin privately, but I think it's only fair to declare my ignorance publically as well. Kevin asked, "So, how would we set up a cooperative economic system?" My response: "I'm terrible at spatial relations, so I don't have a clue what Gallagher's chair (sort of sounds like Schrodinger's Cat) would look like. And I know most conservatives feel that if 'our knees bent the other way,' we'd probably be walking backwards, or at best march in place, but I just have this gut feeling we'd treat each other better." As for Bill's response, I think my point was that many of us find it as difficult to conceive of alternative economic systems as we do to conceive of our knees bending the other way or imagining what a chair would look like in those circumstances. But then sometimes when I read what I've written, I say, "Chuck, what was your point?" Chuck Turchick Minneapolis, Minnesota
On Sep 3, 2009, at 6:39 PM, <email obscured> wrote: > As for Bill's response, I think my point was that many of us find it > as difficult to conceive of alternative economic systems as we do to > conceive of our knees bending the other way or imagining what a > chair would look like in those circumstances. But then sometimes > when I read what I've written, I say, "Chuck, what was your point?" Hey, I've been there; getting chastised by Neala over cooperative economic systems, whatever they might be, means perhaps I'm there now. I think my point was that you can't really come up with a global cooperative economic system right now, but what do I know? I barely passed college economics. North Dakota is pretty darn small population- wise though, and the world is much bigger than ND against mean old Minneapolis; perhaps the scale of national systems is workable, but I sure don't know. I would tend to think that the larger cooperative experiments happened in the USSR, and we know what happened there. Some really great biological research came out of Siberia, though, far from the influence of human social engineering with stuff entirely relevant to who and what we are, through work with foxes, mink, and other beasties by people who cared little for Marx, Lenin, or any other communist or socialist ideologues; although they did pay attention to Charles Darwin and pioneers of the new synthesis of biological evolution in the century plus following his work. The only application of an economic paradigm that made any sort of sense to me was in ecology, in the inflows and outflows of various stuff through living systems of which each member was a product of evolution by natural selection. Applying that paradigm anywhere else is an exercise in futility for me. In my view, every attempt to give meaning to our existence is a concomitant effect of our evolution, i.e., we may be the only living entity that cares about any sort of economic systems, whether we understand them or not, because we have entwined our lives so inextricably to them. We just have to make the best of a, thanks to us, steadily worsening lot; we can't afford to do anything less. Perhaps things can improve for us if we abandon all that we can verifiably determine as false, but there are so many who cling to the comfortable lies that I don't have much hope (these clingy folks find themselves, luckily, increasingly unable to win election to office). We need more than hope, though; we need real solutions, and those don't come from flapping your jowls in admonition--they come through hard work. Myers-Briggs type for me is INTP, for what it's worth, which means, believe it or not, that I'm far more reticent than Kevin; I've heard these types change for individuals, depending on what they are doing at any given time, though maybe participation from an introvert says something more than that from an extrovert. Just one more area of ignorance for me, I guess.
Chuck, Bill: What is a conservative American? One who believes in the truth of American values. Those values begin and end with freedom - prioritize freedom over fairness. A communist on the other hand does not believe in the truth of American values. He believes that societies need to be set up in ways that demand fairness because free people can't get it right. Differentiation theory holds that individuals seek balance between individuality and communion. The happiest and most successful people are those that find a good balance, obviously. I believe our founders were well-differentiated people and they set up a system that fostered that balance. Free people in a civil society are the best neighbors. Forced communion, socialism, will work no better than religious fundamentalism if people are not first allowed to grow through freedom into well-differentiated people. Taking stuff from prosperous people to try to make other people happier can't work as a governing philosophy. Kevin Hi Kevin, I'm terrible at spatial relations, so I don't have a clue what Gallagher's chair (sort of sounds like Schrodinger's Cat) would look like. And I know most conservatives feel that if "our knees bent the other way," we'd probably be walking backwards, or at best march in place, but I just have this gut feeling we'd treat each other better. Chuck Turchick > From: <email obscured> > To: <email obscured> > Subject: Re: [US] What If Our Knees Bent the Other Way? > Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 06:36:21 -0400 > > Hello Chuck: > > I enjoyed your illustration of the competetive-cooperatist continuum in > America and agree that we have aspects of both in our core American > identity. Conservatives argue that capitalism and the civil society are > necessary bedfellows and that free men tend to be generous men who cooperate > with their neighbors. The sense of community among early American settlers > was strong. As it was in my small community growing up. > > Psychologically speaking, people can only cooperate when they are > well-differentiated. So, how would we set up a cooperative economic system? > > Kevin Kervick > Pennsylvania > > > > (Inspired by Gallagher, the watermelon-smashing comedian, who asked, "If > > your knees bent the other way, what would a chair look like?") > > > > We humans are quite the mixture. We are selfish, competitive, > > individualistic creatures. And we are also selfless, cooperative, social > > creatures. It's a miracle we're not constantly confused. > > > > In the United States, we've set up our economic system to appeal to our > > competitive, individualistic side. If we each pursue our self-interest, > > the "market" will rule. (Not really, of course, but play along with me.) > > And then we use government to mitigate the excesses of competititon. So we > > have anti-trust laws, we have environmental legislation, we prohibit > > usury --well, we did once upon a time. And when we are lax in checking the > > excesses of our competitive urges, sometimes we bail out the > > too-big-to-fail perpetrators of the excesses. > > > > Here's where Gallagher comes in. What if our knees bent the other way? > > What if our economic system was set up to encourage our cooperative, > > social natures? And what if we used government to deal with the excesses > > of cooperation? Kind of a weird thought, isn't it -- the "excesses of > > cooperation"? It's almost oxymoronic. > > > > Maybe if we just hyper-extended our knees a little bit. > > > > Chuck Turchick > > Minneapolis, Minnesota > > Chuck Turchick > > Phillips, Minneapolis > > Info about Chuck Turchick: > > http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/BRsb3AExmzRJSAb5zoswr > > > > View all messages on this topic at: > > http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/3JpZLrD2pM1YKLSpIEWp8m > > ----------------------------------------- > > To post, e-mail: <email obscured> > > Use "Reply-to-All" via e-mail to post publicly. > > To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on" > > in subject, then send to: <email obscured> > > > > More information about United States Issues Forum: > > http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/us > > > > E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules > > ----------------------------------------- > > Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net > > > > Rules: Be civil - No name calling, personal attacks, etc. > > http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/us/charter > > You may post only once every 12 hours - no corrections, etc. > > Complaints to: <email obscured> > > > Kevin Kervick > > Info about Kevin Kervick: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/2ul2lb8iToz4oCc8KcPwfq > > View all messages on this topic at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/6JU56VoZ85fX2aDzskc8hr > ----------------------------------------- > To post, e-mail: <email obscured> > Use "Reply-to-All" via e-mail to post publicly. > To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on" > in subject, then send to: <email obscured> > > More information about United States Issues Forum: > http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/us > > E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules > ----------------------------------------- > Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net > > Rules: Be civil - No name calling, personal attacks, etc. > http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/us/charter > You may post only once every 12 hours - no corrections, etc. > Complaints to: <email obscured>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ With Windows Live, you can organize, edit, and share your photos. Click here.
Apologies everyone. I really must apologize. I think my incredible frustration with lack of research is spilling over from what I see, hear, read on the heath care issue. I’m really depressed about it--and people who shoot from the hip (which I do sometimes!), and not just the ignorance, but the willful desire NOT to learn. Strange country that our educators have created, where critical thinking is the missing link.
-----Original Message----- From: <email obscured> <email obscured>] Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 6:39 PM To: <email obscured> Subject: [US] What If Our Knees Bent the Other Way? I responded to Kevin privately, but I think it's only fair to declare my ignorance publically as well. Kevin asked, "So, how would we set up a cooperative economic system?" My response: "I'm terrible at spatial relations, so I don't have a clue what Gallagher's chair (sort of sounds like Schrodinger's Cat) would look like. And I know most conservatives feel that if 'our knees bent the other way,' we'd probably be walking backwards, or at best march in place, but I just have this gut feeling we'd treat each other better." As for Bill's response, I think my point was that many of us find it as difficult to conceive of alternative economic systems as we do to conceive of our knees bending the other way or imagining what a chair would look like in those circumstances. But then sometimes when I read what I've written, I say, "Chuck, what was your point?" Chuck Turchick Minneapolis, Minnesota Chuck Turchick Phillips, Minneapolis Info about Chuck Turchick: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/BRsb3AExmzRJSAb5zoswr View all messages on this topic at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/2s6SD8Y8tNOCVvMiMQBvm ----------------------------------------- To post, e-mail: <email obscured> Use "Reply-to-All" via e-mail to post publicly. To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on" in subject, then send to: <email obscured> More information about United States Issues Forum: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/us E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules ----------------------------------------- Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net Rules: Be civil - No name calling, personal attacks, etc. http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/us/charter You may post only once every 12 hours - no corrections, etc. Complaints to: <email obscured>
I am not sure we need blame our educators. While I agree, Neala, that we have lost our ability for critical thinking, which is a part of our education system , I think the greatest piece of this is how politics has changed since 1980. The assumption for some is that you no longer have to present sound arguments but just arguments meant to scare people. Just go back to 9/11 and our invasion of Iraq. What was be used by the right to get public support? They are using the same tactics now. Just look at the older folks walking around the MN State Fair with their "Hands off my Health Care" buttons. They haven't a clue. Mike Fratto St. Paul, MN Please help those who don't get enough to eat. http://oyh.org http://hungersolutions.org The future depends more on what we do between now and then Than what we did in the past.
--- On Fri, 9/4/09, Neala Schleuning <email obscured>> wrote: From: Neala Schleuning <email obscured>> Subject: Re: [US] What If Our Knees Bent the Other Way? To: <email obscured>, <email obscured> Date: Friday, September 4, 2009, 5:37 AM Apologies everyone. I really must apologize. I think my incredible frustration with lack of research is spilling over from what I see, hear, read on the heath care issue. I’m really depressed about it--and people who shoot from the hip (which I do sometimes!), and not just the ignorance, but the willful desire NOT to learn. Strange country that our educators have created, where critical thinking is the missing link. -----Original Message----- From: <email obscured> <email obscured>] Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 6:39 PM To: <email obscured> Subject: [US] What If Our Knees Bent the Other Way? I responded to Kevin privately, but I think it's only fair to declare my ignorance publically as well. Kevin asked, "So, how would we set up a cooperative economic system?" My response: "I'm terrible at spatial relations, so I don't have a clue what Gallagher's chair (sort of sounds like Schrodinger's Cat) would look like. And I know most conservatives feel that if 'our knees bent the other way,' we'd probably be walking backwards, or at best march in place, but I just have this gut feeling we'd treat each other better." As for Bill's response, I think my point was that many of us find it as difficult to conceive of alternative economic systems as we do to conceive of our knees bending the other way or imagining what a chair would look like in those circumstances. But then sometimes when I read what I've written, I say, "Chuck, what was your point?" Chuck Turchick Minneapolis, Minnesota Chuck Turchick Phillips, Minneapolis Info about Chuck Turchick: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/BRsb3AExmzRJSAb5zoswr View all messages on this topic at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/2s6SD8Y8tNOCVvMiMQBvm ----------------------------------------- To post, e-mail: <email obscured> Use "Reply-to-All" via e-mail to post publicly. To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on" in subject, then send to: <email obscured> More information about United States Issues Forum: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/us E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules ----------------------------------------- Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net Rules: Be civil - No name calling, personal attacks, etc. http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/us/charter You may post only once every 12 hours - no corrections, etc. Complaints to: <email obscured> Neala Schleuning West Side, Saint Paul Info about Neala Schleuning: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/nealaschleuning View all messages on this topic at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/3hJNR5nIjp72MBcrZygy9m ----------------------------------------- To post, e-mail: <email obscured> Use "Reply-to-All" via e-mail to post publicly. To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on" in subject, then send to: <email obscured> More information about United States Issues Forum: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/us E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules ----------------------------------------- Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net Rules: Be civil - No name calling, personal attacks, etc. http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/us/charter You may post only once every 12 hours - no corrections, etc. Complaints to: <email obscured>
Ah Kevin you hit the nail on the head. Freedom over fairness. That is what the Right has been saying for 30 years, unless it means telling someone what they must believe. However, that is where your thinking falls apart. What is freedom for the Libertarian is far different than what is freedom in a democracy. Freedom in a democracy does not mean a person is free to do with what is his or hers at the detriment of others. That is why we have wage and labor standards. That is why we have zone ordinances. That is why we have regulated industries. That is why we have, although they haven't been enforced since Regan, anti trust laws. Of course, even the freedom over fairness fails when you consider that the reason the United States has been so successful for so many years is that it considers fairness to be a primary force in our freedoms. You are not free if someone else's idea of freedom can impact your life due to being unfair. Mike Fratto St. Paul, MN Please help those who don't get enough to eat. http://oyh.org http://hungersolutions.org The future depends more on what we do between now and then Than what we did in the past.
--- On Fri, 9/4/09, Kevin Kervick <email obscured>> wrote: From: Kevin Kervick <email obscured>> Subject: Re: [US] What If Our Knees Bent the Other Way? To: <email obscured> Date: Friday, September 4, 2009, 5:33 AM Chuck, Bill: What is a conservative American? One who believes in the truth of American values. Those values begin and end with freedom - prioritize freedom over fairness. A communist on the other hand does not believe in the truth of American values. He believes that societies need to be set up in ways that demand fairness because free people can't get it right. Differentiation theory holds that individuals seek balance between individuality and communion. The happiest and most successful people are those that find a good balance, obviously. I believe our founders were well-differentiated people and they set up a system that fostered that balance. Free people in a civil society are the best neighbors. Forced communion, socialism, will work no better than religious fundamentalism if people are not first allowed to grow through freedom into well-differentiated people. Taking stuff from prosperous people to try to make other people happier can't work as a governing philosophy. Kevin Hi Kevin, I'm terrible at spatial relations, so I don't have a clue what Gallagher's chair (sort of sounds like Schrodinger's Cat) would look like. And I know most conservatives feel that if "our knees bent the other way," we'd probably be walking backwards, or at best march in place, but I just have this gut feeling we'd treat each other better. Chuck Turchick > From: <email obscured> > To: <email obscured> > Subject: Re: [US] What If Our Knees Bent the Other Way? > Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 06:36:21 -0400 > > Hello Chuck: > > I enjoyed your illustration of the competetive-cooperatist continuum in > America and agree that we have aspects of both in our core American > identity. Conservatives argue that capitalism and the civil society are > necessary bedfellows and that free men tend to be generous men who cooperate > with their neighbors. The sense of community among early American settlers > was strong. As it was in my small community growing up. > > Psychologically speaking, people can only cooperate when they are > well-differentiated. So, how would we set up a cooperative economic system? > > Kevin Kervick > Pennsylvania > > > > (Inspired by Gallagher, the watermelon-smashing comedian, who asked, "If > > your knees bent the other way, what would a chair look like?") > > > > We humans are quite the mixture. We are selfish, competitive, > > individualistic creatures. And we are also selfless, cooperative, social > > creatures. It's a miracle we're not constantly confused. > > > > In the United States, we've set up our economic system to appeal to our > > competitive, individualistic side. If we each pursue our self-interest, > > the "market" will rule. (Not really, of course, but play along with me.) > > And then we use government to mitigate the excesses of competititon. So we > > have anti-trust laws, we have environmental legislation, we prohibit > > usury --well, we did once upon a time. And when we are lax in checking the > > excesses of our competitive urges, sometimes we bail out the > > too-big-to-fail perpetrators of the excesses. > > > > Here's where Gallagher comes in. What if our knees bent the other way? > > What if our economic system was set up to encourage our cooperative, > > social natures? And what if we used government to deal with the excesses > > of cooperation? Kind of a weird thought, isn't it -- the "excesses of > > cooperation"? It's almost oxymoronic. > > > > Maybe if we just hyper-extended our knees a little bit. > > > > Chuck Turchick > > Minneapolis, Minnesota > > Chuck Turchick > > Phillips, Minneapolis > > Info about Chuck Turchick: > > http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/BRsb3AExmzRJSAb5zoswr > > > > View all messages on this topic at: > > http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/3JpZLrD2pM1YKLSpIEWp8m > > ----------------------------------------- > > To post, e-mail: <email obscured> > > Use "Reply-to-All" via e-mail to post publicly. > > To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on" > > in subject, then send to: <email obscured> > > > > More information about United States Issues Forum: > > http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/us > > > > E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules > > ----------------------------------------- > > Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net > > > > Rules: Be civil - No name calling, personal attacks, etc. > > http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/us/charter > > You may post only once every 12 hours - no corrections, etc. > > Complaints to: <email obscured> > > > Kevin Kervick > > Info about Kevin Kervick: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/2ul2lb8iToz4oCc8KcPwfq > > View all messages on this topic at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/6JU56VoZ85fX2aDzskc8hr > ----------------------------------------- > To post, e-mail: <email obscured> > Use "Reply-to-All" via e-mail to post publicly. > To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on" > in subject, then send to: <email obscured> > > More information about United States Issues Forum: > http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/us > > E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules > ----------------------------------------- > Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net > > Rules: Be civil - No name calling, personal attacks, etc. > http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/us/charter > You may post only once every 12 hours - no corrections, etc. > Complaints to: <email obscured> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ With Windows Live, you can organize, edit, and share your photos. Click here. Kevin Kervick Info about Kevin Kervick: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/2ul2lb8iToz4oCc8KcPwfq View all messages on this topic at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/S3POYx9OCO83fDJcuu9cO ----------------------------------------- To post, e-mail: <email obscured> Use "Reply-to-All" via e-mail to post publicly. To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on" in subject, then send to: <email obscured> More information about United States Issues Forum: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/us E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules ----------------------------------------- Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net Rules: Be civil - No name calling, personal attacks, etc. http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/us/charter You may post only once every 12 hours - no corrections, etc. Complaints to: <email obscured>
I certainly hope no one owes anyone any apologies, and Neala's seemed unnecessary to me, i.e., I should have used an 'emoticon' when I suggested she was "chastising" us for being out in the ozone on this thread and avoiding any facts or research. I very much appreciated her links to information on the large Spanish and North Dakota cooperatives and the distinction made between these organizations and any economic system. I belonged to the first, I think, student housing cooperative at my university back in California (could have been others, but they did not last; there was a food coop established several years before, though). We were originally called the "University Students Rochdale Housing Cooperative," and that mouth full was changed and shortened to the "Isla Vista Housing Coop," some time after I left. "Rochdale," of course, came from the famous 19th Century English coop: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochdale_Pioneers If you follow the "Rochdale Principles" link, you'll find another link to "Co-operative economics" and pages that refer back to the Mondragooperative Neala expounded upon. There was an interesting distinction between cooperative federalism (consumer based, say the original Recreational Equipment Inc., essentially a buyers club in the beginning) and cooperative individualism (worker based, like Mondrag and some discussion of hybrids as well (REI, now). I still have problems visualizing the concepts scaled up to national or global economic systems, but I guess it could be done; whether it would serve anyone any better is an open question, though. I agree with Neala that this tradition of coops spawned extremely democratic institutions, nothing totalitarian about them as no one is shanghaied into them. I suspect that the more you scale these models up, though, the poorer they would work. (Maybe we should discuss this Senate health care cooperative option a bit more.). I was and remain very confused by Kevin's posts, especially his view, perhaps that of the whole conservative/traditionalist fusion in the Republican Party, of socialism; an enemy or dark force to oppose is necessary for conservatism to make any sense and that sort of enemy has been lost forever. I think this movement was and still is drowning. It popped up a bit in the Gingrich 'contract on America', again in 9/11/2001, but it is likely going down for last time now; Bush-Cheney dragged them down and water-logged them so thoroughly that it will not take much. Their latest boogeyman will do the job for good, I think. Whether we realize it or not, most of us are socialists to some extent; when most do realize this, it will not seem strange to see the drowned conservative dogma in the deep end of the ideological pool or that not many really tried all that hard or effectively to save it. Most of the democratic countries in the world are socialist democracies and it does not connote "forced communion," however you care to define it. No one forces anyone in a rural area to reach out to and join with their neighbors to commune with one another; they just do it as it is what our species does for the most part. Even my Myers-Briggs type doesn't like to be alone all of the time, for those of you who buy into those psychological snapshots and sixteen types to 'differentiate' between us all; we all will seek out company eventually when we don't have it in urban abundance. I shared an observation of a friend of mine off-list with Chuck T., about cloggers; my friend, observing clog dance performances, would refer to the dancers as "the people whose knees bend both ways." It is a joke based on an optical illusion, of course, but when you create descriptions to explain the different morphs of the GOP that defy belief, these are also good for humorous entertainment. Thanks to Chuck for starting this thread; it is a pretty interesting journey.
Mike, You have the wrong terms. It is not freedom over fairness. It is license over justice. The right does not argue for freedom; that is it does not argue for action with responsibility to our society and fellow Americans. Rather, it argues for one to do as one damn well pleases in the name of freedom and laissez faire capitalism. It argues to be unrestrained, unrestricted, unregulated. It argues that those who act in their mode can be economic royalist: lording over us, taunting us, sneering at us, putting us down under grinding heels. Their ideology expects us to accept our victimhood with cries of 'Hosanna, hosanna, we have seen the Lords and they are the upper 0.1 percent who have so much money." They expect idolatry. They expect our gratitude for being allowed to live in their country. No wonder their is so much anger in this country, so much misplaced anger. It is our country too. We must demand justice. Fairness is in the eye of the beholder. Justice stands like the Statue of Liberty, with its beacon shining for all of us to see the flaws of the our shameless economic overlords. How long will we suffer misdirection, how long must we suffer confused ignorance? Now is the time to act, not the time to hide. Mike Schoenberg St. Paul, Minnesota, U.S.A, Earth Mike Fratto wrote: > Ah Kevin you hit the nail on the head. Freedom over fairness. That is what the Right has been saying for 30 years, unless it means telling someone what they must believe. However, that is where your thinking falls apart. What is freedom for the Libertarian is far different than what is freedom in a democracy. > > Freedom in a democracy does not mean a person is free to do with what is his or hers at the detriment of others. That is why we have wage and labor standards. That is why we have zone ordinances. That is why we have regulated industries. That is why we have, although they haven't been enforced since Regan, anti trust laws. > > Of course, even the freedom over fairness fails when you consider that the reason the United States has been so successful for so many years is that it considers fairness to be a primary force in our freedoms. > > You are not free if someone else's idea of freedom can impact your life due to being unfair.
> > Mike Fratto > St. Paul, MN > > > > > --- On Fri, 9/4/09, Kevin Kervick <email obscured>> wrote: > > Chuck, Bill: > > What is a conservative American? One who believes in the truth of American values. Those values begin and end with freedom - prioritize freedom over fairness. A communist on the other hand does not believe in the truth of American values. He believes that societies need to be set up in ways that demand fairness because free people can't get it right. > > Differentiation theory holds that individuals seek balance between individuality and communion. The happiest and most successful people are those that find a good balance, obviously. I believe our founders were well-differentiated people and they set up a system that fostered that balance. Free people in a civil society are the best neighbors. > > Forced communion, socialism, will work no better than religious fundamentalism if people are not first allowed to grow through freedom into well-differentiated people. Taking stuff from prosperous people to try to make other people happier can't work as a governing philosophy. > > Kevin > > Hi Kevin, > > I'm terrible at spatial relations, so I don't have a clue what Gallagher's chair (sort of sounds like Schrodinger's Cat) would look like. And I know most conservatives feel that if "our knees bent the other way," we'd probably be walking backwards, or at best march in place, but I just have this gut feeling we'd treat each other better. > > Chuck Turchick > > > From: <email obscured> > > > > Hello Chuck: > > > > I enjoyed your illustration of the competetive-cooperatist continuum in > > America and agree that we have aspects of both in our core American > > identity. Conservatives argue that capitalism and the civil society are > > necessary bedfellows and that free men tend to be generous men who cooperate > > with their neighbors. The sense of community among early American settlers > > was strong. As it was in my small community growing up. > > > > Psychologically speaking, people can only cooperate when they are > > well-differentiated. So, how would we set up a cooperative economic system? > > > > Kevin Kervick > > Pennsylvania > > > > > > > (Inspired by Gallagher, the watermelon-smashing comedian, who asked, "If > > > your knees bent the other way, what would a chair look like?") > > > > > > We humans are quite the mixture. We are selfish, competitive, > > > individualistic creatures. And we are also selfless, cooperative, social > > > creatures. It's a miracle we're not constantly confused. > > > > > > In the United States, we've set up our economic system to appeal to our > > > competitive, individualistic side. If we each pursue our self-interest, > > > the "market" will rule. (Not really, of course, but play along with me.) > > > And then we use government to mitigate the excesses of competititon. So we > > > have anti-trust laws, we have environmental legislation, we prohibit > > > usury --well, we did once upon a time. And when we are lax in checking the > > > excesses of our competitive urges, sometimes we bail out the > > > too-big-to-fail perpetrators of the excesses. > > > > > > Here's where Gallagher comes in. What if our knees bent the other way? > > > What if our economic system was set up to encourage our cooperative, > > > social natures? And what if we used government to deal with the excesses > > > of cooperation? Kind of a weird thought, isn't it -- the "excesses of > > > cooperation"? It's almost oxymoronic. > > > > > > Maybe if we just hyper-extended our knees a little bit. > > > > > > Chuck Turchick > > > >
K. Kervick: "What is a conservative American? One who believes in the truth of American values. Those values begin and end with freedom - prioritize freedom over fairness. A communist on the other hand does not believe in the truth of American values. He believes that societies need to be set up in ways that demand fairness because free people can't get it right." Ergo, conservatives believe in the "truth" of Abu Graive (sp). Or the truth of the death penalty for the mentally handicapped. Or the truth of invading another country without cause (Iraq). Or the truth of interfering in other countries' civil wars. Or the truth of assassinating the leaders of other countries (Alliende) or attempted assassination of those leaders (Castro). There are at least two definitions of freedom: one by Kris Kristofferson, "freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose;" the other is freedom is just another word for responsibility. The libertarians introduced another definition: freedom is license. Communists may very well believe in the truth of American values, if one includes the negative values we seem to hold store by. Communism is, "a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state." (dictionary) Mr. Kervick, you consistently have very little notion of the definitions of the words you use, so much so, that it always sounds like cant repeated from the most ignorant among us.
Kindly be exceptionally explicit about what values are American. Logically, a value does not necessarily have to be a truth. I would imagine that truth itself is a 'value.' Truths, values, communism, socialism, libertarianism, republicanism, democraticism, liberalism are all terms that lead to the deep waters of philosophy, the debate of must not be glossed over. John Ferman Minneapolis, Minnesota Kingfield Neighborhood <email obscured>
On Sep 4, 2009, at 5:33 AM, Kevin Kervick wrote: > What is a conservative American? One who believes in the truth of > American values. Those values begin and end with freedom - > prioritize freedom over fairness. A communist on the other hand > does not believe in the truth of American values. He believes that > societies need to be set up in ways that demand fairness because > free people can't get it right.
Loading…
Design Party? Join our Projects volunteer online group to help design a new image for your local forum's home page.
Home - Mobile - Forums - Wiki - Blog - About - Help - Contact - People - Donate - Rules - Archives
Need help? Get support.
Creative Commons - Share our content with attribution
Hosted by E-Democracy.org. Sponsored by OnlineGroups.Net - easier email collaboration for your organization. Powered by GroupServer - open source web-based mailing list manager.