RE:Psych. label bible mocked in London Times

Donald Bokor (boko7751@uidaho.edu)
Mon, 1 Dec 1997 15:16:43 -0800 (PST)


Dear Liberty,

You got me going now both on capitalism and on authoritarian government.

> I wouldn't take that job either.  First, it is illegal.  I would never
> suggest people do anything illegal.

I guess this is your problem.  I suppose you would not condone civil
disobedience, like squatting?  Nor would you permit Anne Frank to be hiden
in your house because th elaw said that ALL Jews most be turned over to
the authorities.  Look, if you want to develop a true set of principles
then they must hold under all conditions.  Principles of capitalism and
authoritarian government do not hold under all conditions, thus they are
not true and the resulting dysfunctions in society are just a reflection
of the fallacies upheld as principles.

> Second, it is coercive.  It seems
> there is a certain amount of coercion there, where you would still be
> under this man's control as long as you take his house and his money.

How can you use coercion as an argument not to do something when it is the
foundation of your argument to be capitalistic and authoritarian?  Or are
you going to try to tell me that capitalism and authoritarian governments
are not coercive?  And to that I will call bullshit.  Capitalists are
coercive in the sense of restricting alternatives, manipulating your
attitudes concerning your real needs and the values of the commodities
provided to serve your needs, etc.  Or do you want to prove to me that
marketing and advertising wizards that create demand for useless and
dangerous products are not manipulating the consumers?  I'm going to
scream.  No, maybe I'll shoot myself in the head, at least then I won't
ever have to listen to this patent crap again in my life and be told that
"if I just would work with the system, that I could have everything I
want."  Well, I want an end of the system.  And if it means that I am
going to have to live in my tent and eat from handouts given to me by kids
on the street, until I die, then so be it.  It's better than selling my
soul for a pocketful of change (or even a mountainful of billion dollar
bills).  My soul has no price tag.

> As an entrepreneur, I am somewhat limited by the constraints imposed
> by my clients, but I have significant freedom to expand, to change
> markets, to develop creative ideas ... I don't always have an easy
> time of it, but I would much prefer the stress I have now (which can
> sometimes create ulcers and migraines) than the stress I would have if
> I have to scrape two pennies together to get half a meal every two days.

I too am an entrepreneur.  You'll find some publications my colleagues and
I have done in journals like Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Change,
Journal of Small Business Strategy, and Journal of Small Business
Management.  But my entrepreneurial skills have not been put to use for
making money but rather in finding innovative ways to survive without
money.

> >I have to disagree with Wandering Bear for a different reason.  The system
> >has not and will not make me work for money.  I see money as coming from
> >and supporting a system which murders and marginalizes people, and I
> >refuse to participate in or reproduce such a system.
> 
> Then how do you support yourself?

I make myself valuable to people, who in return provide me with what
resources they can so that I can eat.  If I don't eat for a few days, so
be it.  If God sees fit not to provide for me through those that I
assocaite with, then I die.  So what?

> Even if you live off a government 
> pension, or get supported by friends and family, someone along the line 
> is making enough money to fit you into their expense account.

No pensions, no supports.  Sometimes I steal, sometimes I buy alcohol or
drugs for the kids.  Sometimes people give me cash for services I've
provided them, sometimes people give me food and shelter for helping them
out.

> As I asked
> before, what alternatives would you propose?

And I've answered that we need to volunteer our time and energy to helping
those in need to become organized and effectively and efficiently manage
the resources they do have at their disposal.  This organization must be
for the express purpose of providing free food and shelter to everyone who
wants to help.  It is only in this way that we can outcompete capitalism
and authoritarian governments.  BTW, go to my homepage and look under my
peace activism at the Free Pot Party if you want a better example of what
I have in mind.  The URL is "http://www.uidaho.edu/~boko7751".
 
> It seems I asked this question many times before, but never got a clear
> answer on any of the lists I been on where idealism is the dominant
> view of how politics should work in this world.

The problem is is that there is no one answer.  The answer depends on the
individual and there are about six billion of those now.

> >And I have to disagree with Liberty, because it is not cheaper to put 
> >people on pension that it is to help them become economically self-
> >sufficient.  My reason for this statement is that economic self-sufficiency 
> >is an oxymoron and thus impossible to achieve.
> 
> I still pay taxes.  As long as I am putting in more than I am getting
> out, I am relatively more self-sufficient than someone on gov't support.
> I do not object to short-term, results-oriented help by government given
> to some people for short periods of time.  I object to creating a lifestyle,
> where people begin to believe they have a right to this support for life.

Again you missed the point of my argument.  Is it doing me any good
whatsoever to continue discussing this with you?  Is there anybody else
out there who thinks I am just wasting my time and the time of the group?

I said that self-sufficiency is a myth and a lie.  It is an impossibility.
As such there is no system which will ever achieve it as a goal.  Now if
you want to ensure that your government never loses power then just keep
striving for these types of goals.  I am more self-sufficient than you
because I live on less money and resources than you do, and under the
right circumstances I could provide myself with all of the needs necessary
for my survival.  I don't need anybody's money, I don't need anybody's
government.  You are habitaully dependent on both of these.

> >What capitalists and politicians want to call economic self-sufficiency 
> >is actually dependency on the money that drives their economic and 
> >governmental systems.  If people were to be economically self-sufficient 
> >then they would not need money, and as AmeriKKKan and KKKanadian history 
> 
> Then, how would you propose a world built on an alternative?

Mutual aid societies.

>  How would
> it work?

People who are good at something would do it and share the products of
their labor freely with their family, which is everybody.

> How would I get my loaf of bread I need to make my sandwiches?

You would bake it after you grew the grain and milled it into flour.  Or
one of your brothers or sisters who are better at that than you will
freely offer you some of what they produced.

> How would I get the clothing I need for myself and my family?

It depends on why you want clothing.  If you just want a pretty party
dress, I'd say go without it.  If you live in a climate that doesn't
require clothing, I'd say get used to your body, God gave it to you for a
reason and He wants you to appreciate its beauty.  If you live in a
climate that requires clothing for protection, I'd say you'd make it from
furs taht you harvested from animals that you raised for that prupose, or
that one of your brothers and sisters who is better at that than you would
make it for you.

> How would
> I get my house built ... all of this, without money?

I would build it for you, if you're too lazy or ignorant to do it
yourself.

> Got any ideas?

Obviously none that you would accept.  Why do I have to do all the
thinking anyway?  Have you been so brainwashed that you are no longer able
to come up with your own ideas?

> >Like I'm saying, we need to be very careful how we define our problems,
> >and the means to solve them.  We've already opened the Pandora's Box of
> >capitalism and it has been found wanting. We need to find real alternatives 
> >for people being oppressed by current economic and political systems.
> 
> Many alternatives, such as socialism, capitalism, liberalism, etc. have
> been tried and also been found wanting.  Any new ideas?

I propose that we close our eyes, smoke a joint, and imagine what heaven
will be like.  We look at what we will be doing in order to provide
ourselves with food, and shelter, and then we extrapolate those ideas back
to earth.  I know there will be no money in heaven, and I know we each
will be doing our part to provide whatever resources are necessary so that
everybody will be fulfilled.  That means to stand up and lend a hand when
it is necessary.  Take responsibility for the part you have to make this
world a better place.  And stop looking for excuses to avoid doing what
you know must be done.

> >And I'm not willing to accept alternatives that place some political or 
> >economic value on my life.
> 
> What else would you suggest?

I would suggest that we all follow our consciences.

> Respectfully,
> 
> Liberty
> - liberty@vaxxine.com

Donald W. Bokor