Re: proposal defense meeting 12-1

Liberty (
Wed, 03 Dec 1997 00:51:45 -0500


This is the last time I am writing to you about this topic, then
I am signing off.  I have better things to do with my time than
continuing this correspondence back and forth, that doesn't seem
to get anywhere anyways ... 

Please do not respond.

At 02:05 PM 01/12/97 -0800, Donald Bokor wrote:

>> I have a right to this perspective.
>And I have the obligation to dispell any lies or ignorances of that
>perspective.  Truth is my moral imperative, not personal preference for a
>comfortable lifestyle.

So, anybody that expresses an opinion that is contrary to your own
is full of lies?  I don't think so!

>But you didn't say if you were willing to fund it?

Why would I fund this list?  I have no more obligation to the
community than any of you folks.  Are YOU forking anything out, Don?
I thought you would do this for the love of humanity, or is this
just sort of out of the question for you?

>I said PROBABLY; I didn't say I knew.  But why I said what I did is
>because he is doing it out of the goodness of his heart and for the love
>of his fellow humans, while you are doing it for money.  You wouldn't give
>a rat's ass about creating people jobs if it didn't make you a profit. 

How do YOU know?  Have you got ESP and read minds or something?  You got
me all wrong, Don.  Interesting how people draw conclusions about me
hundreds of miles away over the internet.  You know nothing about me,
who I am or what I believe in.  Stop pretending that you do.

>system and ask for salvation, and still call yourself moral or consider
>yourself as creating social value. So you follow my lead and get rid of
>your greed and do what you do for love and not for money , and then I
>MIGHT consider what you do as socially valuable.

I guess the only things in this world that are socially valuable are
those things that YOU consider to be socially valuable.  Who died
and elected you some type of God with the right to determine this?

>I too am a management consultant, but this gift of knowledge that God 
>gave me is not something I'm only going to share with or offer to those 
>who can afford it.  Rather, I am going to share this knowledge with all 
>of my brothers and sisters so that they can learn how to manage their own 
>lives and not be dependent on governments or employers to manage their 
>lives for them.

I do the same thing, and most of my clients are doing quite well, thank 
you very much.  If you have these god-given talents, why don't you sell
them?  Or do you even have enough talent that people will buy?  Or do 
you prefer to sit on your throne and pretend to be higher and mightier 
than thou himself?  After all, you stated many times on this list that 
it is ONLY your values that matter to anybody else in the world.

>Now what if I sent Tom free food from my cooperative farm, and had workers
>from my voluteer community service project build him a shelter?  Well, he
>wouldn't need the money, that you seem to be so dependent on, for the
>sustaining of his life so he could continue the list.

Are you going to do this?  Let's see you put your contributions on the
table, Don, before you start criticizing other people first.

>Wrong answer.  This whole idea of a nation is a myth.

OK, then we will ask every man, woman and child on this planet.  I doubt
we would get through all five billion people before the end of the next
millenium, when we need to decide to hold such a meeting.

>How absurd your ideology works out when you examine it.  Humanity didn't
>need to have voting for languages to be invented or fire to be discovered
>or for all the technological advancements that occurred for the thousands
>of years that humans never even considered the idea of voting, but
>obviously much got done.

True, but it seems that it is those that do not vote that have the most
criticism about those that do get into power.  

>This is the hallmark of ignorance, and this is the hallmark the "most 
>enlightened and progressive" countries in the world.  You know, Hitler's 
>Germany was also the most enlightened at the time.  

And today, there are so many enlightened people like yourself that come
to write to these lists to "educate" us poor dinosaurs!

>My proposed mechanics?  Do I sound like God?

You seem to act like you think you are.

>The "golden rule" might be one mechanic to consider.  I'm sure there are
>others we could figure out, but I suppose you wouldn't want to help us
>figure any of them out because you wouldn't make a profit from your
>efforts at helping.

Yes, everybody will just magically learn to "get along".  If you believe
that, my dead uncle has land in Florida to give you.

>How about just let everybody serve everybody else in the manner that they
>best know how and are able to perform?

The free marketplace allows this, but many people on the list do not 
want a free marketplace.  They want lots of state intervention and 
higher taxation that will impair the actions of the marketplace.

>> Free market is imperfect, but far more effective than its alternatives.
>Effective at what?  The only thing that the free market is effective 
>at is concentrating wealth in the hands of a very powerful minority.

Sounds like socialism.

>Humanity suffers when wealth is concentrated.  So the free market is also 
>effective at making humanity suffer.  What we need is to manage the 
>resources we have available on the earth so that wealth is distributed at 
>least enough to give every person a meaningful existence, and probably so 
>that everyone has a proportionately equal share of that wealth.  That's a 
>goal that I would be proud to participate in effectively achieving.

OK, I will let you and your handful of radical friends take over all
the major corporations and see if you can make this happen.  I am
sure they will roll out the red carpet and let you have everything!
Gee, can you send me some of those drugs you are taking?  I need some
of them, so I can get out of reality every now and then.

>No, we will not have money at all.  Money is simple a tool to measure
>material accumulation, kind of like a yardstick is a tool to measure
>distance covered.  What we will NO LONGER have is a system which says if
>you don't have money you will starve or freeze to death.  

Yes, but in this terribly long post - nowhere did you give us any concrete
answers about what you believe should be done, how it should be done
and by whom.  I find it amazing how radicals seem to try to evade this
type of practical discussion whenever it is asked of them.

>> Now, tell me how this is operationalized in a day-to-day sense.  How will 
>> you get the rest of the world to agree to stop making or relying on money?

>Again, I will repeat myself from earlier posts.  The moneyless people of 
>the world have their time and energy to devote to helping themselves and 
>others out of the bind we are in.

It is a myth poor people have lots of time.  Most of them are struggling,
just trying to survive.

>If we help these people to organize so that they can provide themselves 
>with free food and shelter, then the marginally moneyed people will say 
>that looks like a better deal than getting a job at McDs and they will 
>volunteer their time and energy also.

I doubt it.  If this were such a great idea, I am sure the 90% of the
population that hate their jobs would have jumped at it long ago.

>> Are you suggesting we all take up bartering or something? 
>No.  I am not talking about any system that expects some supposed "fair"
>exchange, but rather I am talking about people doing what they can and
>must do to help everybody that they can and are able to.  It's like a
>family, when a child gets sick do the parents let the child die because
>the return on investment doesn't exceed the cost of saving the child's

No, human nature would end up playing off favourites against not so
favourites.  I would expect that your system in the end would end up
just as inequitable as you are claiming the present system to be.  I
really doubt that people will just suddenly "get along" and want to
help everyone.  It is their own families and friends first.  Not everyone
has a family or even friends, I guess they get left out in the cold, eh?

>> How do you propose to get all five or six billion people on this earth 
>> to agree to such a system?
>By slowly building a system which provides a better standard of living to
>everybody in the system than all competing systems.  I believe that we are
>doing that here by offering to help the poor to manage themselves and
>their resources (their time and energy) to provide themselves a better
>life than what the current political and economic systems offer.

I think it is people's own responsibility to provide for themselves.
Helping people provide for themselves is not a bad idea either.

>As we develop the best, most free, most loving community on earth then 
>people will freely join us if they so choose. 

Then I guess we will all form one BIG circle and sing songs. Sure ...

>We all would run it by each of us doing our part and not relying on some
>representative to do it for us.  I believe that humanity already has the
>technology to grow more food and build more shelter than is needed by
>every man, woman and child.   Maybe you ought to read a book by Murray
>Bookchin called Post-Scarcity Anarchism.

Anybody can write a book.  This doesn't make his perspective realistic
or workable.

>It might open your eyes to some of the most obviously lies that you hold 
>so dearly. 

I guess you have the one and only monopoly on the truth.  I forgot.
You are some kind of God that can dictate your values as being the 
values that should be upheld by this list.

I'm sorry, Tom.  I can't take it anymore.  I have to go (at least for now).