I'm suprised that the writer below knows of no superior alternative
to capitalism; in Europe it is well understood that that alternative
is socialism.
w
>
> thank you for your response.
>
> the original post discussed both the US govt. electoral process AND
> economic choices (see excerpt below).
>
> so often posters criticize present government and market mechanisms
> which they are free to do.  however, they rarely propose viable
> alternatiives.  what are the specifics for alternate govt and economic
> system mechanisms?
>
> what are better alternates to the US republican-plutocratic-capitalist
> system?  socialism? communism?  monarchism?  anarchism?  i think that
> the readers of these posts deserve to hear specific remedies rather than
> just complaints about the present system.
>
> i'm not implying that the present way of doing political and economic
> things in the US is OK by my ethical preconceptions; i just like people
> who have alternative ethical preconceptions to explain exactly what they
> are and the specifics of how to go about achieving them.
>
> seems to me that whatever "system" is proposed, someone, somewhere has
> to make decisions.  how do they do that?  IOW, who has the power to make
> political and economic decisions?  if we don't answer these questions
> then we are just playing the game of ".... my .... ain't things awful
> ....?
>
>
> norm
>
>
> > > > > We maintain a  multi-trillion dollar credit system , accurately
> > > > > tabulating balances while enabling millions to over-consume, often
> > > > > without  leaving their homes; why can’t we create an easy, accurate
> > > > > voting  system?
> > > > >
> > > > > We  provide ATM  machines that balance accounts and produce cash when
> > > > > operated by consumers  properly trained in their use; why can’t we
> > > > > educate  people to use ballots and voting machines with the same
> > > > > proficiency?
> > > > >
> > > > > We  transport billions of gallons of gasoline to fuel pumps all over
> > > > > america,  have citizens operate those pumps  to fill their polluters,
> > > > > and bill them to the penny; why can’t we  enable those same citizens to
> > > > > go to a polling place, be quickly and easily registered , and have their
> > > > > votes tabulated without a mistake?
> > > > >
> > > > > Welcome to the marketplace, where democracy is  more expensive  than
> > > > > consumer goods , and  more difficult to find than a parking space at
> > > > > the  corporate mall.
> > > > >
> > > > > Make no mistake,  whichever of these weaklings assumes the presidency,
> > > > > it is the corporadoes who have won. Their foreign policy will assure
> > > > > that military spending  increases, innocent people die in unjust wars,
> > > > > and the Israeli  occupied  territories still include the West Bank,
> > > > > Gaza, Congress and the White House.
> > > > >
> > > > > They will continue selling  drugs  that play profit roulette with  our
> > > > > nervous systems ; they will continue  peddling biogenetic food products
> > > > > that treat our digestive systems as a merchandise mart ; and they will
> > > > > continue  using our democracy as a contested turf among their hired
> > > > > hands, in this and all  elections that  pit one gang of the corporate
> > > > > mafia against another in a battle for territorial control. Until we
> > > > > claim control of that territory, which is  our bodies, our souls and our
> > > > > nation, these dope dealers,  polluters and  murderers will go on
> > > > > contaminating it with their political, economic and moral savagery.
> > > > >
>
> "Siviour, Craig" wrote:
> >
> > Hi Norman,
> >
> > The entry of "the market" in this discussion is made in the context of
> > the recent US Presidential election with the voters representing "consumers"
> > by analogy.
> >
> > Your point is powerful, in that we of western cultures, with notions of
> > the primacy of the individual (rather the community) enshrined as the
> > corner stone of our moral and philosophical inquiry, are very reluctant to
> > mitigate the principle of "consumer as king". Nearly all of us, I would
> > venture, agree with your fundamental point that the will of each
> > *individual*
> > voter, considered collectively, should decide the Presidency.
> >
> > BUT
> >
> > The Presidential market is imperfect. Most crucially, the voter-consumers
> > do not have "Perfect Information" about many important aspects of their
> > leaders' political vision - including but not limited to the following
> >
> > * The USA must oversee and maintain a world order designed to serve US
> > interests
> > * Democratic movements must be crushed through use of US-sponsored terrorism
> >   or direct military intervention whenever they are inicimal to US interests
> > * Human rights are "a letter from Santa Claus".
> >
> > Others in this general thread have given a more complete list.
> >
> > AND
> >
> > * The media serves and supports this political vision
> > * The media subverts, ignores, falsifies and slurs alternative political
> > agenda.
> >
> > In such a system your voter-consumers are not kings. They're puppets.
> >
> > Having said that, I can't propose a better system other than the continued
> > propogation of alternative and more complete reports of what is the
> > political
> > vision of Presindential candidates through secondary media outlets.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Craig
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Norman Mikalac [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: 26 November 2000 10:16
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: [CHOMSKY] who determines who gets what when?
> >
> > again, my question: if the market is insufficient to determine who gets
> > what, when, as you say, then who makes these decisions under your
> > system?
> >
> > norm
>