The notion of how we are governed is a huge topic that periodically has engaged many
on this list.  Although I may have done so, I don't recall having entered into that
discussion  in the past (other than to opine that the Electoral College may not be
the unmitigated disaster that some see it to be). I shall not do so now due to the
enormity of the task coupled with the shortage of time.

I did enter into discussion of a specific comment directed at Frank Scott's column
criticizing the existing economic organization of the market place and its social
implications.  I gathered from your not answering my specific question that you were
probably not prepared to disagree with the direction that I was taking (which you
confirmed in a subsequent post).  In short, unlike many others on this list I am not
opposed to a market economy regulated by moral values that protect the dignity and
certain inherent rights of all individuals.  I am opposed to the excesses that
result from a pure economic liberalism that demands that the market rather than
values should dictate what is or is not acceptable social behaviour.  I gather from
your second post that we think alike on that point.

As for what to do about things, this again is another enormous topic that has
previously engaged many on this list, as a review of the archived posts will
demonstrate.  TIn my own case, I firmly believe that change begins with me.  I do
not allow wealth and power (as in "the market") to determine my normative-value
standards.  My own take is to arrive at my own normative-value standards, which
frankly are based heavily upon the teachings of Jesus (which, regrettably, I do not
view as synonymous with what many "Christians" profess to be "Christianity") on the
basis of applying my intellect to the many philosophical currents which propose a
guide as to how to live "the good life".  Once that is done, then I first try to
make a difference every day in my own contacts with people in line with my beliefs.
I follow this up by trying to apply the cliché "think globally, act locally" in
influencing what I decide to buy or not to buy, which interest groups I decide to
support or not to support, and which socio-economic local, regional, national or
global policies I choose to join with others in supporting or opposing in a variety
of ways.

Does that mean that everybody would agree with my take?  Of course not.  Nor should
they; nor should I seek to compel them to do so.  I am not a fascist.  I dance to my
own drummer and join together with others in supporting what I see as good and
opposing what I see as evil. Will this produce the revolution and utopia tomorrow?
Not a chance.  Utopias, in my view, are unattainable on this plane of existence.
That, however, should not dissuade us from seeking to go to bed each night able to
say that we think that the world was a little better place than otherwise it would
have been because of how we acted that day.

I like this quote one of my students provided me one day:

In the end the power of one is in the everyday putting of one stone upon another,
working in the community, speaking truth to power, and refuse to  join forces with
the pestilence.

You may not find that a satisfactory answer, but given the time available, that is
as good as it is going to get.  Dan










Norman Mikalac wrote:

> 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