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