Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2015 2:15:12 GMT -5
A little advice to those of our members rightly quailing at the prospect of a Dutch trim:
1) Abolish "money" and make the mention of it, even, illegal.
2) Abolish "nations" and make the mention of them, even, illegal.
3) Abolish "work-forces" and make the mere mention of such illegal.
4) Abolish all kinds of "marriage" and regard it only as an unmentionable shame of the uncivilized past.
5) Introduce "non-domination" and "absolute equality", to be granted at once whenever and by whomever requested.
6) "Persons" (loosely) not adhering to these new rules will be sent off to some island with limited facilities and left there separately to become socialized.
Upon the introduction of this system, our readers will find themselves in a new world of unlimited delight.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jul 7, 2015 9:04:31 GMT -5
A little advice to those of our members rightly quailing at the prospect of a Dutch trim: Who might they be and on whose authority do you assume that any of them might be quailing at such a prospect, whatever it might be in practice? 1) Abolish "money" and make the mention of it, even, illegal. 2) Abolish "nations" and make the mention of them, even, illegal. 3) Abolish "work-forces" and make the mere mention of such illegal. 4) Abolish all kinds of "marriage" and regard it only as an unmentionable shame of the uncivilized past. 5) Introduce "non-domination" and "absolute equality", to be granted at once whenever and by whomever requested. 6) "Persons" (loosely) not adhering to these new rules will be sent off to some island with limited facilities and left there separately to become socialized. Upon the introduction of this system, our readers will find themselves in a new world of unlimited delight.[/quote] Er - no, on several counts, not limited to the following. Firstly, nos 1) to 4) do not and indeed cannot represent "the introduction of (a) system" because all that they would seek to call for is abolition, not replacement; indeed, 5) is the only positive sounding item out of your list of six and the last is in any case a mere advocated punishment to be meted out to those who do not adhere to rules, yet four abolitions and the introduction of "non-domination" and "absolute equality" - as vague a pair of terms as may be imagined - no more constitute a set of rules than they do a "system". Secondly, who could do 1) to 4) in any case? These things require not only the world's governments all to accord to the same desires and agree to implement them and, given that 2) would constitute a kind of large-scale self-abolition, it would seem even less likely than any of the others. Thirdly, what should replace money, nations, work-forces (which include the self-employed as well as the employed, because they all work) and marriage and why? Lastly, would you envisage the island mentioned in 6) to be Australia? I cannot imagine that all those to be sent off there (by whom and what means and at whose expense, incidentally?) could possibly fit onto a smaller island but, in any case, why should Australians have to put up with that (if indeed putting up might pertain in such circumstances)? And "become socialized(sic)" by whom, how and at whose expense? So many questions... I don't know who this barber of Amsterdam might be other than that he would presumably not be the protagonist in an as yet unknown and undiscovered Rossini opera...
|
|
The Old Régime is nearly over
Guest
|
Post by The Old Régime is nearly over on Jul 8, 2015 1:38:20 GMT -5
Firstly, nos 1) to 4) do not and indeed cannot represent "the introduction of (a) system" because all that they would seek to call for is abolition, not replacement; Why should any "replacement" be called for or necessary? Has the member not encountered the KISS (Keep It Simple System) and its principles? "Abolish" was the word I used. >>> On the same occasion, member ahinton went on to say: "given that 2) would constitute a kind of large-scale self-abolition, it would seem even less likely than any of the others." But does not necessity trump likelihood? And is it not of necessity that we speak? >>> the last is in any case a mere advocated punishment to be meted out to those who do not adhere to rules Punishment absolutely not! Merely a separation of the unsocialized unmentionables. Separation is neither fencing in or fencing out. >>> the introduction of "non-domination" and "absolute equality" - as vague a pair of terms as may be imagined What the member states is absolutely wrong. If he opens his O.E.D. he will find the terms I use defined as clearly and unambiguously as may be desired. >>> These things require not only the world's governments all to accord to the same desires and agree to implement them Again absolutely not so! The "world's governments" will no longer exist; that is quite obviously the psychological precondition! It is nonsense to speak of requiring a non-existent entity to accord to anything at all. >>> what should replace money? Nothing. Why? Because it will already have been abolished as an evil of the past. >>> what should replace nations? Nothing. Why? Because they will already have been abolished as elements of an evil past. >>> what should replace work-forces (which include the self-employed as well as the employed, because they all work) Nothing. Immense evils of the past four hundred years. The members will be obliged to stop this "working" and make their own arrangements, in a socialistic atmosphere >>> what should replace marriage? Free and more or less artistic life, with or without connections. Far more meaningful. >>> Lastly, would you envisage the island mentioned in 6) to be [the island-continent of] Australia? No; somewhere like the Faroes would be a more suitable size and convenient location. People will not stay there long once the glories of life in the new system have become clear.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jul 8, 2015 5:54:34 GMT -5
Firstly, nos 1) to 4) do not and indeed cannot represent "the introduction of (a) system" because all that they would seek to call for is abolition, not replacement; Why should any "replacement" be called for or necessary? Has the member not encountered the KISS (Keep It Simple System) and its principles? "Abolish" was the word I used. What would remain after implementation of the various abolitions that were put forward would be very little - nowhere near sufficient, indeed, to constitute any kind of "system" that people would recognise as such and under which they could be expected to live. >>> On the same occasion, member ahinton went on to say: "given that 2) would constitute a kind of large-scale self-abolition, it would seem even less likely than any of the others." But does not necessity trump likelihood? And is it not of necessity that we speak? Not in this context, it doesn't! But whose" necessity" anyway? >>> the last is in any case a mere advocated punishment to be meted out to those who do not adhere to rules Punishment absolutely not! Merely a separation of the unsocialized unmentionables. Separation is neither fencing in or fencing out. But who is to decide upon and implement such separation, who is to decide upon what grounds it should be implemented and who is to determine within what parameters the definition of "unsocialized" and confer such status upon whom? And, if certain members of society are to be deemed "unmentionable", how could anyone do anything with or about them without actually mentioning them? >>> the introduction of "non-domination" and "absolute equality" - as vague a pair of terms as may be imagined What the member states is absolutely wrong. If he opens his O.E.D. he will find the terms I use defined as clearly and unambiguously as may be desired. It's not the terms themselves but their contextual application that I questioned. >>> These things require not only the world's governments all to accord to the same desires and agree to implement them Again absolutely not so! The "world's governments" will no longer exist; that is quite obviously the psychological precondition! It is nonsense to speak of requiring a non-existent entity to accord to anything at all. Here we go again! For the world's governments no longer to exist would presume and require each to agree to dissolve itself with the majority support of its people; how's that going to happen and with what would those governments be replaced? >>> what should replace money? Nothing. Why? Because it will already have been abolished as an evil of the past. By whom? - and how are any transactions subsequently to be undertaken? >>> what should replace nations? Nothing. Why? Because they will already have been abolished as elements of an evil past. By whom? - and how will any kind of government subsequently be established by whom and run by whom with whose sanction? >>> what should replace work-forces (which include the self-employed as well as the employed, because they all work) Nothing. Immense evils of the past four hundred years. The members will be obliged to stop this "working" and make their own arrangements, in a socialistic atmosphere Nonsense! Such evils have indeed occurred - I do not argue with that - but not all work is drudgery and many people actually like doing the work that they do; nowhere near enough people, I admit, but plenty nonetheless - and, if no one worked, how would anything ever get done, from roadsweeping to medical research to food and water production and distribution and - er - musical composition? >>> what should replace marriage? Free and more or less artistic life, with or without connections. Far more meaningful. What makes you suppose that the two are definitionally incompatible? - and why in any case would you advocate the abolition of marriage when some people still want to marry? And what of those tens if not hundreds of millions of people who have already married by the time that un-brave new non-world comes into being? >>> Lastly, would you envisage the island mentioned in 6) to be [the island-continent of] Australia? No; somewhere like the Faroes would be a more suitable size and convenient location. People will not stay there long once the glories of life in the new system have become clear. More suitable for what? My example of Australia was because of its size, goiven that the majority of the world's population would end up being sent there according to wthe terms of what you advocate. And why and for whom would the Faroes be considered a "convenient location"? Anyway, since no "system" would result from the implementation of all of your proposed abolitions and no one would in any case agree to implement them in the first place, the mere academic nature of what you advocate is painfully clear. I note that there are now three of you; I fear, however, that the mere formation of such a triumvirate (e trebus unus) will of itself have not the slightest impact upon the kinds of global upheaval that it apparently seeks to advocate and promote, even if it does result in the addition of a single "new member" to this so sparsely populated forum... Oh, yes - I almost forgot! What has any of this stuff got to do with hairdressers in Amsterdam?
|
|
Our most recent contributor
Guest
|
Post by Our most recent contributor on Jul 9, 2015 4:50:41 GMT -5
One of our esteemed membership has written:
"What would remain after implementation of the various abolitions that were put forward would be very little - nowhere near sufficient, indeed, to constitute any kind of "system" that people would recognise as such and under which they could be expected to live."
But he has left us quite at a loss in a pond there! Surely he would be better off did he not have to concern himself with that vulgarity "money"? And surely he would be happier were he not obliged to remember some "nation" or other to which he has been told he has "belonged" since the first minute of his existence? That must be rather like being enrolled in some "West of Scotland cricket 'team'" without having a say in the matter. And thirdly these frightful "work-forces" - crude ignoble left-overs from the days of Cromwell are they not? And we do not here refer to the composition of symphonies and/or piano-forte quinteretti. There is **no glimmer of necessity** about the member's so perversely glorified "work-forces". Did Bach, Beethoven or Brahms ever turn to the composition of an "hymn to the work-force"? How simply wrong it all is is it not!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jul 9, 2015 6:14:26 GMT -5
One of our esteemed membership has written: "What would remain after implementation of the various abolitions that were put forward would be very little - nowhere near sufficient, indeed, to constitute any kind of "system" that people would recognise as such and under which they could be expected to live." But he has left us quite at a loss in a pond there! On the contrary - it would be the outcome of implementation of that raft of abolitions which would have such an effect! What have "ponds" to do with this anyway? Surely he would be better off did he not have to concern himself with that vulgarity "money"? I would be less worried than I am at present, without doubt, provided that I had something to replace it that would serve the same purpose; that said, I would not be as worried as I am if I had sufficient of it or of a valid and viable substitute for it! (if any - and none has been mooted here). And surely he would be happier were he not obliged to remember some "nation" or other to which he has been told he has "belonged" since the first minute of his existence? That must be rather like being enrolled in some "West of Scotland cricket 'team'" without having a say in the matter. I was born in the east of Scotland, actually - but that's rather beside the point. No one has ever "obliged" me to "remember" that nation or told me that I have "belonged" thereto at any time, let alone since the beginning of my existence (at which point I'd not have understood anyway); furthermore, I have never been invited to participate in any football team, let alone enrolled in one without my consent. And thirdly these frightful "work-forces" - crude ignoble left-overs from the days of Cromwell are they not? I think that the issue here is the terminology. "Workforce" has unfortunate inherent connotations suggestive of armed "forces". Forced labour of any kind is indeed a most unwelcome phenomenon, but there's a good deal less of it in UK than in some other places. The extent of the use of the term "workforce" tends to be proportionate to the size of the employer; it's rarely resorted to as a description of those who work in firms with small numbers of staff. But the point at issue which had been made here is, I believe, not with "workforces" per se but with actual work and, as I pointed out in response thereto (albeit so far to no avail), if no one did any work, nothing would ever get done. And we do not here refer to the composition of symphonies and/or piano-forte quinteretti. Leaving aside that I can only guess at the intended meaning of "piano-forte quinteretti", why do "we do not here refer to the composition of symphonies and/or piano-forte quinteretti"? (and, once again, who are "we" in this context?); it's all work, after all, even though accomplished as a rule by individual composers rather than "workforces"! - and I should know, even though I've never composed symphonies, because I do know what labour went into the works that I have composed! There is **no glimmer of necessity** about the member's so perversely glorified "work-forces". I have no workforces, glorified perversely or otherwise, or indeed unglorified (Bach had a small one, though, otherwise the performance material for some of his works would not have been created in the short space of time available between composition and first performance); a few people have typeset some of my work but I would hardly describe them as members of a "workforce", even though they have done work! Did Bach, Beethoven or Brahms ever turn to the composition of an "hymn to the work-force"? How simply wrong it all is is it not! Few composers have ever done that other than in the days of the Soviet Union when coerced into doing so by oppressive authorities (Medtner's Three Hymns in Praise of Toil, for piano, might reasonably be regarded as an exception to this - you may listen to the first of them played by the composer himself at www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKtWUqIrTEs ); your point here is far from obvious and yes, it seems that it is indeed "wrong" (though the reason for your repeated "is" escapes me); why would a composer necessarily do this without being asked or ordered to do it? That said, there are, after all, many other things that Bach, Beethoven and Brahms (though why these three are singled out also escapes me) did not "turn to" as composers. All that said, I am once again obliged to question what any of this has to do with Amsterdam hairdressers...
|
|
|
Post by Said said said on Jul 9, 2015 7:41:46 GMT -5
>>> "I am once again obliged to question what any of this has to do with Amsterdam hairdressers..." Horrid Herr Fratzscher who is actually an unspeakable German used the expression in January: www.dw.com/en/marcel-fratzscher-greece-needs-a-new-haircut/a-18188295and the Financial Times appears to have picked it up last week: www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/03/eurozone-greece-haircut-idUSL8N0ZJ3IT20150703But our real and most reliable authority is the dreadful Dutchman Dijsselbloem, who loves to keep the hair of others long: www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/business/international/greece-flashes-warning-signals-about-its-debt.html?_r=0We have serious doubts as to whether M. Dijsselswhat the flasher of these signals lives in Amsterdam as the member corresponding suggests: may we suggest that he read this: "The demonym of The Hague officially is Hagenaar, but the term Hagenees is informally used for someone who was born and grew up in The Hague. It is believed by some that there is a separation between Hagenaars living on sand, and Hagenezen living on peat. The Hague is built partially on sand dunes and partially on peat; the border roughly runs parallel to the Laan van Meerdervoort. Generally the wealthier neighbourhoods lie on sand, and the poorer neighbourhoods on peat. People that live on the sand are Hagenaars, those that live on peat are Hagenezen. Another definition is that a Hagenees is someone speaking in the vulgar Haags accent, whereas a Hagenaar speaks in the more "posh" Haags accent.[citation needed]." Which naturally all goes to show does it not. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hague>>> "the reason for your repeated "is" escapes me" We would encourage then the member to imagine an intervening comma to make up for an evident synaptic shortening.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jul 9, 2015 9:36:23 GMT -5
>>> "I am once again obliged to question what any of this has to do with Amsterdam hairdressers..." Horrid Herr Fratzscher who is actually an unspeakable German used the expression in January: www.dw.com/en/marcel-fratzscher-greece-needs-a-new-haircut/a-18188295and the Financial Times appears to have picked it up last week: www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/03/eurozone-greece-haircut-idUSL8N0ZJ3IT20150703But our real and most reliable authority is the dreadful Dutchman Dijsselbloem, who loves to keep the hair of others long: www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/business/international/greece-flashes-warning-signals-about-its-debt.html?_r=0We have serious doubts as to whether M. Dijsselswhat the flasher of these signals lives in Amsterdam as the member corresponding suggests: may we suggest that he read this: "The demonym of The Hague officially is Hagenaar, but the term Hagenees is informally used for someone who was born and grew up in The Hague. It is believed by some that there is a separation between Hagenaars living on sand, and Hagenezen living on peat. The Hague is built partially on sand dunes and partially on peat; the border roughly runs parallel to the Laan van Meerdervoort. Generally the wealthier neighbourhoods lie on sand, and the poorer neighbourhoods on peat. People that live on the sand are Hagenaars, those that live on peat are Hagenezen. Another definition is that a Hagenees is someone speaking in the vulgar Haags accent, whereas a Hagenaar speaks in the more "posh" Haags accent.[citation needed]." Which naturally all goes to show does it not. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hague>>> "the reason for your repeated "is" escapes me" We would encourage then the member to imagine an intervening comma to make up for an evident synaptic shortening. Well, at least you have at last come clean on the Dutch connection; it might have been helpful to members had you put these particular cards on the table at the outset. I referred to Amsterdam merely as a guess and given its status as capital of the Netherlands before your explanation above saw the light of day. It might likewise have been helpful had you typed the said intervening comma in the first place, thereby avoiding the evident synaptic shortening to which you attest. But whilst the above at least clarifies to some degree, albeit belatedly, the reasoning behind your thread title, my questions to your series of advocated abolitions remain largely unanswered, so perhaps you might now turn your kind attention to remedying this.
|
|
One most reputable member
Guest
|
Post by One most reputable member on Jul 10, 2015 2:32:24 GMT -5
>>> my questions to your series of advocated abolitions remain largely unanswered Your answers have been given but you have ignored them. So the best advice we can give (or at least offer) the member in his present position is to turn and listen to the great and masterly Pope of Rome, who only yesterday told us did he not that: "the unfettered pursuit of 'money' is 'the dung of the devil' " Think about that Mr. H. and reform your money-grubbing ways before the setting of the sun! Money is not real; it need not and indeed cannot be "replaced". www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/10/poor-must-change-new-colonialism-of-economic-order-says-pope-francisSo do let us for once and for goodness' sake at least be practical. Suppose one is suddenly called to Estonia, and that one has as one should have done given up all "money", what is it one's duty to do? How is one to manage one's call to Estonia in a world where every one is at last equal? That is the present question for Mr. H. and there are many good answers.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jul 10, 2015 7:04:31 GMT -5
>>> my questions to your series of advocated abolitions remain largely unanswered Your answers have been given but you have ignored them. They have not; had they been, I might have agreed or disagreed with some or all of them but I would not have ignored them. I did not ask for advice and, once again, have no idea who "we" might be. Were money to be abolished, it would have to be replaced with something otherwise no transactions of any kind could be made - but let's turn to Pope Francis, whom I am inclied to agree is one of the wisest and most courageously outspoken pontiffs of recent times. "Unbridled capitalism" and (quoting a 4th century bishop) "the unfettered pursuit of money" is what Pope Francis described as the 'dung of the devil'; nowhere, however, did he advocate the abolition of money. I do not have "money-grubbing ways" any more than anyone else, including you, who uses the stuff and indeed a good deal less of them than some others who do. Money is indeed real; what it is not, however, is either sacrosanct or of supreme importance to humanity and accordingly needs to be consigned to its rightful place as a servant of society rather than one in which society is a servant of it. The exaggerated misperception of the importance of money in and to society is arguably the single most important phenomenon that has encouraged the practice of capitalism to become corrupt when it does not need to be and should not be; the effect of such corruptions of capitalist practice (not capitalism per se, I should stress) have almost all been disadvantageous to society as a whole. Likewise, 1 Timothy 6:10 - "for the love of money is the root of all evil" - has been widely corrupted by the convenient (for some) excising of the first four words thereof and, in that context, for "love", one could as easily and pertinently have written "grossly overrated importance ascribed to". According to the article, "in Santa Cruz, Bolivia...he called for the poor to have the "sacred rights" of labor, lodging and land", the first of which is work, to you and me - so clearly the Pope is not against work! The remainder of what is reported of his speech sounds wholly admirable to me, not least in his unserved apology for some of his Chuch's behaviour towards others (if only that attitude were reflected in the behaviour of organisations such as that which calls itself "Islamic State" when it is neither Islamic nor a state!). The Pope said nothing about the abolition of marriage or of states and their governments, either, harsh as his "unbridled" criticms are of some of the latter. I am not a Catholic or any other kind of Christian (nor do I know if you are either) but I do very much appreciate your drawing attention to this article and the vital and vitally necessary wisdom of Pope Francis accounted for in it. So do let us for once and for goodness' sake at least be practical. Suppose one is suddenly called to Estonia, and that one has as one should have done given up all "money", what is it one's duty to do? How is one to manage one's call to Estonia in a world where every one is at last equal? That is the present question for Mr. H. and there are many good answers. In such circumstances, one's first duty would appear to be either not to respond to the invitation to go to Estonia (why Estonia, anyway?) or to try to persuade an airline to issue one with a ticket without the need to pay for it! This is therefore not a question for me to answer; perhaps it could be answered by Pope Francis, so maybe you should put it to him! Moreover, even the abolition of money would not make all members of the world's population equal to one another in any case. All that said, one thing is certain; when next I need to visit the hairdresser, I will not go to Amsterdam to do this, either on a paid-for or a freebie airline ticket!
|
|
|
Post by It was on Jul 10, 2015 23:49:02 GMT -5
>>> "one's first duty would appear to be either not to respond to the invitation to go to Estonia (why Estonia, anyway?) or to try to persuade an airline to issue one with a ticket without the need to pay for it!"
Oh not at all Mr. H. Your "apparent first duty" there is imaginary. The sales-boy will titter at you behind his hand should you attempt to engage him in that kind of conversation. And he will with the greatest courtesy hand you your ticket without further ado while reminding you that under the happy and glorious new system of world government adequate arrangements are in place enabling any one wishing to journey to Tallinn to do so.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jul 10, 2015 23:56:42 GMT -5
>>> "one's first duty would appear to be either not to respond to the invitation to go to Estonia (why Estonia, anyway?) or to try to persuade an airline to issue one with a ticket without the need to pay for it!" Oh not at all Mr. H. Your "apparent first duty" there is imaginary. The sales-boy will titter at you behind his hand should you attempt to engage him in that kind of conversation. And he will with the greatest courtesy hand you your ticket without further ado while reminding you that under the happy and glorious new system of world government adequate arrangements are in place enabling any one wishing to journey to Tallinn to do so. I'm afraid tht I can make no sense whatsoever of what you are writing here or elsewhere in this thread. You write of "world government" without taking any account of the fact that its establishment would require the sanction of every one of the world's governments or the matter of who would run it and how. Pure fantasy, as is the rest of it.
|
|
|
Post by It has been on Jul 11, 2015 4:47:50 GMT -5
>>> I'm afraid th t I can make no sense whatsoever of what you are writing here or elsewhere in this thread. . . . Pure fantasy . . . .
Well since Mr. H. is so confused let us approach the matter from a different direction. Think if you will of the moving staircases at Oxford Circus or in Selfridges shop. (The transatlantics call them "escalators".) One is not required to "purchase" a ticket before one uses these is one? The use of them is not a mere possibility but already a fact.
Next think if you will of an omnibus service running from one side of a city to the other. In many cities of the world such a transport service already exists and is available to any citizen of the world without the "payment" of "money". Again not mere possibility but already fact.
And next think if you will of an omnibus service running from Hereford, say, to London, or even a railway train from Plymouth to Edinburgh. No question of "money". Such a service may well be exactly what some citizens need and want, and it could easily be set up by right-thinking authorities. Not perhaps already everyday fact, but surely the member accepts the possibility.
Finally, for now, progress one smooth step further, and make it possible for any one so wishing to fly from Heathrow to Tallinn! Still without "monetary transaction." It is easily arranged, may well become reality in thirty or so years' time (because of all the Africans, say), and MUST come about eventually. The atmosphere of such a society will be pure joy will it not? Let us above all free our thinking from the nineteenth century wherever we can!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jul 11, 2015 11:38:42 GMT -5
I did not write that I am "confused" - nor indeed am I; on the contrary, what I wrote was "I can make no sense whatsoever of what you are writing here or elsewhere in this thread", which is by no means synonymous with or indicative of confusion on my part. let us approach the matter from a different direction. Think if you will of the moving staircases at Oxford Circus or in Selfridges shop. (The transatlantics call them "escalators".) I have no idea who "the transatlantics" might be but, in my experience, most English-speaking people on both sides of the Altantic call them escalators and have done for as long as I can remember. One is not required to "purchase" a ticket before one uses these is one? The use of them is not a mere possibility but already a fact. Of course not, but whilst one is likewise not charged an entrance fee to the shop and the costs of the purchase and running of its escalators are part of its overall admnistrative running costs (finded by its customers' money), one cannot board an escalator at Oxford Circus tube station (which I presume is what you mean by "Oxford Circus") without having first purchased a travel ticket and passed through the barrier/s with it. Next think if you will of an omnibus service running from one side of a city to the other. In many cities of the world such a transport service already exists and is available to any citizen of the world without the "payment" of "money". Again not mere possibility but already fact. Whilst I would not argue that there are no such services proveded free at the point of and during use (although I cannot immediately think of one), I believe that these are very much in the minority; Bordeaux, for example, has an excellent tram service comprising several lines on which travel is charged by the hour rather than for specific journeys at specific fares but, whilst the charges are very reasonable, they are still charges; more importantly, however, even on the rare instances of such transport services that are to the passenger free at the point of and during use, they are only able to be constructed and operated as a consequence of the expenditure of money by those who own / operate them. And next think if you will of an omnibus service running from Hereford, say, to London, I'd really rather not! Roads between the two are for the most part vastly inferior to all reasonable expectations of inter-city travel (not least because there's no motorway anywhere near to, or any ring road around, Hereford), the train "service" between them is as slow as several wet weeks and there's no airport anywhere near to it, so no flights to London. or even a railway train from Plymouth to Edinburgh. No question of "money". Such a service may well be exactly what some citizens need and want, and it could easily be set up by right-thinking authorities. Not perhaps already everyday fact, but surely the member accepts the possibility. The only way that such services could be provided free of charge to the passenger (and, while we're at it, let's not forget that, in most cases, air fares are a good deal cheaper in UK than train fares covering the same distances) would be if the transport facilities concerned were to be fully nationalised and their owners and providers - the national government - were to fund their construction, maintenance, operation, marketing, administration et al with taxpayers' money, which would not only be utterly impossible (as well as unfair) but would, again, require vast sums of money! Finally, for now, progress one smooth step further, and make it possible for any one so wishing to fly from Heathrow to Tallinn! Still without "monetary transaction." It is easily arranged, may well become reality in thirty or so years' time (because of all the Africans, say), and MUST come about eventually. The atmosphere of such a society will be pure joy will it not? Let us above all free our thinking from the nineteenth century wherever we can! The point that you persistently and wilfully miss here is that, even if the passenger does not pay, someone has to, otherwise no service would be provided or even be able to exist! Who funds the planning, construction, operation &c. of the airports, airlines and planes and the fuel and all the rest? - and by what means could they do it other than with money?! In any case, what on earth have "all the Africans" to do with flying from Heathrow to Tallinn, whatever the charges might be? (and, again, why Tallinn in particular?)...
|
|
A kind of anarcho-syndicalist
Guest
|
Post by A kind of anarcho-syndicalist on Jul 12, 2015 3:08:07 GMT -5
>>> The point that you persistently and wilfully miss here is that, even if the passenger does not pay, someone has to, otherwise no service would be provided or even be able to exist! That so-called "point" is "missed" only because it is quite invalid. May we respectfully suggest that the member read up on his anarcho-syndicalism? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism"At the same time that syndicalism exerts this unrelenting pressure on capitalism, it tries to build the new social order within the old. The unions and the 'labour councils' are not merely means of struggle and instruments of social revolution; they are also the very structure around which to build a free society. The workers are to be educated, by their own activity within the union, in the task of destroying the old propertied order and in the task of reconstructing a stateless, libertarian society. The two go together." Note in particular there the words "stateless" and "libertarian". In regard to the "money" concerns so persistently raised by the member, it may do him good to read rather more of the Englishman who wrote under the name "Orwell": "I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragón one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilised life– snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.– had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master. —George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia, ch. VII" We at once note do we not the expressions "equality", "money-tainted", and "no one owned any one else." Do these not convey a thrill to our members' innermost, even? Do not his concerns simply evaporate? Will not the little man one day bring his grocery orders without need of a silly signature?
|
|