From: Blanc <blancw@cnw.com>
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 14:36:06 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: The Natives Are Getting Restless (was Wine Politics Again!)
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970522232436.00703270@cnw.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Paul Bradley wrote:

>I can see why you might say this, but I must ask why we need imaginative 
>ideas? - The old ones, involving guns and other weapons sound OK to me. 
>If you really want imaginative ideas go ask Jim Bell, his carbon fibres 
>idea was sure one I`d never heard of before.
		[and]
>Your style of discourse in your post suggests you believe that the most 
>effective way to go about achieving a better society and a better form of 
>government is the reform the present system.
................................................................


We need imaginative ideas because of being the New, Improved, Techno-Elite.
   Why use crude, primitive, outdated methods, when you can use new,
educated, modern ones. heh. 

Perhaps because of all the history I've read, coupled with (admittedly
limited) economic studies, I'm not inclined towards simple violence as the
best solution.   But this is only because it is, indeed, quite difficult to
deliver justice precisely; it is easy to make mistakes about who is the
real enemy and instead extinguish the wrong target, thus complicating
further the attempts at reestablishing normality (I have read of instances
like this, where the wrong person or group was destroyed by mistake,
creating havoc without solving the real problem).

What I think would be an effective way to achieve a better society &
government is to abandon both of them.  As in the financial markets, one's
attention should be removed from failing, troublesome political elements
and placed instead on things/systems which *are* rewarding.   The available
energies and resources which are being wasted would provide better returns
if applied/invested in real "growth" enterprises.   Of course, most people
aren't ready to do this just immediately, and do wish to promote the
existence of both, as they fear the consequences of living without these
comforting concepts.

There are presently many cities in the U.S. and even, surprisingly, sectors
of foreign governments which are privatizing many of their services.   This
is a teeny step for mankind, yet the end result is that it takes away the
excuse of the main governing agencies for the "need" to extract more &
more tax moneys for services which aren't working anyway.   As soon as
everyone has "seen" what has been accomplished by contracting services out
& disbanding the entrenched government departments, everyone realizes that
yes, there are alternatives to government-run services, and no, society
won't die tomorrow from the distance created between the new arrangements
and the central command structure.   You couldn't have argued most people
into this perception, however; they could not have imagined it.   

It is also a fact that many corporations are providing more and more
"benefits" to their employees (some as 'required by law' of course), taking
on such responsibilities in regard of the welfare of their employees as
resembles a small government.   This has the effect of shifting the
attention of many people away from what governments can do for them, to
what employment in certain companies can deliver.    As more individuals
begin to look to their employment/employers for these additional benefits,
their expectations are shifted accordingly away from a large central body
administering to their welfare.   This is not a clean weaning away, and it
is not without its own inherent errors in the reasons for its existence or
in the ways in which these services are conducted/administered (at
least,not by libertarian/anarchic standards).    But the result is that it
takes away from governments another area of responsibility, even while the
government positions itself as the commander of what companies will be
forced to do for their employees.   

As a matter of fact, what has been happening is that large companies are
coming into competition with governments as "providers".    Many people in
general, as well as on this list, sometimes wonder who is the more powerful
or evil: governments or corporations.   Regardless, as corporations take
responsibilities away from central bodies, these powers are distributed out
to the smaller financial organizations.    These little clones then begin
to take on a life of their own and begin to challenge the large parent
(this makes me think of Sun, which is now in effect challenging the export
laws without asking for permission and the U.S.gov has to determine what
the right thing is to do about it).

These are tug&pull operations; there are many large barks and much gnashing
of teeth.   But the ones with the money have clout and bargaining power, as
without them the U.S. cannot be a "world leader" (a term the meaning of
which is slowly dissolving away as well).

One day it will transpire that employees will look to their employers for
benefits, rather than to a large central Bureau of Disorganization.
Business organizations will be the means by which individuals arrange to
get their life's provisions (strange that this should presently be the
exception, rather than the norm).   Individual contractors will continue to
make their own short-term arrangements, negotiating for the kind of
remuneration which they will accept in exchange for their work.   One can
extrapolate from that any further developments towards individual leverage
in such arrangements.

Some people fear that this will only change the face of the Master and not
improve the situation at all.   But they forget that as long as they can
change employers, as long as they are not coerced into working for any
particular company, they can not only go where they find it best for
themselves, but they can of course create their own business organzation.
(duh)

This isn't really an idea for an alternative to violence; more of a
presentation of an existing trend which could obviate the need for armed
confrontation and explosive plans of action.    It does not take away the
need to always be prepared for self-defense (but there are many ways to
defend oneself); it does not take away from the need to let PowerMongers
know that individuals are willing & able to use destructive means to
prevent totalitarians from assimilating everyone into an amorphous mass of
subservient bodies.

But it does require perspective into the future, of imagining practical
developments from current trends, of researching the possibilities for
positive outcomes.  It requires that one think in terms of practicality
more than in terms of "sticking it to them".   But then some people are
looking for a good fight, too (on both sides).   I just personally wouldn't
want to be there when they clash.


    ..
Blanc