Most Popular This Week
- Not to Worry, Rape Victims Who Want An Abortion: We Won't Charge You With Felony Tampering With Evidence, Just Your Doctor
- The Non Zero-Sum Society: How the Rich Are Destroying the US Economy
- Obama Administration Compromise Would Implement No-Cost Birth Control
- The Right of the People, Even At the Airport
- To End Extreme Poverty, Let’s Try Ending Extreme Wealth
- The Non Zero-Sum Society: How the Rich Are Destroying the US Economy
- Don’t Put a Fork in It: On the Perils of Genetically Engineered Salmon
- Five Possibilities for the Next Great Progressive Push
- An Economic Alternative to Exploitative Free Market Capitalism
- As Hurricane Victims Freeze, Billionaire Mayor Gives Away $1 Billion to Wealthy Med School
Popular content
Today's Top News
Published on Sunday, August 15, 2010 by YES! Magazine
10 Common Sense Principles for a New Economy
It’s time we the people declare our independence from the money-favoring Wall Street economy.
I find hope in the fact that millions of people the world over are seeing through the moral and practical fallacies underlying the Wall Street economy and—by contributing to the creation of a New Economy—are taking charge of their economic lives.
Here are ten common sense principles to frame the New Economy that we the people must now bring forth:
- The proper purpose of an economy is to secure just, sustainable, and joyful livelihoods for all. This may come as something of a shock to Wall Street financiers who profit from financial bubbles, securities fraud, low wages, unemployment, foreign sweatshops, tax evasion, public subsidies, and monopoly pricing.
- GDP is a measure of the economic cost of producing a given level of human well-being and happiness. In the economy, as in any well-run business, the goal should be to minimize cost, not maximize it.
- A rational reallocation of real resources can reduce the human burden on the Earth’s biosphere and simultaneously improve the health and happiness of all. The Wall Street economy wastes enormous resources on things that actually reduce the quality of our lives—war, automobile dependence, suburban sprawl, energy-inefficient buildings, financial speculation, advertising, incarceration for minor, victimless crimes. The most important step toward bringing ourselves into balance with the biosphere is to eliminate the things that are bad for our health and happiness.
- Markets allocate efficiently only within a framework of appropriate rules to maintain competition, cost internalization, balanced trade, domestic investment, and equality. These are essential conditions for efficient market function. Without rules, a market economy quickly morphs into a system of corporate monopolies engaged in suppressing wages, exporting jobs, collecting public subsidies, poisoning air, land, and water, expropriating resources, corrupting democracy, and a host of other activities that represent an egregiously inefficient and unjust distribution of resources.
- A proper money system roots the power to create and allocate money in people and communities in order to facilitate the creation of livelihoods and ecologically balanced community wealth. Money properly serves life, not the reverse. Wall Street uses money to consolidate its power to expropriate the real wealth of the rest of the society. Main Street uses money to connect underutilized resources with unmet needs. Public policy properly favors Main Street.
- Money, which is easily created with a simple accounting entry, should never be the deciding constraint in making public resource allocation decisions. This is particularly obvious in the case of economic recessions or depressions, which occur when money fails to flow to where it is needed to put people to work producing essential goods and services. If money is the only lack, then make the accounting entry and get on with it.
- Speculation, the inflation of financial bubbles, risk externalization, the extraction of usury, and the use of creative accounting to create money from nothing, unrelated to the creation of anything of real value, serve no valid social purpose. The Wall Street corporations that engage in these activities are not in the business of contributing to the creation of real community wealth. They are in the business of expropriating it, a polite term for theft. They should be regulated or taxed out of existence.
- Greed is not a virtue; sharing is not a sin. If your primary business purpose is not to serve the community, you have no business being in business.
- The only legitimate reason for government to issue a corporate charter extending special privileges favoring a particular enterprise is to serve a clearly defined public purpose. That purpose should be clearly stated in the corporate charter and be subject to periodic review.
- Public policy properly favors local investors and businesses dedicated to creating community wealth over investors and businesses that come only to extract it. The former are most likely to be investors and businesses with strong roots in the communities in which they do business. We properly favor them.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License
- Posted in
Comments are closed
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
121 Comments so far
Show AllCommonSenseParty seems to think that ideas like Korten's are likely to lead to a fascist uprising.
You're right--nothing can stop that inevitability now. The forces behind an eventual fascist uprising are ruthless and restless, and America has always been conservative and ignorant enough to embrace such a phenomenon--especially now that "white culture" is under "attack" from a (heaven forfend!) black President and a brown invasion.
You seem angry that we are not waking up in time to prevent that. I argue that we cannot prevent it. The humane ideas presented in Korten's article are all perfectly right and perfectly laudable--and absolute anathema to the myopic and mindless majority. They will never be adopted, not here in the states.
I suggest that we liberals all move to Europe--a mass exodus of us into the EU would probably help stave off the now burgeoning shift to the right that threatens the Old World--and enjoy what liberties and social safety net we can before the fundamentalists of fascism, religion, and greed finally push the button and destroy us all.
Call me cynical ... but I am no more cynical than you. And I don't need to yell or be mean.
Canada, Latin America, New Zealand, Australia, Japan, S Korea. Even Vietnam won't be this bad (in the future). America put the sharks in charge of the fish tank. It's best to watch how that works out from the outside.
JOSH...
How practical really is your suggestion? Many who post here might take umbrage at the "label":liberal;some might prefer Brazil, for instance, to counter the dark picture you paint of Europe's future.
I don't disagree that your "prediction" of ultimate destruction may prove accurate, but would'nt invoking the best in the Human Spirit by taking a courageous position to help slow down, push back, or even prevent "the "inevitable" from happening, at least for a lifetime or two, be preferable?
Acknowledging the duality inherent in every human being, I hope my "idealistic dreamer" tendencies continue to trump over my "Realpolitik fatalism." Such a stance---plus Lipitor--might keep blood pressures lower, too!
Is anybody working on the steady-state economy problem these days? Books? Articles?
Thanks
Tne Transition Town Movement
Post-Carbon Institute
This is probably going to make me unpopular, but how about the idea that what's wrong with America is her government and not her economics?
Starting with Teddy Roosevelt, government (esp the Feds) showed that something was bigger than the 'winners' of our capitalism. Starting with anti-trust, those 'winners' have been consumed with taking over the government, once and for all. Furthermore, they understand that in a democracy its important to take over people's minds, as well, which is the purpose of Faux News. But, can we really just 'tell' them to stop it? Isn't a truism in capitalism that what one does with one's money is one's own business?
We can lament the fact that capitalism tends to elevate people to positions of power who are, charitably, as**oles. But its also been pointed out, repeatedly, that that may have less to do with capital, and more to do with power. Get rid of capitalism, and you don't get rid of power. You can't. So, the as**oles remain, drawn like bloodsuckers to the reins of power. Indeed, in other systems money power has led too easily to political power. So, in a way, our system may be better than the alternatives. It's useful, even, to have the as**oles beat themselves up for money power, and thereby grow the economy. Just, don't let that naturally lead to political power. And it's that last part that we've lost.
No, both Roosevelts were right: Democracy, properly implemented, is a necessary check on unbridled capitalistic power. So, to a great extent, there is nothing wrong with our capitalism. The problem is our government, which has been taken over by the enemy. That's why the push for campaign finance reform is so critical, at this juncture. It's even more critical because the entire body politic is now at risk of being so completely intellectually compromised. We have to find a way to take private money out of the democracy. And, having done that impossible task, we then have to find a way to take it out of the media, or at least counter it with good public programming (in the early days of the union, the government supported the media: I think we need that again). Because its spent much of the last 30 years horribly corrupting both institutions.
I concur.
Government proved that she could fix what was wrong about capitalism in the 1930s. Now, its government that must be fixed, cuz she's been invaded by the capitalists. If we can take back government from the capitalists, history suggests capitalism can be corrected as she was before. That's what I mean.
Korten writes as though if we all met at the market and promised to put people before profit, it would all go better. I submit that won't happen. What will happen is what happened before: gov't shows up with a billy-club, and clubs anyone who doesn't play fair.
Actually they did not fix what was wrong with Capitalism in the 1930's. They just did a patch job to see if they could put some more life into a failed system.
It sputtered through about 50 more years and now is in worse shape then ever.
Capitalism is in great shape, and has been highly successful. It is all of us and the environment that are in worse shape than ever, as a result of the success of Capitalism.
We, the working class people, are sputtering. The Capitalists are doing quite well, quite well. Better than ever, thank you. The goal of Capitalism, the inevitable outcome, is to have the capitalists, the few, doing very well, and that always comes, and always will come at our expense.
Are people sure they want to patch up, fix and extend the life of that system? How much more can the capitalists take, despoil, ruin, dominate? How can the environment and the human race survive yet another round of this insanity? Each round the insanity escalates and does more damage. The only way to keep the beast alive is to feed it, and it eats resources and communities and culture and life. Why is it our worry that the rapacious few are running out of resources and people to exploit and destroy? What stake do we have in that? Does anyone still cherish the illusion that there will be some "trickle down?"
How can that be true? I would say that the 30's proved that government could not fix what was wrong with Capitalism. Mask it, slow it down, mitigate it for a while, yes. Fix it? Hardly. Besides that, government never would have done anything had there not been tremendous outside pressure including a serious threat to the owners and rulers from a militant and radical left wing.
To say "if we can take back government from the capitalists, history suggests capitalism can be corrected as she was before" is akin to saying "if it didn't rain, history suggests we wouldn't get wet." It is not an accident that the capitalists dominate government and everything else, and the people in power will never voluntarily relinquish it, and certainly not on the basis of "good ideas" or the outcome of elections.
It is not merely government that needs to be taken back from the capitalists, it is everything - our lives, our communities, our economy, our culture. Change in government will come as an effect of the ongoing comprehensive struggle against the total domination of our lives. It cannot come without that struggle, and cannot come before we achieve success in that struggle.
Much of this comes down to a 'who will bell the cat' sort of problem. Not to go all communist, but Marx pointed out the basic problems 150 years ago, and he wasn't the only one who gave a decent analysis -- you can find a lot of these ideas from a couple of thousand years ago too.
The fundamental problems remain: how do we deal with the people who are too dumb or too ignorant to understand, or for whatever reason lack the skill and power to properly regulate society and control those who are too greedy, authoritarian and domineering to let a working and just society continue on as such? How do we devise a social and political system which not only works, but can sustain itself through effective feedback and knowledge mechanisms? How do we install a social system which compensates for the inherent problems of 'human nature', so when it starts to go bad -- as should be expected -- it can be detected and repaired before it blows up?
Communism was delightful as a theoretical model -- but we know where it went, due to the problems of inherent human frailty. Capitalism also fails, as we see. Tyranny with 'good kings' fail when the good king dies, and democracy becomes corrupt as the people lose interest and control.
We have yet to find a political and economic system which can regulate itself as well as even some of the primitive computer operating systems we now run (which also face problems of resource allocation, local hardware failures, and inconstrained growth). This is, essentially, a systems problem, born out of the haphazard way our species and it's systems have evolved, driven by short term reproductive forces, and open to local optimization with long term disaster.
What is likely needed is not so much 'common sense' but in-depth systems analysis, probably using evolutionary computer simulations, system intelligence, and the smartest and wisest scientists we can find. We got the internet with it's distributed leadership and communication working reasonable well so far -- if the fascists don't screw it up -- and there are many things we learn from that, but the rest of society, and politics and economics, hasn't caught up. That's a good place to look for new paradigms.
Excellent post, bluepilgrim. Nicely stated. I just posted on another article that ultimately the fate of any system would be decided by human nature, even though in the short run, one may appear to function better than the other. That said, I still think a conscious emphasis on ecological sustainability - which I have to insist is lacking from the traditional theories - would produce a much more livable society and should also include some of the ideals of socialism, while going further. And whatever system we come up with, fundamental change at the individual level is still going to be necessary for it to succeed. Necessary, though not sufficient.
Yeah -- we have to have ecological sustainability: the earth insists on that. This is one of the challenges of 'globalization' -- there are no new frontiers, and no place to colonize and exploit people because we are all 'us'. That 5 GB hard drive seems endless when we first get it, but eventually it -- and any sized drive -- runs out of space and we have to address the basic problem of what files we are going to store and which we don't. Even the number of CDs and DVDs we can have are finite.
The problems are quite similar, really. Computer systems are very socialistic -- programs have to share resources, and no one module can hog the disk or memoery all the time. With the development of computers we have learned quite a bit about systems and system thinking -- but without the politics and emotions of human society. Hierarchical data bases have largely given way to table driven, relational systems -- but we still contend with political hierachies, with all of it's absurd inefficiencies and inequalities.
Try to imagine a computer that is prejudiced against some part of the system, so that some circuits and memory areas are denied ever having access to needed information, or giving input to the CPU, or allowed to overheat to where they are non-functional. Heck -- try to imagine a farmer who refuses to fertilize or water one area of his field, or even refuses to reap the corps there, because they are the wrong 'social class'. Real farmers don't sow their seeds any old place and let those which fall on rocky ground wither and die; they prepare the soil and then tend their crops. A good factory manager doesn't neglect maintenance on the machinery, and then lock it in prison. Well run farms and factories are socialistic -- each part getting what it needs to function well.
Systems: system thinking applies to everything we do.
I don't have to imagine "a farmer who refuses to fertilize or water one area of his field, or even refuses to reap the crops there...sow their seeds any old place and let those which fall on rocky ground wither and die" - it happens all the time.
I don't have to imagine a "computer that is prejudiced against some part of the system, so that some circuits and memory areas are denied ever having access to needed information" - I am using one.
In both cases, the needs and desires of the capitalists are transcendent.
You are saying that if bosses treated the workers with care as they do other objects, things would be better. Capitalists do not treat inanimate objects with care, and workers - human beings - are not resources or commodities.
The point of Capitalism is not to amass wealth, but rather to amass wealth in order to control and dominate others, to gain freedom for oneself and to deny it to others. If leaving a crop in the field, or letting machinery go to rack and ruin, or skewing the use of resources on a computer will advance that goal, then those things will be - and often are - done.
There is a system in place, yes, but it is a system for transferring wealth and therefore power from the many to the few. It works quite well at doing that. That is its only purpose.
If we are going to apply systems thinking, let's accurately perceive the existing system as the starting point.
When we talk about devising and installing a system, and dealing with people, we are speaking in the voice of the boss, from the viewpoint of the bosses, and that thinking will always lead to rule by the greedy, authoritarian and domineering.
Educated and bright people are thoroughly indoctrinated to think as bosses. They know no other way, they are blind to their own prejudice and form something of a minor aristocracy, not born to the role exclusively but trained for it in exchange for perks and status. The perks flow and the status will be intact so long as the recipient continue to speak as a boss and for the bosses.
From that point of view, we then see the challenge as one of devising alternative systems, or fine-tuning the one we have, so that it functions better - "better" meaning with less obvious and ugly visible effects and less danger of an uprising from the masses. The barrier to the installation of these imagined better systems is hen seen as the masses - the ignorant and stupid inferior people, the extras in our grand movie - "If I Were King for a Day." Failures can then be explained away as being caused by "human nature." Some then fantasize ways to change this "human nature."
This is an ongoing struggle. It is the story of the human race, the battle between those few who would dominate and those many who would cooperate. While it is true that tyranny often arises and is a constant threat, nevertheless cooperation, equality, and self-sacrifice also continually arise, and are a continual threat - to the bosses.
The only proper role for the technocrats, the analysts, the theorists, the brainy ones is as humble servants to the community, and that precludes thinking in terms of devising and installing and imposing anything, and it precludes blaming "human frailty" or "human nature."
You can't force people to be free, you cannot impose democracy. To approach social and political problems without talking about the ongoing struggle, or while even denying its existence, is to take a side in the struggle, and the side you will inevitably be taking is the side of the domineering and controlling ones seeking power over the rest of us.
Two Americas, you make some excellent points - in the first part. Let me just point out something from your post that I don't agree with:
>>You say: The only proper role for the technocrats, the analysts, the theorists, the brainy ones is as humble servants to the community, and that precludes thinking in terms of devising and installing and imposing anything, and it precludes blaming "human frailty" or "human nature."<<
That is absurd. Those who learn about or think of better ways to do things have the obligation to share them with the society. Not impose, but share. And if it so happens that much of the society is caught up in wrong, unsustainable ways of thinking and doing things, it is also the obligation of "the analysts, the theorists, the brainy ones" to communicate their thinking - so that better ideas can gain greater traction.
You are thinking from the point of view of "imposing". I am opposed to that as well. But it doesn't mean that everyone should just sit and watch "as humble servants to the community" or refrain from "blaming human frailty or human nature" in the face of continuing insanity. Everyone is learning and you want to preclude the sharing of this learning? Sorry, I think you got carried away there with your analysis and pronouncements.
How would being humble servants to the community preclude sharing ideas? It would foster the sharing of ideas.
Does being a humble servant mean "just sit and watch?" I don't think so.
I don't agree that "much of the society is caught up in wrong, unsustainable ways of thinking and doing things" and I don't think that is the barrier. But we can discuss it. I am trying to state my view clearly here, not aggressively or with any hostility, and I certainly would not claim to have the last word on any of this.
>>Two Americas wrote: I don't agree that "much of the society is caught up in wrong, unsustainable ways of thinking and doing things" and I don't think that is the barrier.<<
Are you serious? I would say that is the case all over the world, although there clearly are degrees of unsustainability and differences in consumption levels. That is, all over the world, the dominant paradigm is ***not*** based on any explicit or implicit concern for sustainability. It is ***not*** based on any explicit or implicit recognition and acknowledgement of the finite nature of resources and finite rates of renewal of things like fresh water, oxygen, forests, etc.
It is easy to see that in rich countries, but the situation is not much better in poor countries either. It's true that poor people consume much less, and therefore have a smaller footprint. But unfortunately, they too are victims of the system that forces them to cut the remaining forests and to pump fresh water from ever deeper depths below ground. Farm subsidies in rich countries distort the markets in poorer countries. Because almost everything is getting monetized, the poor farmers are forced to sell their produce for low price, and forced to grow "cash crops" for the rich and for exports, and forced to compete for limited amounts of water available. Or they resort to producing "value added" stuff like meat and dairy as they fetch slightly more on the market, but not nearly enough to compensate for the increased resources consumed. Developing countries want foreign tourists, but they end up selling their resources for cheap - such as golf courses built on farm land in Asian countries. The net result is enormous pressure on the environment, but it's a matter of survival. While the rich don't care about sustainability due to their greed, vanity and arrogance, the poor are not in a position to care about sustainability due to survival concerns.
My first instinct was to simply write
"This is a fact, and I don't even want to "discuss it" - because there is nothing to discuss. It's a fact and we have to proceed from that fact. That's all."
But then I thought maybe we are talking of different things? Anyway, the only country that is functioning somewhat close to sustainable levels, not so much out of choice but due to external constraints, is Cuba. I wrote about this in the recent article on Cuba:
"Missing the Boat on Cuba"
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/08/13-2
I agree with you about Cuba.
You are right that people everywhere are caught up in an unsustainable approach to life. I say most are being forced into that - 80-90% - by the few who gain from this state of affairs. I don't see it as "human nature" - it is very inhuman and unnatural - and I don't think people need their belief systems changed. I think they need heir circumstances changed, and I think that is what politics is about.
We see the same phenomenon, the only question is this: is that caused by people being forced into it to survive, and therefore is it a political problem of fighting for freedom and overthrowing tyranny, or is it an attitude and belief problem to be solved by converting people to new beliefs? I say it is the former.
The solution to the imbalance caused by farming - actually eating - being subsidized here is to subsidize it there and eliminate Wall Street's involvement in the food delivery system, not to make food a "free market" here to "level the playing field." That would just make farmland here as easy to exploit and destroy by the capitalists as it now is in other countries. It is the IMF, the World Bank and US corporations that are destroying farming in other countries, not the public agricultural infrastructure and public support of food production here.
>>bluepilgrim August 16th, 2010 12:16 am:
"Cost is not inherently evil, but we want it comensurate with my level of well being. But what should that level of well being be? ...I want to determine what my needs are and then make it a 'reasonable' quantity, because minimizing a thing also has a cost, ..."<<
bluepilgrim, I think you are needlessly worrying about minimizing your needs. Just define something as your need and see if it's reasonable or not, given certain constraints. And if your objective is to play fair, it's not so difficult at all.
When you talk of "optimizing the whole system", you still have to define what the desired output is. You cannot leave it vague or undefined, although it can be adjusted iteratively. You can pick a certain level of comfort, certain services, etc. and estimate what the input for these is going to be. No matter what level of output (that is, comfort, services, etc.) you choose, minimizing the input is a good idea, **subject to certain constraints** - such as avoiding labor exploitation.
Nobody said cost is evil or even that it can be avoided. But minimizing the cost in the face of certain constraints - that's what optimizing is, in general. If you do not impose the constraints such as prohibiting labor exploitation, imposing a maximum on salary ratios within an organization, maximum amount of resources that can be consumed in the whole system (a perfectly rational constraint), etc., then you'll have a situation as it exists today.
If defining the output is not easy for most people ("people will want progress and variation in some form"), imposing the constraint of ecological sustainability will help clarify the picture better. And the further constraint that you cannot kill other human beings (or force them into starvation) will clarify things even further. And the constraint that all human beings deserve certain basic needs met - such as so many calories of food with a certain amount of nutrients, clean water, etc., should make things clearer.
Throwing in the over-population argument is simply an attempt to evade engaging in a rigorous exercise to come up with a rational, equitable system (I'm just trying to preempt such an attempt here). I have said this before - that if you pack all white people back into Europe and all Chinese and Indians into their respective countries, then we can talk overpopulation. So, while the human population has to be reduced, it would take a few generations for it to happen through natural means (a major constraint - that reduction in population must not involve killing or forced starvation). So all of this will point to an equitable sharing of resources.
When you do all this, your optimized "level of well being" will most likely look very different than it is today. The western lifestyle today is not optimized - because it was not subject to the constraints of sustainability, equitable sharing, no killing, etc.
Theoretically, it is not a big deal to optimize the system - given current level of knowledge. The problem is in agreeing on the desired output and, more importantly, the constraints, even if they are shown to be completely rational.
It's not as if there are no metrics that we can use today. People who refuse to look at their ecological footprint are dishonest, selfish, arrogant and stupid. Even though the concept was proposed only about 15 years ago by a professor and his grad student at the UBC, Vancouver, it is turning out to be quite a powerful tool in evaluating options. And it has the concept of equitable sharing built into it - that's the beauty of it. And it incorporates elements of sustainability too, although I'm sure it can be improved.
Although different values for the ecological footprint (expressed in "global hectares") may be obtained based on the methodology and the data set used, the trend will still be the same - if you are comparing per capita footprint between countries. Pretty much everything - from the land it takes to produce food to the forest area needed to absorb the CO2 that's produced, so that the atmospheric concentration can remain stable - is included in the "global hectare". Even the different productivity levels of various types of soil are accorded different weighting factors. So, it is a very useful and a very reasonable metric to use.
Then there is the carbon footprint. And there is the water footprint. And "virtual water" - that is water that is used in the production of something, including the polluted water.
You have the Gini coefficient that measures the disparity in income inequality.
There are all kinds of useful metrics, and the methodologies to estimate them are being refined continuously. The problem is the willingness to look - or the lack thereof.
If you agree on the need to play fair, then there is only so much ecological footprint available per capita: it is around 2 global hectares per person per year. Anything and everything you consume can be converted to your footprint. So you can see where you stand relative to your fair share. The problem is many people are not serious about playing fair. They are DISHONEST and SHALLOW.
And greedy. We are beyond the point where we can afford to have people use whatever their money can buy. There is no reason why anyone should be allowed to use more than their fair share. We need to get used to the idea that survival means giving up certain freedoms we've come to take for granted.
At the moment I'm not up to giving you a proper response, but I want to point towards Maslow's pyramid (good as any model) and note that most of what has been discussed relates to the 'lower' levels: physical needs and security, and not psychological and 'spiritual' or 'being' needs and values. (But even physical security can be -- I think should be -- a function of a working social system.)
Wehn we talk about SUVs or $1,000 suits, that's generally a poor substitute for self and social esteem -- psychological needs. Physical needs are more efficiently met communally; there is a major problem, just in terms of efficient use of resources, with having the culture based on only the individual or nuclear family with everyone out for just themselves, and all the redundancy and waste that goes with that.
Trying to talk about just economics and not social and cultural attitudes and values can't work since they are so intertwined, but although these are touched on in the article, they are not treated sufficiently: the culture, such as communal, clan, or extended family life styles, are basic to and must be foundational for a better economy, and a valid context for discussing and reforming the economy. Read the article as if it did not refer to the US society as it is, but to a small village of people all related by close family ties and the entire character and applicability of it changes: 'government', 'the market', 'money', and 'monopolies', for instance, mean entirely different things, if even applicable, in a family or clan. What capitalism does is break people apart instead of consolidating them into a functioning society.
#4 is wrong. Competition is part of the problem.
Einstein was 25 and working as a clerk when he wrote the five opus papers.
The discussions here are a good example why positive change doesn't happen. Talk. The Green Party Platform contains most of the kernels that Korten talks about and is an available option ignored by people buried in the mythology of the two party hell. Hence if everyone decided to "do the right thing" and voted Green we would have a new beginning. The "Progressive Democrats" are most logiocally Green but cleave to their self imposed, and thus our, two-party hell.
Until we all "do the right thing"... (what we need exists already ...see the Earth Charter)...
Vote Green Party Platform;
Abandon oil, coal and nukes and reduce personal auto use by 90% (except for handicapped and business uses);
Relocalize life to local food and services;
Boycott all corporate non-sustainable products and services;
Reduce per person carbon/energy footprint to 10% of the existing one;
Agree to attitive population reduction to 1.5 billion via feebates and 1-2 child max;
Free public trans, education and health;
...nothing will happen. A lot of the above is doable now and I am doing them. I'm car-free, lowered my carbon footprint by over 50%, have decided not to bear children, do not buy corporate crap, buy local or pesticide free or organic, and i vote green. If we all do this the abomination will be defunded and fold up like a deflated balloon.
Quit tallking and start doing folks.
Is voting Green "doing" as opposed to not doing? If the problem is that people are trapped in two party hell in their minds, wouldn't that make thinking, studying, talking, and writing important (I assume that those are the things people mean as the opposite of "doing.")
How does what is doable on a personal ever translate into anything political?
Is it a question of people not doing the right things, making the right choices, or is the challenge that people do not have the power to do much of anything or make much in the way of choices? Certainly if we all somehow magically started doing something at the same time - voting Green for example - things would be different. But would everyone voting Green be an effect or a cause of change? I would say that it clearly could only be an effect of change and could never be a cause of change. The changes that would be needed as a prerequisite for everyone to be voting Green would render voting Green superfluous. Society would then already be changed.
Then the question becomes whether the change needed is in the realm of changing people's individual beliefs, converting or persuading them, or in the realm of fighting for power, resisting the domination and control we are under. I would say that nothing can happen, that we can do nothing, so long as we do not have the power to do anything.
Yes, if we lived in a society that would vote Green, we would then be... living in a society that voted Green. The reason that doesn't happen is not because of people's beliefs, but rather because there are powerful people who do not want that to happen and who can enforce that.
Two Americas, you've made some good points on other posts, but here you seem to make the same mistake as most people - in assuming and arguing that change at the personal level does not translate into anything political.
You are totally wrong on this. Let me tell you up front: no one is arguing against political or systemic change. It's the power of the individual we are talking of.
>>How does what is doable on a personal ever translate into anything political?<<
More people deciding to walk the talk in their personal lives will produce more leaders at the local level. Others - even the right-wing fundamentalists - are likely to notice that such people are not just talking bullshit. You cannot change the system without convincing the section of the population that is willing to defend the system. That is, without violence.
>>Then the question becomes whether the change needed is in the realm of changing people's individual beliefs, converting or persuading them, or in the realm of fighting for power, resisting the domination and control we are under.<<
Both. Let me repeat, BOTH. There is no way you can do the latter without doing the former.
>> I would say that nothing can happen, that we can do nothing, so long as we do not have the power to do anything.<<
OK, I'll grant you that. But people **do** have the power do something. Many things. But the real question is, do they want to?
Each person needs to move from contemplation to action...get rid of your car, ride a bike, take the train, buy that coffee from your local mom&pop shop, farmer's markets, grow your own...etc!
Just DO the right thing. Your friends will adjust or join you or you'll find new friends who do. It takes time and guts but it works in the long run.
Sandy Sanders, since you listed specific things that individuals can do (something I was avoiding), let me also add the biggest, the simplest and yet the most powerful thing an individual can do:
Stop eating meat and dairy. Or, at least, cut down the consumption ***drastically***.
It is ***NOT** just a simple choice of what to eat. It is a direct action and a statement against the system. Here's why:
Historically, meat and dairy was not available to the "commoners" in such quantities and on a daily basis simply because the resources such as land and water were limited. Take beef. The gestation period for a cow to yield a calf is around 9 months. The industry has not come up with a way to shorten this period. If they had, they would have done it. (They have shortened the time for chicken to be slaughtered to just 7 weeks, though the accelerated fattening makes them barely able to stand). A cow raised for beef needs to be kept alive for at least 2 years (under factory farming conditions; in free range conditions, the time is longer), consuming immense amount of feed and water (in the form of cattle feed) - finally to yield around 500 lbs of boneless meat (once again, in factory farming conditions; yield from grass fed cows is less).
Today, so much meat is available to the "common people" not only in the settler countries of North & South America, Australia and New Zealand, but to so many people in Europe and Asia as well - as a direct result of conquest and colonization of the so-called New World.
Ranchers have enjoyed and continue to enjoy huge subsidies, so much so that some knowledgeable people routinely refer to them as "welfare ranchers". Big-Agri also enjoys vast subsidies. In order to produce ***so much*** meat takes a great deal of resources - land, subsidized water, oil in the form of fertilizers for the GM crops for animal feed, refrigerated transportation and storage, etc. The "system" has to employ low-paid workers to work in miserable conditions so as to ensure cheap prices. Forests are still being cleared not just in South America, but also in Indonesia and Malaysia so as to grow soy for animal feed.
It's an indisputable fact and so elementary that the higher up people eat on the food chain, the more resources it takes and the more wasteful it becomes. And, in the present situation, it also supports the very system that so many people rail against.
You want to start chipping away at the system? Start with something that's in your power: stop eating meat and dairy. Or at least cut down ***drastically***. Learn to prepare vegetarian and vegan dishes from around the world. Learn to use a bit of spices. Send the signal to growers and supermarkets that you want more vegetables and little or no meat.
I haven't even touched on the implications on equitable sharing of resources, tackling poverty, stopping water pollution due to chemical runoffs and sewage ponds, fighting climate change (methane from cows is a major, major contributor) or even the health benefits to people. Because we are talking about taking on the system, and here's something that's within the power of the individual. Use that power.
Alcyon...I agree, that's another of my objectives I've been working on. I eat too much, but I'm working on it.
I think a good general goal is to quickly get to a footprint reduction of 50%, then whittle to 90%. If we in the US could get to 90% footprint reduction with a 1-2 attritive population reduction, we could be sustainable in 100 years. Course we need the rest of the platform implemented too.
Sandy Sanders, I do understand the difficulties in giving up something, though. For example, I like my coffee and I do like a good cup of cappuccino once in a while. But it has dairy. So it's a bit of a struggle to forgo that occasional pleasure. Someone was telling me all the great things about raw food - which would mean giving up the cooked food items I enjoy now. So I've started a gradual switch.
The trick to switching to a vegan or vegetarian diet is to make it pleasurable. If you have friends who are good vegetarian cooks, maybe you should get yourself invited or try to choose good (but not expensive) vegetarian restaurants to eat out. Or find a friend (or friends) so you can do it together and support each other. Once you see for yourself that you are not losing out on anything and simultaneously understand the implications of meat eating, the switch would so easy. In my case, it was instantaneous, and no regrets, 25 years later. But it was easier for me because I enjoy spicy food, so there was that much more variety to choose from.
Sorry about the unsolicited advice :)
Thank you Alcyon for summarizing it well. About voting for the Green Party, it's not enough to tell people to just vote Green. You have to keep emphasizing the party platform issue after issue so that people spontaneously say "yes, indeed". I know I'm voting Green this year for Senator of MO after being convinced on the issues. :)
I would be happy if I could get people to just read the Platform. Most are so indoctrinated to the Republocrat paradigm that they dismiss the validity of any outside possibility. It's like the Matrix where a false reality is tube fed and all else doesn't exist.
I have a stack of Platforms to hand out. No one will read it.
Sandy, I know what you mean and it's no fault of your own. The sad truth about reading in this country is people are used to soundbites more than reading and expanding their thinking and creativity skills. At the most, the American people only get interested in reading imbecilic literature such as Harry Potter, Sarah Palin, and Tea Party platforms just because the current media makes it too seducing for viewers to resist. I don't believe that you have to go through the trouble of trying to sell your product. Here is an idea that may help you motivate individuals into reading about the Green Party platform. Find issues that they are interested in and get them interested into wondering what the Green Party would do on those issues. If you can get them interested on at least one or more issues, then you have a better chance at getting them to learn more about the Green Party Platform. Don't give up. Keep up the good work and build some confidence. You still have a chance and I think you will succeed. We are all in the same boat trying to correct the problem. Good luck.
P.S.: I saw your response to Peter and the second paragraph is especially important. My niece showed me what she learned about the basics and marketing and finance and both of us strongly agree that it would be better to stick to making voters think with their minds and hearts rather than using marketing and spinning which could backfire later. This is especially true of a small business vs a large one. She works for a small company and has resisted attempts at marketing it into a big company since she fears that it will fall into the devilish "too big to fail" ideology. Likewise, I too don't believe that the Green Party should sink to the level of the Republican and Democratic parties. We are at a time when seductive marketing is very difficult to snap people out of unlike past attempts such as during the Great Depression.
Thanks Stanley...I think we need to abandon the processes of capitalism, namely pyramid schemes and deception were the few trick the many into a false ascent to success, sacrificing those below. I think we are headed for a new paradigm that works from truth and ecological function rather than propaganda and trickery. Essentially we have tricked ourselves into driving off a cliff, saving capitalism and greed while killing off the host.
Solution: a conscious daily script to realign individual behavior away from profit driven behavior to earthly sustainable behavior..
Human Programming Code for Sustainable Daily Activities
1) Things* are to be treated as Tools only.
2) Tools must serve Life**.
3) Life is not a Thing.
4) Life is never to be treated like a Tool.
* Things - anything that is created by humans that is not life.
** Life - all components of Earth's systems and all of Earth's systems: human, fauna, flora, mineral, air, water, all natural Earthian processes.
This is pure libertarianism. You are describing the problem, not the solution: individualism, "personal responsibility" (blame the working class for the conditions we are enduring), faith-based politics ("just DO the right thing"), consumerism ("make the right choices").
While you and your friends may be able to make those choices, and may convince yourself that you are making a difference and are making some sort of sacrifice that takes "time and guts" - what, you mean I can't go to Starbucks anymore? - you ignore some massive flaws in your plan for action. First, "choosing" public transportation and bike riding and shopping at Mom and Pops may work in your neighborhood, but is not available or possible for many people. Those things aren't going away because people didn't "choose" them, in their unenlightened foolishness. All choices are being crushed out of existence. Then, the more successful you are at converting people to this, the more likely that all of those choices and activities will either be eliminated for everyone, or co-opted by capitalists.
None of that is "action" in the least, not in any political sense. Nothing wrong with anything you suggest doing.
Rather than scolding people to take the train or ride a bike, we could be advocating fighting for public transportation.
Rather than advocating growing our own, we could be advocating fighting for a restoration of the public agriculture infrastructure.
Rather than advocating shopping at local businesses, we could be advocating fighting to overthrow Wall Street and the corporations and Capitalism.
You characterize the one as "contemplation" and the other as "action." But neither is action nor contemplation, they are both advocacy. You advocate individual solutions, I and others advocate group solutions.
Two Americas, I vote Green Party Platform which advocates a sustainable government benefiting the people rather than profit. One cannot base their decisions upon what someone else wants... that's not voting, it's being co-opted to a false objective.
I bike and train for 95% of my urban travel when not injured and have reduced my travel energy footprint by 95% and increased my health and mental wellbeing with the exercise and planning required.
The other things I mentioned are options that would be "doing the right thing" such as implementing egalitarian democracy and sustainable ecology/economy. These objectives are doing the right thing. Actions that achieve sustainable and egalitarian earth practices is doing the right thing.
You can only decide what to do for yourself and when we each do this within egalitarianism we are doing the right thing.
I am not bragging but presenting an alternative to talking about what we SHOULD do, like Korten is doing (rather than promoting what already exists like the Earth Charter and the Green Party Platform). We know what we should do. Do the right thing. The Green Party Platform and the Earth Charter implemented together create the beginnings of Ecotopia. The system, the Matrix you live in has you tricked into inaction so that this corrupt system can maintain itself in it's corruption.
I as well try to influence the existing system with discussions like this and writing reps and protesting but I also change my lifestyle to sustainability, as if Ecotopia were here now. You do have choices to do the right thing. Such as if you live in the rural areas and can't bike, run your vehicle on alcohol (Alcohol Can Be A Gas! - Bloom). I bike commuted 75 miles round trip to work via bike and train for 12 years with the last 4 years totally car-free. It was very hard. People at work first laughed at me. Then they smirked. Then they accepted. Then they praised and bragged about me. That process took about 2 years for each stage. We need to have the guts to change our lifestyles, like the other gent said to eat less meat and dairy. Etc.
JUST DO IT! (and stop buying corporate crap!)
Well, I do all that and have since before it was popular. I have never owned a TV, had already ridden 25,000 miles by rail 40 years ago, and have eaten in a fast food place 2 or 3 times in 40 years. I don't shop at chains. I spend most of my time on farms and get most of my food from there. I don't care if people laugh at me or smirk. I have always been out of step with those around me. Not sure why you think I have been tricked into being inactive. I have been intensely involved in politics at all levels for 40 years.
I think it is fine that you are doing what you are doing, as well.
However, in my view none of that is politics. It certainly can intersect with politics, and more importantly with social criticism. I am glad that I don't own a TV and don't watch it, but I don't advocate that or lecture other people or present it or think about it as a way to resist or overcome the tyranny we face.
You say "One cannot base their decisions upon what someone else wants... that's not voting, it's being co-opted to a false objective."
I base all of my political decisions on what others need, and never on what I want or my feelings.
I am willing to consider your arguments, Alcyon. I have some serious doubts, though.
Some people, a relatively small number, have the power to do things in their personal life as you suggest. Most do not. If all did, and if all could be persuaded, the people in power would crush and suppress any such movement.
I do not agree that we cannot fight for power until and unless people green their lives or change their belief system. Since it is a problematic multiple decade project (that we are now 4 decades into) to change people's belief systems, that seems to me a way to avoid and postpone what needs to be done that is masquerading as a solution or as "doing something" - that is to say, doing something serious that will improve conditions. It has been about 40 years since people started promoting these ideas, and the public has heard the pitch over and over again. The more this approach is applied, the worse things have become. I think there is a cause and effect relationship between the two.
I was with Michael Moore not long ago, and someone suggested these various personal lifestyle changes as a response to the tyranny we face. He said, and I agree with him, that those things are all fine, but that we are looking at the tree and not the forest, and it is a very, very small tree and a tree that only a relative handful of people will ever relate to.
You say that "you cannot change the system without convincing the section of the population that is willing to defend the system." The section of the population defending the system will never change their minds. Why would they? The system is doing quite well by them.
"The individual has power" contradicts what most of the people in the country already know - that as individuals we have virtually no power.
If you were saying "we have no power, and we need to band together" there would be no need for this laborious and ill-fated mission to convert people's belief systems.
Making changes in one's personal life is not "walking the walk." It is self-expression, and self-expression is the bane of liberalism, the main obstacle to organizing, building solidarity and resisting.
Change at the personal level does actually translate into something political - that is to say while it is not seriously political itself, it is not politically neutral. The political things it translates into are things I oppose - incrementalism, individualism, dispersal, libertarianism, socially responsible investing, green entrepreneurship, privatization.
Two Americas...I am sorry but you are completely lost.
If we all organize to elect a platform that changes the laws so that gasoline is taxed at $10 a gallon so as to make people reduce their driving of gas powered vehicles, all we are doing is creating an authoritarian control of behavior. I'm sorry but I want to live my life based upon rationality, not on obedience. Human beings are not bees or ants. We need community to survive and succeed but we also need to be conscious thinking contributing individuals.
Your-all-and-not-one attitude is counter intuitive to all that is human. We can be individuals and act to community benefit on our own first. I refuse to fund big oil with my daily lifestyle. I refuse to wait for everyone else to do the right thing, in order for me to do the right thing.
I suggest you read some anarchist philosophy just to get a perspective on the intent of individual action in context to community.
To sacrifice yourself for "others" is just to be obedient to system propaganda, pumped out everyday to make people co-opted and compliant.
Don't wait for others to be you. "Just do it!" (and stop buying corporate crap like mindless self-sacrifice). Organizing is overrated when people refuse to coalesce around rational sustainable principles at their own peril.
>>Sandy Sanders wrote: We can be individuals and act to community benefit on our own first. I refuse to fund big oil with my daily lifestyle. ... To sacrifice yourself for "others" is just to be obedient to system propaganda, pumped out everyday to make people co-opted and compliant. Don't wait for others to be you. "Just do it!" ... Organizing is overrated when people refuse to coalesce around rational sustainable principles at their own peril.<<
Wow, Sandy Sanders, that was a courageous thing to say on this forum. Some people who read only the last line of your post, and none of your other posts (where you mention your supporting the Green Party and the "Earth Charter") may go momentarily ballistic and think of you as some kind of a counter-revolutionary. However, as someone who has read J. Krishnamurti extensively, I can relate to what you have to say, even though I might be able to debate a specific point here and there (such as on taxing gasoline: I am perfectly willing to support a bit of authoritarian control in regulating the consumption of this stuff - and totally based on "rationality" - just like prohibiting or restricting certain materials in certain situations :).
And, of course, I would want to make sure that you are not against organizing per se - you just don't want to wait around for everyone to come onboard. Right?
Oh no, of course. I am all for making a $10 a gallon tax on gas. Or better yet and more egalitarian, a carbon tax with rebates to the poor.
I was just saying to act first to be in sync with the policies one advocates, rather than wait for some authority or police action to enforce it. People now demand that authority enforce compliance rather than each person "doing the right thing". Problem is the authorities don't want you do regulate their profit stream so useful regulation never occurs. It's a catch 22 situation with earth being degenerated after each unsuccessful cycle.
The young DIYers dropping out to bikes and gardens are taking things into their own hands and doing something. I agree with this and want to live Ecotopia now, not some mythic later.
Oh i love Krishnamurti too...so responsible he was.
You add $10 to the price of a gallon of gas and I'll have to give up eating fresh food, and maybe sometimes being able to get to the drug store. Already I ususally get out to shop only about twice a week. The rich and well off won't care at all.
Of course, with that tax the price of everything will shoot up sky high so I wouldn't be able to afford most food anyway -- or anything else.
The old and crippled up DYIers like me can't ride a bike, or garden. But what the hell -- just toss us in the trash. I'm getting used to it by now.
OR... we could get rid of the gangsters and fascists.
bluepilgrim, you are speaking from a wrong assumption: that someone is advocating a huge tax (or levy) on gas, keeping all other things the same. No.
So many other things will have to be done together: such as removing subsidies given to big industries, introducing some form of progressive taxation, so the rich are taxed proportionately more, etc. Sandy Sanders mentioned rebates - based on income levels. So, while the "rich and well off won't care", as you say, at least they'll be paying more, and the less well off will get rebates. But ultimately all needless driving around has to go down - whether it's by the rich or poor.
First of all, such a tax would be a tool and a signal - to switch to other modes of transportation. If cities lack adequate public transportation, then some of the initial cost can be obtained from such a tax.
People do get around without using personal cars in many countries. And gasoline is usually priced much higher in these countries.
Public transportation.
When people have a choice, they will make it. People are not making the wrong choices, they have no choices.
Rebuilding public transportation will never come through the approach of "personal choice" and does not depend upon people's belief systems about energy or the environment.
The barrier to public transportation is not people's attitudes, it is a powerful vested interest that does not want that - or anything else of benefit to the working class people - to happen.
In Detroit people switched from public transportation to cars when they had no other choice. The oil companies and the auto companies made sure they had no other choice.
Is it possible that the premise - that the problems we face are because the general public made the wrong choices - is false?
For decades the corporate mouthpieces have been pushing this line. "Hey people want to burn a lot of oil, we are just responding to their demand and giving them what they want." "People want cheap junk from China, so what can we do?" "People want crappy fast food, and that is their choice. Why can't we sell it to them? Silly people with their silly choices."
But in strategy sessions in the corporations, they talk about doing everything they can to force everyone to make the choices they want them to make, the choices that will generate the highest profits for them. Only after people no longer have any choice do they blame the people.
>>Two Americas wrote: "Rebuilding public transportation will never come through the approach of "personal choice" and does not depend upon people's belief systems about energy or the environment."<<
Two Americas, are you in politics? Or political advertising? Because you seem to have an amazing knack for putting words into other people's mouths (or posts), and pull words from entirely different posts, stitch them together and try to make a point - except it's a fake point.
My **entire** reply (Alcyon August 17th, 2010 7:41 pm) was about bluepilgrim's concern about $10 gasoline. And everything I wrote was about a policy of taxing gas more, without affecting people with low income. Where exactly did you pull "personal choice" from?
>>You say: "The barrier to public transportation is not people's attitudes, it is a powerful vested interest that does not want that - or anything else of benefit to the working class people - to happen."<<
OK, I agree - partially, even though I never said anything about people's attitudes **at all** on that post (one more case of you making things up, instead of responding directly to what was said). So, what the hell were the people doing when GM and a handful of corporations went to work on dismantling the transit systems that existed back then? People are powerless partly because when there is no immediate crisis, they are distracted with all kinds of circuses and superficial issues. This is not a case of blaming the victims. This is to point out how not taking personal responsibility and not paying attention to what goes on around you will end up turning us into victims. There is no alternative to eternal vigilance and that starts with the individual. You can argue all you want, and make up all kinds of stories. But you cannot resist brainwashing unless you are an alert "individual".
>>You say: "People are not making the wrong choices, they have no choices."<<
That is true only in some cases. There are cases where people - even ordinary people - do make the wrong choices, out of conditioning (tradition), due to propaganda or due to lack of correct information. Even here, you cannot excuse individual responsibility. If someone's situation does not permit him or her to seek out correct information, it is the responsibility of those more fortunate to share such information and fight the system that feeds wrong information.
Understood.
I am very familiar with the program you are presenting. It has been widely promoted for 40 years now. I do not oppose it.
I am presenting a different program. It does not preclude yours.
I object to the approach you are promoting being presented as the only way, or even the main way or first way to effect political and social change.
Self-sacrifice is "just to be obedient to system propaganda?"
Calling for organizing for mass resistance is to "wait for others to be you?"
How is calling for public, rather than private solutions to public issues, and calling for mass action "waiting for everyone else to do the right thing, in order for me to do the right thing?"
Saying that we should "be individuals and act to community benefit on our own first" is an apology for libertarianism and privatization.
We are social beings. We all go, or none of us go. I am not recommending that, rather I am observing that.
What you are doing is not available to most people who do not have the choices that you have nor the luxury to fiddle with them. The freedom and individualism you imagine is an illusion. Who do you think is encouraging this individualistic and isolated approach as the only way to solve social problems? The people in power, that is who.
The idea that we can crate our own reality, that we are islands, that our only choices lie in the personal realm, that our lifestyles are the most important thing - the cause and the solution to social problems - is a Madison Avenue huckster pitch, attached to thousands of marketing campaigns for thousands of products, and now permeating our political discussion as well. Keeping us all isolated and alienated from one another and leading us to see everything as a function of personal choice is the goal of those in power.
Two Americas, let's say you are the one calling for collective action.
Why should anyone listen to **you**? It doesn't matter whether what you say makes sense or not, logical or not. I can repeat what Gandhi said or what Jesus said or what Karl Marx said. Why should anyone listen to **me**? Even the people that know you or me in person - why should they, or why would they listen to you or me?
No one need listen to me. If they are interested in what I am saying, they listen. If not, they don't. That has little or nothing to do with me.
Those who determine who they will and won't listen to based on the authority, credentials, or status of the speaker will, of course, never listen anyway. Should someone with authority, credentials, or status say the things I am saying, they will very soon lose their authority, credentials, and status. That is the mechanism by which people thoughts and speech are controlled, and quite effectively.
That is one reason why the personal choice model does not work, can not work. People are not interested in what you or I are doing. Nor should they be, especially when the "choices" are mostly being acted on by the relatively well-off, by relatively upscale suburban people, and are often at direct odds with the needs of less fortunate people. I would cite the "rails to bike trails" program as a prime example. The calls for taxing fast food is another. The promotion of specialty food choices is yet another.
Two Americas, I think you understood my question and the logic of it, but insist on holding on to your assertion. Collective action requires leaders and organizers at various levels, and you would want these people to be genuine. As simple as that. The only "credential" I'll look for is whether such a person practices what he/she preaches. At least most of the time. That was the point of my question, and you don't want to address that. Al Gore lacks credibility precisely because he does not practice what he preaches in his personal life. People listened to Gandhi not only because he said "“Be the change you want to see in the world", but tried to walk the walk as well.
You have a peculiar, but not so uncommon, idea about individual action - which simply does not preclude collective action. And you insist on putting words into other people's posts - and make claims that they never made. Here's something from your reply to Sandy Sanders August 17th, 2010 2:12 pm:
>>"The idea that we can crate our own reality, that we are islands, that our only choices lie in the personal realm, that our lifestyles are the most important thing - the cause and the solution to social problems - is a Madison Avenue huckster pitch, attached to thousands of marketing campaigns for thousands of products, and now permeating our political discussion as well."<<
You are clearly thinking of something else, and not responding to what that poster had said. At all.
And here's what Sandy Sanders said on that post:
>>"We can be individuals and act to community benefit on our own first. I refuse to fund big oil with my daily lifestyle. I refuse to wait for everyone else to do the right thing, in order for me to do the right thing."<<
And this is what you wrote in your response:
>>"Saying that we should "be individuals and act to community benefit on our own first" is an apology for libertarianism and privatization."
So, how did the word "can" become "should"? It became that way because you want to prove your point, and you don't mind misreading or mis-stating what someone else said.
And finally, what exactly do you mean by "the promotion of specialty food choices"? I would like an answer for this question, if you don't mind.