[MD] economic pragmatism

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

mark said:
1. All biologically
> supporting requirements
>  > should  be provided free: Food,  water, health
> care,  shelter, energy, and
> >  must harmonise with the   biosphere.

i like this approach. perhaps we can modify it (if
need be)  to say that everyone is guaranteed enough
money to take care of the basics -  a living allowance.

of course if we are *all* directly engaged  in
providing the biological essentials (as i believe we
should be) for our  society/community, then a truly
free distribution of these essentials looks  more
feasible.

Mark 20-11-06: Hello Gav,
Yes. Authur Scargill, leader of the Miner's union under Thatcher's  
conservative government would applaud this i think. Scargill advocated the  basics i've 
outlined and i think the moq demands it; any civilised society keeps  people 
alive, safe and educated as a matter of right, even if you want to sit in  the 
hills all day writing music or poetry.
And by education i mean education for the joy of its experience and not as  a 
means to economic servitude.
I agree we are all engaged in the provision of basic Human essentials, but  
if there are people who love farming, and if these people love doing it, then i 
 believe they should be accorded high social status. They could be 
acknowledged  in a social title as, 'Master farmer Gav.'
Perhaps part of kids education could be time spent with Masters such as  
Master farmers.
(I've often thought kids should be given a tour of abattoir's to see Master  
animal killers at work to encourage vegetarianism?)
This places a value on appropriate expertise gained by the sort of personal  
relationship a motorcycle owner has with his cycle.
I believe a cycle may be said to be 'owned' if the cycle and maintainer  have 
a harmonic relationship. If a farmer has such a relationship with the land,  
then in a sense they 'own' it in mutual respect.
Just some thoughts Gav.
Love,
Mark