From: WesBurt@aol.com
Date: Mon Sep 22 1997 - 14:59:20 MDT
Dear Associates on list extropians,
Now that f-prime@activist.com (Freespeak) has launched the debate on NSPIC.
NSPIC = Neuro-Semantic Political Illusion Complex, and I have had the
opportunity to read the article "Deep Anarchy" by Max More, my two posts to
list extropians may seem like too much, too soon, on an unrelated subject.
If that was your impression, the fault is all mine, but your impression is
still mistaken.
Freespeak writes:
>
> I think I'm in the early stages
> of developing a major breakthrough in how to think
> about and act in relation to political systems, but
> so far I've only been able to communicate effectively
> about NSPIC to a handful of people.
>
I feel his pain! I discovered in 1953 that the principles which regulate our
stable and prosperous corporations have not been applied to our political
systems, and over the 44 years not even a handful of people have been able to
communicate effectively about this obvious systemic defect of omission in
public policy. At the end of the day, the debate on NSPIC must converge on a
SINGLE structure for an optimum society, not on a DIFFERENT structure for
every mail list on the internet.
Here is another post to prompt the debate,
WesBurt
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Subj: The "English Disease"
Date: 97-09-03 16:20:37 EDT
To: Burt's list
From: WesBurt
Dear Defenders of the Republic:
If you are satisfied with the present trends in our world-wide laboratory of
nations, then you have no need of a technically valid conceptual model
(framework) of industrial society with which you can evaluate proposed
approaches to global governance. Read no further and send me your
un-subscribe requests!
The practical approach to sustainable global governance is to acknowledge the
excessive amount of chaos created by the systemic defect of omission in our
public policy, and supply the defect of omission. This approach requires
the social science community to develop and promulgate to the public a
technically valid conceptual framework that comprehends the whole system of
an infinite variety of sovereign corporations operating under ONE LAW in
tandem (series) with the human assets of the world commonwealth.
You ask: What is this "systemic defect of omission" bull shit? It is our
propensity to evade our taxes by withholding half of the public investment we
should be making in our developing human assets. That is, we babble about
the importance of public education to the future of every nation, while
charging the support of children in our own nation entirely to the household
budget of young low income parenting families. The immediate effect of that
unavoidable, but randomly distributed, item of fixed cost is to destroy the
operation of a free market for all but gay, lesbian, celibate, elderly and
high income households. Here is a defect of public policy that inflicts a
financial injustice on the great majority of the population in every society
in history that has ever suffered the defect. And most of them have suffered
the defect, eventually.
We know this condition as the "English Disease" by its symptoms of a volatile
5 to 25% unemployment rate and a perennial 2-3% inflation rate that is
observed in every industrial society that allows the priestly establishment
to claim part of the first Tithe in addition to the second Tithe which is
their due. Everyone knows by now that the first Tithe is for the development
of the nation's most expensive and important assets, its children. That is,
5% of GNP for their education and 5% of GNP for their support.
Sustainable global governance eludes our grasp because people on the Left
rail at the multinational corporations and people on the Right rail at the
government, while both corporations and government are essential to the
general welfare of the Commonwealth. Having been systematically educated to
be ignorant of a technically valid conceptual framework which could inform
their judgment, the Left and Right surrender democratic governance (that is,
control and rule) to THE INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT, whose ultimate aim, as
described in 1962 by author Dan Smoot, is to create a: "one-world socialist
system and make the United States an official part of it."
The alternative to such a "one-world socialist system" is obviously "a
one-world de-centralized system" of sovereign nation states under ONE LAW.
The ultimate promise of making a public disclosure of the theory of such a
de-centralized system, is this: Those sovereign nations that presently find
their central government trending to become more powerful and expensive, but
less effective, would find it possible to muster enough public support to
reverse that trend by means of corrective actions that have been standard
practice in corporate management since the Bank of England was founded in
1600.
A substantial majority of both Left and Right will, I believe, approve of
that part of the FORWARD to the report of the UN Commission on Global
Governance where it is written:
>>> "We are not proposing movement towards world government, for were we to
travel in that direction we could find ourselves in an even less democratic
world than we have--one more accommodating to power, more hospitable to
hegemonic ambition, and more reinforcing of the roles of states and
governments rather than the rights of people. <<<
It comes down to this: the contribution of English speaking people to the
emerging new world order (whatever it may turn out to be) ended with the
Great Inflation of the 1970's and '80's, and will not resume until they put
their own house in order. And this they cannot do until their social
scientists develop and promulgate a technically valid conceptual framework
that comprehends the whole system of an infinite variety of sovereign
corporations operating in tandem (series) with the human assets of the world
commonwealth. The smaller nations cannot establish a stable and prosperous
new world order while the United States and the United Kingdom are still
trending toward an order "more accommodating to power, more hospitable to
hegemonic ambition, and more reinforcing of the roles of states and
governments rather than the rights of people." The U. K. and the U. S. still
hold the balance of world wealth and power, for the short run.
But, having passed their apogees of wealth and power in 1914 and 1969,
respectively, the United Kingdom and the United States are LOSING GROUND with
every passing day and are FREE TO CHOOSE only between restoring their moral
leadership in world affairs, and, being destroyed by internal chaos as our
wealth and power decline.
We can get serious about this TEFLON TOPIC by asking the members of the
President's 1983 Commission on Entitlements what they intended to accomplish
when they established the present Social Security Payroll Tax of 15% on
earned income below $63,000/year, without any exemptions for dependents, and
a zero% tax rate on all income above $63,000/year? The members of that
commission that I remember are Robert J. Dole, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Allan
Greenspan, and Peter G. Peterson.
As David Lawrence, late Editor of U.S. News & World Report, told me in 1970:
"your TEFLON TOPIC will not be newsworthy until some prominent person
addresses the topic in a public forum." My vision of the model could be as
mistaken as McNamara's vision of the Viet Nam \War, but no one has dared to
say that, because a single industry application of this model was issued a
U.S. Patent in 1953, and the theory of the model had been reduced to practice
by American industry, Germany, Japan, and the Scandinavian countries in the
1940's. If you have seen one such system with only one class of ACTIVE
productive assets and an infinite variety of PASSIVE productive assets, you
have seen them all.
I wonder who will be the first prominent American to address the topic since
Henry Carter Adams last addressed it in his 1887 essay, RELATION OF THE STATE
TO INDUSTRIAL ACTION? Such a bold address will open the floodgate of public
debate!
WesBurt
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:57 MST