|
This exchange demonstrates the folly of attempting
to discuss Social Credit without giving due regard to its philosophical
origins. While some other "religious" beliefs may have limited overlapping
points of agreement with Social Credit, attempts to understand or evaluate
Social Credit without going back to its essential metaphysical foundation can
only result in confusion, denial and wasted energy.
Tim, Social Credit is a policy which derives
from a specific philosophical foundation--AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES IT IS
NECESSARY TO REITERATE, THAT FOUNDATION DERIVES FROM CHRISTIAN
PRINCIPLES. From a Christian perspective, "salvation" is not derived from
"work" as specifically in Judaism and implicitly or otherwise in other
"religious" beliefs--but rather from "unearned Grace", and the object of Social
Credit is to give meaning to this principle by incarnating it in the organic
affairs of man, which include our economic relationships.
When Christ said to "toil not" and that if God
would feed the fowl of the air, the beasts of the field and the fish of the sea,
how much more would he feed his human flock (those of "little faith"), what do
you think he meant? And when he demonstrated what he meant by multiplying
loaves and fishes and feeding his flock without asking them to go out on the
side of a hill to dig holes and fill them up again to justify receiving their
"something for nothing" do you think he was merely falling into some kind of
temporary aberration?
The fact seems to be, in my opinion Tim, that your
psyche appears to be infected with a severe case of Puritanism (an impediment to
Social Credit from the beginning) which seems to have resulted in an obsession
with the potential weaknesses of your fellow humans. I think there is a
Christian admonition about taking cognizance of our own failings before
prejudging our neighbors. Douglas reminded us of the old (essentially
Christian) saying about minding one's own business because it is sadly in need
of attention. If you are so convinced of the "fickle" aspects of human
nature, I assume that you include yourself in this assessment. If so,
perhaps you might best give first attention which may be due to your own
"fickleness." I do not take pleasure in being so blunt--but in some
cases, this seems to be the only approach which is open in the face of
dealing with seemingly intractable psychological and philosophical
misconceptions which derive from a misapprehesion of fundamental
reality.
I suppose that if you were stranded on the
proverbial desert island, you would be stricken with guilt about eating the
bananas or coconuts which might exist in abundance. Does a worm when
finding a morsel for which he has not worked freeze with guilt (as misguided
humans are wont to do) because he has not "worked" to justify his meal--and
first venture to engage in some other "productive" (or destructive) act in order
to justify his eating. No, he is not corrupted by Puritanism and he simply
eats--not because he is really more intelligent than humans (although he
certainly acts as if he were!) but because he has not abstracted himself from
natural law and acts in accordance with it (unlike "intelligent" humans!).
Whether you like it or not, Tim, (because of the
influences of indoctrination which have shaped your views) we are all part of
nature and to put it bluntly, there is a sense in which we are all
"parasites." We can accept the beneficence of God and nature with Grace
and thankfulness, or we can blasphemously reject it. I would like to know
what is your concept of equity if you think everyone should work for everything
that comes their way when labour is demonstrably, undeniably and rapidly being
replaced by non-labour factors of production?
Social Crediters are COMPLETELY emancipated from
the delusion (and conceit) that our "salvation" is based upon our individual
"work" or "labour" and our object is to to create conditions where there is less
of it so that we can get on with more important and edifying spiritual and
cultural pursuits. One thing is certain. This destructive obsession
with the "moral" value of "work" is the one factor above all else which has
prevented Social Credit from advancing as it would otherwise have done.
Douglas said that society is "hypnotized" and that only a drastic
dehypnotization can save it. That hypnotization is primarily due to human
obsession with the "moral" merit of "work" and the "moral" imperative (really
the will to power over others) that drives that obsession. Social Credit
has the mission to destroy this false moral imperative because the spiritual,
psychological and economic liberation of mankind can never be
achieved until this conceit that man creates by his labours everything of
value to him is finally discredited.
That we are bogged down in this kind of discussion
nearly a century after Douglas originated the Social Credit ideas is really
pathetic and explains why progress has been so limited in advancing the
philosophy and policy of Social Credit. Surely, the time has come when we
should get our philosophical heads straightened out so that we can get on with
the relevant task of promoting Social Credit policy in the real world.
Sincerely
Wally
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 7:24
AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Re:- Swanwick
Princpiples
Hello Joe,
It would be lovely if
such payments could be made without a negative effect on people. I think your
examples of very northerly climes might skew things a bit, though. Even if it
does seem to work in the short term one cannot base the economic model on it
having to work by relying on something as fickle as the human psyche which may
take 3 generations to work out its long term response. I believe we already
have the beginnings in our social services, but not viewed as a form of
economic stimulant. DFM used to fund this?
As to rights. Everyone has a
right to MAKE a living, but not a right to GET a living IMHO. If they do have
such a right, then I have an equal or even GREATER right to abdicate from
paying taxes of any kind. If one person can unilaterally decide to contribute
nothing then so can I, and I have a greater right to do that as I am only not
paying as opposed to both not paying AND receiving.
Tim
On
15/12/04 4:52 am, "Joe Thomson" <thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca>
wrote:
Hello Tim,
I won't go into the
effects of the 'Compensated Price' in regards to international trade further
here, since I'm hoping Bill Ryan or others who have studied that particular
issue a great deal more than I have will take it up. And we'll both learn
something.
But I will comment on the following:-
You
wrote:-"I do believe a large number of
people will adapt
to "enough for nothing" and especially to "comfortable
for nothing" and do
nothing, so rendering the economic model and the
economy dysfunctional"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't. And I think there's already evidence that such
concerns are largely unfounded. And especially so considering the way
'social credit' would almost certainly develop ~ gradually.
To
cite a couple of examples. The State of Alaska now pays out a sizeable
yearly 'dividend' directly to each of its citizens as their share of their
State's investment of North Slope oil royalties. A 'divdend' that
seems to be continually growing. I haven't heard that Alaskans are
increasingly becoming shiftless lay-abouts as a result. Or that
it's affected their overall economy in any other than positive ways.
And, if I recall correctly, many years ago the
Canadian government conducted an experiment in a rural area of
Manitoba where a group of people were given an 'unearned' income, to
observe how they'd behave. To see if some form of 'Basic Income' scheme
would negatively affect people's 'ambition'. It didn't. They
behaved pretty much as they'd always done. They still 'worked'.
Only they had some extra money to help them acquire things they
might not have otherwise been able to afford.
To be fair,
though, I believe it would be safe to say that a sudden investiture of
all individuals with an 'unearned' income sufficient enough for their
needs might well result in many leaving their jobs. And, what I
believe in any case, possibly a temporary disruption to the economy. (But
I'm of the opinion it would be quite 'temporary'.) That is why Social
Credit has called for a gradual replacement of the wage with the 'dividend',
which would be the only practical way to proceed in any
event.
---------------------------------------------------------
(Tim:-)
"I am undecided about paying people to "stay out of the way" as you
call it
but certainly not in favour of indulging them to increase their
commitments
and responsibilities at others' expense. When this occurs,
then the mindset
tips into their 'right to a living', which is both
absurd yet very
possible."
----------------------------------------------------------
We all have a 'right to a living', Tim. But one
based on our inherited share in the ownership of the 'cultural heritage' of
our civilization. This is largely what has made possible the
generation of most of the benefits of what we call 'progress'. And we
should receive 'dividends' on it to fully share in that
progress.
Best wishes,
Joe
<http://leader.linkexchange.com/X1727123/clickle>
<http://leader.linkexchange.com/X1727123/clickle>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
You're
subscribed to this list with the email timbeau_hk@yahoo.co.uk
To
unsubscribe, send a message
to
socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com
For more information, visit
http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
You're subscribed to this list with the email wmklinck@shaw.ca
To unsubscribe, send a message to
socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
