----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2004 8:20
PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Re:-
Swanwick Princpiples: Wally reponds to Tim's comments
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
You're subscribed to this list with the email socred@ecn.net.au
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
