Hey folks! Because we kinda sorta just had a really good chat last meeting, we never got to the article. So we're going to do it for our next meeting, on Sunday, 2/7 @ 3pm, at the Catmints Cafe.
羅斯福路二段101巷9號, (捷運古亭3號出口) (02)8369-1271
Roosevelt Rd, Sec 2, Lane 101, No. 9. MRT Kuting Exit No. 3.
For the article please see the post below.
See you there!
Next RethinkingOurselves meeting: Sunday, 1/17
Hello all! The next RethinkingOurselves meeting (in English) is taking place on Sunday, 1/17 at 3pm, at the Catmints Cafe.
羅斯福路二段101巷9號, (捷運古亭3號出口) (02)8369-1271
Roosevelt Rd, Sec 2, Lane 101, No. 9. MRT Kuting Exit No. 3
The article we are discussing is from the Economist.
Women in the Workforce
There is a short related article that is worth reading, too, for extra argumentative (ha!) value.
Womenenomics
There are comments to the story, too. Fanny notes that they are sure to piss me (Angela) off. Since I'm enjoying my Wednesday, I'm going to leave this for later in the week. However, I'm sure they'll be very instructive in illustrating concepts that the article glossed over.
Comments to Women in the Workforce article.
Happy reading!
羅斯福路二段101巷9號, (捷運古亭3號出口) (02)8369-1271
Roosevelt Rd, Sec 2, Lane 101, No. 9. MRT Kuting Exit No. 3
The article we are discussing is from the Economist.
Women in the Workforce
There is a short related article that is worth reading, too, for extra argumentative (ha!) value.
Womenenomics
There are comments to the story, too. Fanny notes that they are sure to piss me (Angela) off. Since I'm enjoying my Wednesday, I'm going to leave this for later in the week. However, I'm sure they'll be very instructive in illustrating concepts that the article glossed over.
Comments to Women in the Workforce article.
Happy reading!
Intellectuals 知識份子
"知識份子是已存在的威權文化的信徒,並致力於該文化的推廣。"
"Intellectuals are students of the established culture, are devoted to the culture and its continued promulgation."
from: Revolution or Reform? Thoughts on the Character, Strategy and Destiny of Sudbury Valley School. Daniel Greenberg, 1971
因此我們不能依賴知識份子帶領我們走出我們所身處的混沌。
Which means, we can't count on intellectuals to lead us out of this mess we're in.
Stacy都說明：
威權文化從古至今沒有改變過。我們總是敬畏長者、害怕我們的主管,畏懼本身就是威權文化的產物。
知識份子在這樣的體制之下,無形中也接收了這樣的文化,同是進一步不斷地傳遞下去,最後在毫無感覺的情況下也成為威權文化體制下的一員。
Stacy explains further:
Authoritarian culture has not changed since ancient times. We always revere the elderly, and fear our bosses﹣fear itself is the product of an authoritarian culture.
Intellectuals, under such a system, invisibly receive this culture, and further continue to pass it along, and in the end without really realizing it also become members of the authoritarian culture system.
"Intellectuals are students of the established culture, are devoted to the culture and its continued promulgation."
from: Revolution or Reform? Thoughts on the Character, Strategy and Destiny of Sudbury Valley School. Daniel Greenberg, 1971
因此我們不能依賴知識份子帶領我們走出我們所身處的混沌。
Which means, we can't count on intellectuals to lead us out of this mess we're in.
Stacy都說明：
威權文化從古至今沒有改變過。我們總是敬畏長者、害怕我們的主管,畏懼本身就是威權文化的產物。
知識份子在這樣的體制之下,無形中也接收了這樣的文化,同是進一步不斷地傳遞下去,最後在毫無感覺的情況下也成為威權文化體制下的一員。
Stacy explains further:
Authoritarian culture has not changed since ancient times. We always revere the elderly, and fear our bosses﹣fear itself is the product of an authoritarian culture.
Intellectuals, under such a system, invisibly receive this culture, and further continue to pass it along, and in the end without really realizing it also become members of the authoritarian culture system.
Law is the guardian of property, not people.
This post is for Julie, in case you actually drop by. We were talking about law, you said you were uncomfortable on some level with the study of it. When I read this quote from “Beyond Power” by Marilyn French, I thought it might be of use to you:
“Simple cultures have unwritten customs which bind the community through general consent. This is true even in societies we would not call ‘primitive’: J.M. Synge decribed how twentieth century Aran fishermen, if they had done wrong, would take the boat over to Galway alone and put themselves in jail. Simple communities ‘cannot be said to have “law,” because there is no way to distinguish . . . legal . . from other social rules.’ Law emerges with centralization, stratification, and the ownership of private property. Most early codes of law are concerned with property rights. Even the very early Mosaic code warns against coveting the property—wives and animals—of others. Although most of us think abut laws as guardians of life and limb, modern law is overwhelmingly concerned with property. And no profession is more bound up with the expansion of control, and the gradual shift towards totalitarianism, than law.”
“Simple cultures have unwritten customs which bind the community through general consent. This is true even in societies we would not call ‘primitive’: J.M. Synge decribed how twentieth century Aran fishermen, if they had done wrong, would take the boat over to Galway alone and put themselves in jail. Simple communities ‘cannot be said to have “law,” because there is no way to distinguish . . . legal . . from other social rules.’ Law emerges with centralization, stratification, and the ownership of private property. Most early codes of law are concerned with property rights. Even the very early Mosaic code warns against coveting the property—wives and animals—of others. Although most of us think abut laws as guardians of life and limb, modern law is overwhelmingly concerned with property. And no profession is more bound up with the expansion of control, and the gradual shift towards totalitarianism, than law.”
Next meeting is NEXT WEEK, 9/13!
It's a rethinkingourselves bonus meeting! Our next meeting is next sunday, September 13, at Catmints Cafe.
Angela is the moderator.
Actually, the reason we're doing the next meeting so soon is because it's a follow-up topic. We talked about privilege this week, and how not recognizing the privilege of being the race in power makes it difficult for white people to make the world a better place. We also talked about how not recognizing their own privilege makes it difficult for men to make the world a better place.
Angela is the moderator.
Actually, the reason we're doing the next meeting so soon is because it's a follow-up topic. We talked about privilege this week, and how not recognizing the privilege of being the race in power makes it difficult for white people to make the world a better place. We also talked about how not recognizing their own privilege makes it difficult for men to make the world a better place.
Vonnegut in Charge
Discussion Question:
From THE NATION:
If you were president [either of Taiwan or the US], what do you think would be the most important things to take care of, and how would you do it?
Ever concerned with raising the level of political discourse in this country, we asked novelist Kurt Vonnegut to compose an acceptance speech for Michael Dukakis. Of course, writers have contributed to presidential oratory in the past, but their efforts were lost in the revision-by-committee process. Here's the real thing, unfiltered and undiluted.
I am here to serve the people of the United States of America -- all of them, in all ways which are lawful.
I will not now speak of my humbleness. It has been said with some truth, I suppose, that almost anyone can grow up to be President. I have to add, ''But surely not an humble child.'' The Presidency is simultaneously a pinnacle of power and of vanity, and God help us all.
An aspect of my vanity, which seems to have found favor with a majority of those who chose to vote, is my belief that, with the help of the fourth branch of government mentioned in our Constitution, ''We the people,'' I can do a lot to help the United States of America become the United States of America--at last, at last.
The echo of Martin Luther King in my words is intentional when I say ''at last, at last.''
It will do us no harm today, as it has surely done no harm to other nations I need not name, to acknowledge a past soiled with atrocities, including, in our case, slavery and genocide, and the treatment of women of whatever race under law as though they were not citizens but property. Let us celebrate how far we have come from such bad old days in so short a time, and measure how far we have yet to go.
What better measurement might we use for progress made and progress yet to come than the health and happiness and wisdom and safety of all our people? And make no mistake about it: This nation is the most astonishing and admirable experiment in pluralistic democracy in history. Because of our wealth, the fairness of our Bill of Rights and the openness of our long borders, every conceivable sort of human being is now an American.
We are the world.
There is much in the recent past I would undo, if I could, especially our overwhelming national debt, whose undoing will be slow and painful. I will try to find out what good things, if any, we bought with all that money, borrowed mostly from foreigners. I will report back to you, whose children and grandchildren must pay it back with interest. I will be surprised, as I am sure most of you will be, too, if I find many purchases our descendants might thank us for.
With your encouragement, and with the cooperation of your elected representatives, I will attempt, after listening to the best-informed advisers I can find, to give future generations reasons to think well of us after all. There you have it, the principal mission of my administration: to create and bequeath to the future a decent habitat for all, free of poisons, free of hunger, free of ignorance, free of hate.
Too much, too much?
Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?
Those are the words of Robert Browning, of course. I can put it a lot less elegantly, if you like:
Company's coming! Let's clean up this mess.
Many of the poisons in the water and the air and the topsoil are new. One which can sicken our spirit is ancient, and only since World War II has this country begun to fight it with any seriousness: the idea that females and persons of color are second-class citizens. That poison would love to make a great big comeback, to take its lethal place alongside nerve gas and radioactive wastes and PCBs and crack, and DDT and Agent Orange and the AIDS virus, and on and on.
Not while I'm President. In the words of Patrick Henry:
If this be treason, make the most of it.
Am I proposing a redistribution of wealth? You bet, since the wealth is being redistributed in any case, and often most crazily, and against the national interest. Am I proposing that we tax and tax and spend and spend? Yes, I am. Virtually every transaction is being skimmed already, and some private persons have done this at such confiscatory rates as to become as rich as smaller sovereign nations in a few years' time. And they spend and spend. On what? On what?
Ah, me.
Am I proposing an enormous public works program? How else might we describe our military-industrial complex, so mistrusted by that great Republican, General of the Armies Dwight David Eisenhower, when he himself became our President? With your encouragement I want to take much of the money now going into that public works program, and invest it instead in the arts of peace, the noblest of which are public health and education.
Who says otherwise? And why?
Company's coming.
I thank you for your attention.
I am here to serve the people of the United States of America -- all of them, in all ways which are lawful.
I will not now speak of my humbleness. It has been said with some truth, I suppose, that almost anyone can grow up to be President. I have to add, ''But surely not an humble child.'' The Presidency is simultaneously a pinnacle of power and of vanity, and God help us all.
An aspect of my vanity, which seems to have found favor with a majority of those who chose to vote, is my belief that, with the help of the fourth branch of government mentioned in our Constitution, ''We the people,'' I can do a lot to help the United States of America become the United States of America--at last, at last.
The echo of Martin Luther King in my words is intentional when I say ''at last, at last.''
It will do us no harm today, as it has surely done no harm to other nations I need not name, to acknowledge a past soiled with atrocities, including, in our case, slavery and genocide, and the treatment of women of whatever race under law as though they were not citizens but property. Let us celebrate how far we have come from such bad old days in so short a time, and measure how far we have yet to go.
What better measurement might we use for progress made and progress yet to come than the health and happiness and wisdom and safety of all our people? And make no mistake about it: This nation is the most astonishing and admirable experiment in pluralistic democracy in history. Because of our wealth, the fairness of our Bill of Rights and the openness of our long borders, every conceivable sort of human being is now an American.
We are the world.
There is much in the recent past I would undo, if I could, especially our overwhelming national debt, whose undoing will be slow and painful. I will try to find out what good things, if any, we bought with all that money, borrowed mostly from foreigners. I will report back to you, whose children and grandchildren must pay it back with interest. I will be surprised, as I am sure most of you will be, too, if I find many purchases our descendants might thank us for.
With your encouragement, and with the cooperation of your elected representatives, I will attempt, after listening to the best-informed advisers I can find, to give future generations reasons to think well of us after all. There you have it, the principal mission of my administration: to create and bequeath to the future a decent habitat for all, free of poisons, free of hunger, free of ignorance, free of hate.
Too much, too much?
Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?
Those are the words of Robert Browning, of course. I can put it a lot less elegantly, if you like:
Company's coming! Let's clean up this mess.
Many of the poisons in the water and the air and the topsoil are new. One which can sicken our spirit is ancient, and only since World War II has this country begun to fight it with any seriousness: the idea that females and persons of color are second-class citizens. That poison would love to make a great big comeback, to take its lethal place alongside nerve gas and radioactive wastes and PCBs and crack, and DDT and Agent Orange and the AIDS virus, and on and on.
Not while I'm President. In the words of Patrick Henry:
If this be treason, make the most of it.
Am I proposing a redistribution of wealth? You bet, since the wealth is being redistributed in any case, and often most crazily, and against the national interest. Am I proposing that we tax and tax and spend and spend? Yes, I am. Virtually every transaction is being skimmed already, and some private persons have done this at such confiscatory rates as to become as rich as smaller sovereign nations in a few years' time. And they spend and spend. On what? On what?
Ah, me.
Am I proposing an enormous public works program? How else might we describe our military-industrial complex, so mistrusted by that great Republican, General of the Armies Dwight David Eisenhower, when he himself became our President? With your encouragement I want to take much of the money now going into that public works program, and invest it instead in the arts of peace, the noblest of which are public health and education.
Who says otherwise? And why?
Company's coming.
I thank you for your attention.
Taipei Discussion Transcript: Vonnegut
Participants: Maggie, Teresa, Fanny, Mary, Angela
If you were the president or the leader of Taiwan or the world or any territory or the universe or a solar system, or whatever, what do you think would be the most important things to take care of, and how would you do it? So: that’s a broad question, and it should engender some interesting answers, which I think in the form of an outline and some illuminating detail, might be a useful format.
Anyone? Anyone? … Bueller?
If I were a president in Taiwan, there are two things I would like to do first. The first one would be to establish public transport system around the whole Taiwan landscape. Because this policy can cause two helpful effects for Taiwan. The first one is to reduce the oil use, and the second one can develop the rural, the economy and rise the living standard of the small town in rural area. And my second policy is to improve our education. Focusing most on law and money education, among other things, to teach our children respecting themselves and others. I think education is the cornerstone of a country. That’s my policy if I were a president of Taiwan.
So how’s my—
Yeah, if you want , you can critique—
You say, you emphasize on education—
Yeah,
--especially on law?
Yes, in particular and respect children respect themselves a lot. In my opinion, most criminals in our society is because people don’t respect themselves and others. Don’t respect the value of their life.
Myself, I think that school is not going to do this as well as at home, but you have to start somewhere.
Fanny, why do you say law? Why law?
Because I think in Taiwan, Taiwan people seldom obey the law. And that cause a lot of criminals and problems. In addition, most people almost in the bottom of the society, they have no knowledge of law.
Of their rights, maybe?
Yes, and so they don’t know how to protect themselves. For instance when they have no idea in this case, they should or can do something to protect themselves. But rich people have money to hire lawyers, or people with higher levels of education have knowledge of laws, they often know how to protect themselves.
So you mean if you were president, then how would you do of the people, they obey the people—
How you would make people follow the laws?
You say, they don’t follow the law, so if you were president, what would you do to make this kind of people follow the law?
Massive adult education classes? Culture Class for all! About rights and responsibilities? Free? Compulsory? But you’d have to teach the teachers first.
Put heavy punishments.
Don’t we already have that?
No?
The death penalty? That’s not heavy? The problem is, it’s tricky—like you said, people don’t know their rights? Then what do the punishments mean?
Okay, right, so we have to educate people first, the reason why they should obey the rule. Then the third step, if people don’t follow the rules, they will be punished very heavily. Then people will know they should comply.
Okay, so are there any more questions for candidate Fanny?
Just one more question. —
Hee! You sound like a reporter!
—Why do you say ‘law and money’?
Because in recent years, there are so many issues related to complex financial products, and many people, they borrow much more than they have earned, eventually ending up in bankruptcy, and also cause a lot of social problems. They have no choice but ending their lives, their children have no money to finish their education. I think it’s a big problem.
Okay, so are their any more questions for candidate Fanny?
You know I’m very nervous, it’s like I’m a real candidate.
You would be good president!
Does someone else want to be the candidate now? It’s a little bit boring, just one candidate?
We can’t have an election with just one!
Yeah, Taiwan need more candidates.
Okay, if I was the president of Taiwan, I think I have similar. Like economic issues, that people can find a way to earn money for them. Like, or they can find, they can have some organization help them to develop their, like, ability to support themselves, even though they are adult, and that would be a good thing to do.
So job training? Or more than that?
Actually help them to find what they are really good at. Education too. Not just focus on certain areas, but what they are interested in and can make money from. Give them more channel about things they can do, without worrying about ‘now’, not having a financial problem or something
So if you were president you would build a channel for everyone in Taiwan to do whatever they want to do, and without worrying financial problems.
Hopefully!
So, how would you do?
I don’t know.
Well speculate, throw out some ideas, you’re not really a candidate here.
Okay, how about internet. Lots of people don't know how to use the internet. So free lesson, or free education for something, the gvt covers classes they need. But I don’t know where the money comes from!
Well, the Republicans in the US don’t seem to worry much about that either, so I don’t see why that’s a problem.
I just have one suggestion, you can establish a platform, a sharing platform, where people who want to learn certain skills can swap their own skills to others.
That is brilliant!
For instance, I’m good at analysis, you’re good at cooking, we can swap in the platform without paying fees. Because if you provide a totally free channel, that would increase the, that would need more tax, and tax coming from people, and that would be a big burden of the whole country.
But it’s better than paying for weapons?
Okay, are there any other questions for Candidate Mary?
How about a third candidate, Teresa?
I think the most important would be to let my people to have a healthy life, and health and happiness and safety life. Then how do I help them to get to the end? My action, my purpose, the first is, I will invite the other countries, the other foreigner private company to come to Taiwan to invest in Taiwan. The invested item is no, no…
No limit?
No…every industry is okay, if they want to invest in Taiwan. If they want to invest, then they will hire our people. When they hire the Taiwanese, then we can get more salary. If the people get more salary, then they can have a good life than before. Then the gvt has the…can get some tax. So the circle is the …the first things will let our people have a good life.
And the second action is, I will reduce the foreign labor come to Taiwan.
Restrict.
Yes, restrict the foreign laborers, like the southeastern countries, like the Philippine, Myanmar, Vietnam, Indonesia. These kind of countries people, they come to Taiwan to work. I know their salary is cheaper than our people, but they will rob our people ‘s job. I know why the company, they like to hire the foreign laborers. But if we can restrict the foreign laborers, then maybe our peoples can get more job than before. This is if I were a president, these are the first two actions I would take. I wish I were the president right now. But it’s difficult, especially restrict the foreign laborers.
But how about security? You mentioned you want to develop a healthy and happy and …
Safety…yes…security? I’m not sure.
What do you mean by security? You mean int’l security or do you mean reduce the crime rates?
Um, maybe when I invited the private company to invest to Taiwan, maybe there has some security problem. But I think I can control it, because what’s kind of industry come to Taiwan, we can evaluate it before, so if it is a good industry for Taiwan, then I will let them come to here. If it is violate the environment, or pollute our air or water, then I will not let them come to Taiwan to invest, even it can give my people has a good life and get more job. But it will hurt people’s life, so I think the gvt will not let it come. For the security, as you just said, I think after the gvt gets the tax, then we have enough money to hire people to come to be a policeman or they would like to be army, to protect our society. So, and the other action is, security, we need to teach our people, just like you say, give them more education, but I know right now, most Taiwanese people, we have a good level of education. But why some people, they violate the law, because our, we can’t enforce the law. If we can do it like Singapore, I think most of the people, they will follow the law. They will not disobey it. I saw some of Taiwanese people, they go to America. They follow the traffic rule. They know how to drive. Even though no person cross the street, they follow the traffic rule. But in Taiwan they cross the street where they like. But compared to Taiwan and America, they have different rules to follow. Because the American criminal system quickly to punish the people. But in Taiwan, sometimes we didn’t do it.
But America also has more than 1 percent of their population in jail, too, so I’m not certain that’s the best solution.
I think I prefer the Singapore system. Because I think Taiwan’s law is not very strict, so I think maybe we could create more hard and more heavy law to apply.
You know, everyone in Taiwan talks about it, but they don’t really want it. Would you personally want to live in Singapore?
No, it’s too heavy.
See? You don’t want it!
Yeah, but it’s effective!
But it’s important to take the law to important things. Even they see someone violating the law, someone in Taiwan will not say anything about it.
But that’s what’s nice about Taiwan, it’s live and let live, it’s what’s makes here such a nice place to live. Nobody interferes with what you want to do. Let me give you an example. I don’t know if I read this story on the internet, or if someone told me, but this is the story. A guy moved to Singapore, and got an apartment. He put plants on the walkway outside his front door, as you do, and put dishes under each plant to catch the water so that it wouldn’t run all over the place when he watered them, as you do, right? Okay, so a few days later, he gets a knock on the door. It’s a policeman, who told him its illegal in Singapore to put dishes under your plants, or to have any standing water, because it potentially breeds mosquitos. So he got a notice from the police, or maybe even a fine, I don’t remember. The notice or the fine is not really the point. The guy was really pissed off, and why? He was pissed off because he was like, his apartment was on like the 5th or 6th floor. The police wouldn’t have known about his plants without one of the neighbors telling him about it. He was pissed, because he was like, “Why didn’t my neighbors just come to me directly, or put a polite note on my door to let me know the situation? Why did they instead call the police? That’s so unfriendly!” What he felt betrayed about, I think, is that ‘authority’ was brought in to deal with a situation that just needed a little communication. It was like killing a mosquito with a brick, so to speak. It was un-neighborly and unfriendly, and left him angry with all the people who lived near him. That’s not the way to build community, but it is the way you build ruthless dictatorship—break people into vertical relationships with authority, instead of the horizontal relationships of community.
So there’s a lot that’s nice about Taiwan. I’m not saying that it’s always good, but everything good comes with some bad things, and some bad things come with good. But you have to be careful not to lose the important things. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater!
Angela, what would you do?
Well, I totally support the Vonnegut platform, and I would incorporate a lot of the fanny platform and some of the Mary. I really love the idea of educating everybody at once, including all the adults, into understanding, thinking about and applying their rights and responsibilities as citizens. I don’t support the Singapore platform at all, I’m sorry.
If you were the president or the leader of Taiwan or the world or any territory or the universe or a solar system, or whatever, what do you think would be the most important things to take care of, and how would you do it? So: that’s a broad question, and it should engender some interesting answers, which I think in the form of an outline and some illuminating detail, might be a useful format.
Anyone? Anyone? … Bueller?
If I were a president in Taiwan, there are two things I would like to do first. The first one would be to establish public transport system around the whole Taiwan landscape. Because this policy can cause two helpful effects for Taiwan. The first one is to reduce the oil use, and the second one can develop the rural, the economy and rise the living standard of the small town in rural area. And my second policy is to improve our education. Focusing most on law and money education, among other things, to teach our children respecting themselves and others. I think education is the cornerstone of a country. That’s my policy if I were a president of Taiwan.
So how’s my—
Yeah, if you want , you can critique—
You say, you emphasize on education—
Yeah,
--especially on law?
Yes, in particular and respect children respect themselves a lot. In my opinion, most criminals in our society is because people don’t respect themselves and others. Don’t respect the value of their life.
Myself, I think that school is not going to do this as well as at home, but you have to start somewhere.
Fanny, why do you say law? Why law?
Because I think in Taiwan, Taiwan people seldom obey the law. And that cause a lot of criminals and problems. In addition, most people almost in the bottom of the society, they have no knowledge of law.
Of their rights, maybe?
Yes, and so they don’t know how to protect themselves. For instance when they have no idea in this case, they should or can do something to protect themselves. But rich people have money to hire lawyers, or people with higher levels of education have knowledge of laws, they often know how to protect themselves.
So you mean if you were president, then how would you do of the people, they obey the people—
How you would make people follow the laws?
You say, they don’t follow the law, so if you were president, what would you do to make this kind of people follow the law?
Massive adult education classes? Culture Class for all! About rights and responsibilities? Free? Compulsory? But you’d have to teach the teachers first.
Put heavy punishments.
Don’t we already have that?
No?
The death penalty? That’s not heavy? The problem is, it’s tricky—like you said, people don’t know their rights? Then what do the punishments mean?
Okay, right, so we have to educate people first, the reason why they should obey the rule. Then the third step, if people don’t follow the rules, they will be punished very heavily. Then people will know they should comply.
Okay, so are there any more questions for candidate Fanny?
Just one more question. —
Hee! You sound like a reporter!
—Why do you say ‘law and money’?
Because in recent years, there are so many issues related to complex financial products, and many people, they borrow much more than they have earned, eventually ending up in bankruptcy, and also cause a lot of social problems. They have no choice but ending their lives, their children have no money to finish their education. I think it’s a big problem.
Okay, so are their any more questions for candidate Fanny?
You know I’m very nervous, it’s like I’m a real candidate.
You would be good president!
Does someone else want to be the candidate now? It’s a little bit boring, just one candidate?
We can’t have an election with just one!
Yeah, Taiwan need more candidates.
Okay, if I was the president of Taiwan, I think I have similar. Like economic issues, that people can find a way to earn money for them. Like, or they can find, they can have some organization help them to develop their, like, ability to support themselves, even though they are adult, and that would be a good thing to do.
So job training? Or more than that?
Actually help them to find what they are really good at. Education too. Not just focus on certain areas, but what they are interested in and can make money from. Give them more channel about things they can do, without worrying about ‘now’, not having a financial problem or something
So if you were president you would build a channel for everyone in Taiwan to do whatever they want to do, and without worrying financial problems.
Hopefully!
So, how would you do?
I don’t know.
Well speculate, throw out some ideas, you’re not really a candidate here.
Okay, how about internet. Lots of people don't know how to use the internet. So free lesson, or free education for something, the gvt covers classes they need. But I don’t know where the money comes from!
Well, the Republicans in the US don’t seem to worry much about that either, so I don’t see why that’s a problem.
I just have one suggestion, you can establish a platform, a sharing platform, where people who want to learn certain skills can swap their own skills to others.
That is brilliant!
For instance, I’m good at analysis, you’re good at cooking, we can swap in the platform without paying fees. Because if you provide a totally free channel, that would increase the, that would need more tax, and tax coming from people, and that would be a big burden of the whole country.
But it’s better than paying for weapons?
Okay, are there any other questions for Candidate Mary?
How about a third candidate, Teresa?
I think the most important would be to let my people to have a healthy life, and health and happiness and safety life. Then how do I help them to get to the end? My action, my purpose, the first is, I will invite the other countries, the other foreigner private company to come to Taiwan to invest in Taiwan. The invested item is no, no…
No limit?
No…every industry is okay, if they want to invest in Taiwan. If they want to invest, then they will hire our people. When they hire the Taiwanese, then we can get more salary. If the people get more salary, then they can have a good life than before. Then the gvt has the…can get some tax. So the circle is the …the first things will let our people have a good life.
And the second action is, I will reduce the foreign labor come to Taiwan.
Restrict.
Yes, restrict the foreign laborers, like the southeastern countries, like the Philippine, Myanmar, Vietnam, Indonesia. These kind of countries people, they come to Taiwan to work. I know their salary is cheaper than our people, but they will rob our people ‘s job. I know why the company, they like to hire the foreign laborers. But if we can restrict the foreign laborers, then maybe our peoples can get more job than before. This is if I were a president, these are the first two actions I would take. I wish I were the president right now. But it’s difficult, especially restrict the foreign laborers.
But how about security? You mentioned you want to develop a healthy and happy and …
Safety…yes…security? I’m not sure.
What do you mean by security? You mean int’l security or do you mean reduce the crime rates?
Um, maybe when I invited the private company to invest to Taiwan, maybe there has some security problem. But I think I can control it, because what’s kind of industry come to Taiwan, we can evaluate it before, so if it is a good industry for Taiwan, then I will let them come to here. If it is violate the environment, or pollute our air or water, then I will not let them come to Taiwan to invest, even it can give my people has a good life and get more job. But it will hurt people’s life, so I think the gvt will not let it come. For the security, as you just said, I think after the gvt gets the tax, then we have enough money to hire people to come to be a policeman or they would like to be army, to protect our society. So, and the other action is, security, we need to teach our people, just like you say, give them more education, but I know right now, most Taiwanese people, we have a good level of education. But why some people, they violate the law, because our, we can’t enforce the law. If we can do it like Singapore, I think most of the people, they will follow the law. They will not disobey it. I saw some of Taiwanese people, they go to America. They follow the traffic rule. They know how to drive. Even though no person cross the street, they follow the traffic rule. But in Taiwan they cross the street where they like. But compared to Taiwan and America, they have different rules to follow. Because the American criminal system quickly to punish the people. But in Taiwan, sometimes we didn’t do it.
But America also has more than 1 percent of their population in jail, too, so I’m not certain that’s the best solution.
I think I prefer the Singapore system. Because I think Taiwan’s law is not very strict, so I think maybe we could create more hard and more heavy law to apply.
You know, everyone in Taiwan talks about it, but they don’t really want it. Would you personally want to live in Singapore?
No, it’s too heavy.
See? You don’t want it!
Yeah, but it’s effective!
But it’s important to take the law to important things. Even they see someone violating the law, someone in Taiwan will not say anything about it.
But that’s what’s nice about Taiwan, it’s live and let live, it’s what’s makes here such a nice place to live. Nobody interferes with what you want to do. Let me give you an example. I don’t know if I read this story on the internet, or if someone told me, but this is the story. A guy moved to Singapore, and got an apartment. He put plants on the walkway outside his front door, as you do, and put dishes under each plant to catch the water so that it wouldn’t run all over the place when he watered them, as you do, right? Okay, so a few days later, he gets a knock on the door. It’s a policeman, who told him its illegal in Singapore to put dishes under your plants, or to have any standing water, because it potentially breeds mosquitos. So he got a notice from the police, or maybe even a fine, I don’t remember. The notice or the fine is not really the point. The guy was really pissed off, and why? He was pissed off because he was like, his apartment was on like the 5th or 6th floor. The police wouldn’t have known about his plants without one of the neighbors telling him about it. He was pissed, because he was like, “Why didn’t my neighbors just come to me directly, or put a polite note on my door to let me know the situation? Why did they instead call the police? That’s so unfriendly!” What he felt betrayed about, I think, is that ‘authority’ was brought in to deal with a situation that just needed a little communication. It was like killing a mosquito with a brick, so to speak. It was un-neighborly and unfriendly, and left him angry with all the people who lived near him. That’s not the way to build community, but it is the way you build ruthless dictatorship—break people into vertical relationships with authority, instead of the horizontal relationships of community.
So there’s a lot that’s nice about Taiwan. I’m not saying that it’s always good, but everything good comes with some bad things, and some bad things come with good. But you have to be careful not to lose the important things. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater!
Angela, what would you do?
Well, I totally support the Vonnegut platform, and I would incorporate a lot of the fanny platform and some of the Mary. I really love the idea of educating everybody at once, including all the adults, into understanding, thinking about and applying their rights and responsibilities as citizens. I don’t support the Singapore platform at all, I’m sorry.
Economic Spirituality
Questions to Ponder:
Agree or Disagree?
1. The basic tool of civilization is the contract.
2. Contracts are voluntary and mutually beneficial.
3. Competition among the most capable leads to the most beneficial trades for everyone, strong and weak.
4. Only freedom—the freedom to achieve, the freedom to trade freely the results of achievement—creates the environment proper to the dignity and spirituality of man.
5. The only dignity, the only spirituality, rests on what a man achieve with his own efforts.
6. All coercion—all force to take from a man his own efforts to achieve—causes spiritual damage and weakens a society.
7. Beggars need to help as well as be helped.
What is coercion?
What kind of actions could be defined as coercive?
When is a choice not really a choice?
e.g.: If your only choice for earning money is to work in a fast-food restaurant for wages that still don’t pay for your basic necessities, can you truly say you’ve chosen that job?
Why do law-abiding and productive human being owe anything to those who neither produce very much nor abide by just laws?
How do you tell if laws are just?
Do we have to take care of handicapped, sick and lazy people with the products of our work?
What philosophical or economic or spiritual justification is there for owing them anything?
Does the world currently exist as an ‘ecology of trade’? Is it a just system?
How does a meritocracy work?
Is a meritocracy the fairest way to run a society?
What role does access to resources play in a meritocracy?
If you could design an economic system, how would it look?
How would people eat?
How would they heat/cool their homes, or cook their food?
How would they do satisfying work?
How would they provide for the other necessities of life?
Debate Question:
Article Excerpts:
Excerpts 1-5 are from a science fiction short story called “The Beggars of Spain” by Nancy Kress. In this story is a fictitious inventor called Kenzo Yagai, who invented a cheap and limitless source of energy called Y-energy. In the story he also invented a philosophy of economic spirituality, called Yagaiism. People in the story who follow his beliefs are called Yagaiists. These excerpts from the story explain the philosophy of Yagaiism.
Excerpt 1: from Beaker’s Dozen, “The Beggars of Spain” by Nancy Kress
Kenzo Yagai was coming to the United states to lecture. The title of his talk, which he would give in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, with a repeat in Washington as a special address to Congress was “The Further Political Implications of Inexpensive Power. Leisha Camden, eleven year old, was going to have a private introduction after the Chicago talk, arranged by her father.
She had studied the theory of cold fusion at school, and her global studies teacher had traced the changes in the world resulting from Yagai’s patented, low-cost applications of what had, until him, been unworkable theory: the rising prosperity of the Third World; the death throes of the old communistic systems; the decline of the oil states; the renewed economic power of the United States. Her study group had written a news script, filmed with the school’s professional-quality equipment, abut how a 1985 American family lived with expensive energy costs and a belief in tax-supported help, while a 2019 family lived with cheap energy and a belief in the contact as the basis of civilization. Parts of her own research puzzled Leisha.
“Japan thinks Kenzo Yagai was a traitor to his own country,” she said to Daddy at supper.
“No,” Camden said, “some Japanese think that. Watch out for generalizations, Leisha. Yagai patented and licensed Y-energy in the United States because here there were at least the dying embers of individual enterprise. Because of his invention, our entire country has slowly swung back toward an individual meritocracy, and Japan has slowly been forced to follow.”
“Your father held that belief all along,” Susan said. “Eat your peas, Leisha.”
Leisha ate her peas. Susan and Daddy had only been married less than a year; it still felt a little strange to have her there. But nice. Daddy said Susan was a valuable addition to their household: intelligent, motivated, and cheerful. Like Leisha herself.
“Remember, Leisha,” Camden said, “a man’s worth to society and to himself doesn’t rest on what he thinks other people should do or be or feel, but on himself. On what he can actually do, and do well. People trade what they do well, and everyone benefits. The basic tool of civilization is the contract. Contracts are voluntary and mutually beneficial. As opposed to coercion, which is wrong.”
“The strong have no right to take anything from the weak by force,” Susan said. “Alice, eat your peas, too, honey.”
“Nor the weak to take anything by force from the strong,” Camden said. “That’s the basis of what you’ll hear Kenzo Yagai discuss tonight, Leisha.”
Alice said, “I don’t like peas.”
Camden said, “Your body does. They’re good for you.”
Alice smiled. “My body doesn’t have a contract with the peas.”
Camden said, a little impatiently, “Yes, it does. Your body benefits from them. Now eat.”
Alice’s smile vanished. Leisha looked down at her plate. Suddenly she saw a way out. “No, Daddy look—Alice’s body benefits, but the peas don’t! it’s not a mutually beneficial consideration, so there’s no contract! Alice is right!”
...
At the lecture, Leisha noticed that she really liked something about Yagai, something that took her a while to name. “Daddy," she whispered in the half-darkness of the auditorium, “he’s a joyful man!”
Daddy hugged her in the darkness of the lecture hall.
Yagai spoke about spirituality and economics. “A man’s spirituality, which is only his dignity as a man, rests on his own efforts. Dignity and worth are not automatically conferred by aristocratic birth, we have only to look at history to see that. Dignity and worth are not automatically conferred by inherited wealth. A great heir may be a thief, a wastrel, cruel, an exploiter, a person who leaves the world much poorer than he found it. Nor are dignity and worth automatically conferred by existence itself. A mass murderer exists, but is of negative worth to society and posses no dignity in his lust to kill.
“No, the only dignity, the only spirituality, rests on what a man achieve with his own efforts. To rob a man of the chance to achieve and to trade what he achieves with others, is to rob him of his spiritual dignity as a man. This is why communism has failed in our time. All coercion—all force to take from a man his own efforts to achieve—causes spiritual damage and weakens a society. Conscription, theft, fraud, violence, welfare, lack of legislative representation—all rob a man of his chance to chose, to achieve on his own, to trace the results of his achievement with others. Coercion is a cheat. It produces nothing new. Only freedom—the freedom to achieve, the freedom to trade freely the results of achievement—creates the environment proper to the dignity and spirituality of man.”
Excerpt 2: from Beaker’s Dozen, “The Beggars of Spain” by Nancy Kress
“If we achieve better than most other people, and if we trade with others when it’s mutually beneficial, making no distinction whether between the strong and weak—what obligation do we have to those so weak they don’t have anything to trade with us? We’re already going to give more than we get, do we have to do it when we get nothing at all? Do we have to take care of their deformed and handicapped and sick and lazy and shiftless with the products of our work?”
“Do the others have to?”
“Kenzo Yagai would say no.”
“He would say they would receive the benefits of contractual trade even if they aren’t direct parties to the contract. The whole world is better-fed and healthier because of Y-energy.”
Excerpt 3: from Beaker’s Dozen, “The Beggars of Spain” by Nancy Kress
“You believe that competition among the most capable leads to the most beneficial trades for everyone, strong and weak.”
Excerpt 4: from Beaker’s Dozen, “The Beggars of Spain” by Nancy Kress
“You’re a Yagaiist—what do you believe in?” Tony demanded.
Leisha took a breath. “I believe in voluntary trade that is mutually beneficial. That spiritual dignity comes from supporting one’s life through one’s own efforts. And from trading the results of those efforts in mutual cooperation through the society. The symbol of this is the contract. And we need each other for the fullest, most beneficial trade.”
“Fine. Now, what about the beggars in Spain?”
“The what?”
“You walk down a street in a poor country like Spain and you see a beggar. Do you give him a dollar?”
“Probably.”
“Why? He’s trading nothing with you. He has nothing to trade. “
“I know. Out of kindness. Compassion.”
“You see six beggars. Do you give them all a dollar?”
“Probably.”
“You would. You see a hundred beggars and you haven’t got Leisha Camden’s money. Do you give them each a dollar?”
“No.”
“Why not?”
Leisha reached for patience. “Too draining on my own resources. My life has first claim on the resources I earn.”
Tony grinned. “What if you walk down that street in Spain and a hundred beggars each want a dollar and you say no and they have nothing to trade you but they’re so rotten with anger about what you have that they knock you down and grab it and then beat you out of sheer envy and despair?”
Leisha didn’t answer.
“Are you going to say that’s not a human scenario, Leisha? That it never happens?”
“It happens,” Leisha said evenly, “But not all that often.”
“Bullshit. Read more history. Read more newspapers. But the point is: What do you owe the beggars then? What does a good Yagaiist who believes in mutually beneficial contracts do with people who have nothing to trade and can only take? What do we owe the grasping and nonproductive needy?”
“What I said originally. Kindness. Compassion.”
“Even if they don’t trade it back? Why?”
“Because…” She stopped.
“Why? Why do law-abiding and productive human being owe anything to those who neither produce very much nor abide by just laws? What philosophical or economic or spiritual justification is there for owing them anything? Be as honest as I know you are.”
The question gaped beneath her, but she didn’t try to evade it. “I don’t know. I just know we do.”
Excerpt 5: from Beaker’s Dozen, “The Beggars of Spain” by Nancy Kress
As she drove, she talked in her head to all of them. To Kenzo Yagai she said, Trade isn’t always linear. You missed that. If Stewart gives me something, and I give Stella something, and ten years from now Stella is a different person because of that and is able to give something to someone else as yet unknown—it’s an ecology. An ecology of trade, yes, each niche needed, even if they’re not contractually bound. Does a horse need a fish? Yes.
To Tony she said, Yes, there are beggars in Spain who trade nothing, give nothing, do nothing. But there are more than beggars in Spain. Withdraw from the beggars, you withdraw from the whole damn country. And you withdraw from the possibility of the ecology of help. Beggars need to help as well as be helped.
Excerpt 6:
Meritocracy is a system of government or other organization based on demonstrated ability (merit) and talent rather than by wealth, family connections (nepotism), class privilege, cronyism, popularity (as in democracy) or other historical determinants of social position and political power.
Excerpt 7:
[Meritocracy] is very widely used, even more so in the United States than in Britain. It is usually employed in the sense in which Mr. Blair seems from his speeches to have meant it — a social system which allows people to achieve success proportionate to their talents and abilities, as opposed to one in which social class or wealth is the controlling factor.
But this, as recent counterblasts have made clear, is not what the word was coined to mean. Michael Young invented it in 1958 in his book, The Rise of the Meritocracy. He pointed out in an article in the Guardian last month that he had intended a prophetic satire on what might happen if we placed gaining formal educational qualifications over all other considerations. This, he had argued, would lead to the permanent rejection of anybody who was unable to jump through the educational hoops, including many otherwise able working-class men and women. It would also result in the rise of a new exclusive social class as discriminatory as the older ones. So the word as he used it was not a positive one, but deeply negative in its implications for the future of society.
Excerpt 8:
In our book The Meritocracy Myth we challenge the validity of these commonly held assertions, by arguing that there is a gap between how people think the system works and how the system actually does work. We refer to this gap as “the meritocracy myth,” or the myth that the system distributes resources—especially wealth and income—according to the merit of individuals. We challenge this assertion in two ways. First, we suggest that while merit does indeed affect who ends up with what, the impact of merit on economic outcomes is vastly overestimated by the ideology of the American Dream. Second, we identify a variety of nonmerit factors that suppress, neutralize, or even negate the effects of merit and create barriers to individual mobility.
Excerpt 9:
Working hard is often seen in this context as part of the merit formula. Heads nod in acknowledgment whenever hard work is mentioned in conjunction with economic success. … In fact, those who work the most hours and expend the most effort (at least physically) are often the most poorly paid in society [yet], the really big money in America comes not from working at all but from owning, which requires no expenditure of effort, either physical or mental. In short, working hard is not in and of itself directly related to the amount of income and wealth that individuals have.
Excerpt 10:
According to the culture of poverty argument, people are poor because of deviant or pathological values that are then passed on from one generation to the next, creating a “vicious cycle of poverty.” According to this perspective, poor people are viewed as anti-work, anti-family, anti-school, and anti-success. … Instead of having “deviant” or “pathological” values, the evidence suggests that poor people adjust their ambitions and outlooks according to realistic assessments of their more limited life chances.
Excerpt 11:
Playing by the rules, however, probably works to suppress prospects for economic success since those who play by the rules are more restricted in their opportunities to attain wealth and income than those who choose to ignore the rules.
Agree or Disagree?
1. The basic tool of civilization is the contract.
2. Contracts are voluntary and mutually beneficial.
3. Competition among the most capable leads to the most beneficial trades for everyone, strong and weak.
4. Only freedom—the freedom to achieve, the freedom to trade freely the results of achievement—creates the environment proper to the dignity and spirituality of man.
5. The only dignity, the only spirituality, rests on what a man achieve with his own efforts.
6. All coercion—all force to take from a man his own efforts to achieve—causes spiritual damage and weakens a society.
7. Beggars need to help as well as be helped.
What is coercion?
What kind of actions could be defined as coercive?
When is a choice not really a choice?
e.g.: If your only choice for earning money is to work in a fast-food restaurant for wages that still don’t pay for your basic necessities, can you truly say you’ve chosen that job?
Why do law-abiding and productive human being owe anything to those who neither produce very much nor abide by just laws?
How do you tell if laws are just?
Do we have to take care of handicapped, sick and lazy people with the products of our work?
What philosophical or economic or spiritual justification is there for owing them anything?
Does the world currently exist as an ‘ecology of trade’? Is it a just system?
How does a meritocracy work?
Is a meritocracy the fairest way to run a society?
What role does access to resources play in a meritocracy?
If you could design an economic system, how would it look?
How would people eat?
How would they heat/cool their homes, or cook their food?
How would they do satisfying work?
How would they provide for the other necessities of life?
Debate Question:
Could the imaginary system of Yagaiism work in the real world?
Excerpts 1-5 are from a science fiction short story called “The Beggars of Spain” by Nancy Kress. In this story is a fictitious inventor called Kenzo Yagai, who invented a cheap and limitless source of energy called Y-energy. In the story he also invented a philosophy of economic spirituality, called Yagaiism. People in the story who follow his beliefs are called Yagaiists. These excerpts from the story explain the philosophy of Yagaiism.
Excerpt 1: from Beaker’s Dozen, “The Beggars of Spain” by Nancy Kress
Kenzo Yagai was coming to the United states to lecture. The title of his talk, which he would give in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, with a repeat in Washington as a special address to Congress was “The Further Political Implications of Inexpensive Power. Leisha Camden, eleven year old, was going to have a private introduction after the Chicago talk, arranged by her father.
She had studied the theory of cold fusion at school, and her global studies teacher had traced the changes in the world resulting from Yagai’s patented, low-cost applications of what had, until him, been unworkable theory: the rising prosperity of the Third World; the death throes of the old communistic systems; the decline of the oil states; the renewed economic power of the United States. Her study group had written a news script, filmed with the school’s professional-quality equipment, abut how a 1985 American family lived with expensive energy costs and a belief in tax-supported help, while a 2019 family lived with cheap energy and a belief in the contact as the basis of civilization. Parts of her own research puzzled Leisha.
“Japan thinks Kenzo Yagai was a traitor to his own country,” she said to Daddy at supper.
“No,” Camden said, “some Japanese think that. Watch out for generalizations, Leisha. Yagai patented and licensed Y-energy in the United States because here there were at least the dying embers of individual enterprise. Because of his invention, our entire country has slowly swung back toward an individual meritocracy, and Japan has slowly been forced to follow.”
“Your father held that belief all along,” Susan said. “Eat your peas, Leisha.”
Leisha ate her peas. Susan and Daddy had only been married less than a year; it still felt a little strange to have her there. But nice. Daddy said Susan was a valuable addition to their household: intelligent, motivated, and cheerful. Like Leisha herself.
“Remember, Leisha,” Camden said, “a man’s worth to society and to himself doesn’t rest on what he thinks other people should do or be or feel, but on himself. On what he can actually do, and do well. People trade what they do well, and everyone benefits. The basic tool of civilization is the contract. Contracts are voluntary and mutually beneficial. As opposed to coercion, which is wrong.”
“The strong have no right to take anything from the weak by force,” Susan said. “Alice, eat your peas, too, honey.”
“Nor the weak to take anything by force from the strong,” Camden said. “That’s the basis of what you’ll hear Kenzo Yagai discuss tonight, Leisha.”
Alice said, “I don’t like peas.”
Camden said, “Your body does. They’re good for you.”
Alice smiled. “My body doesn’t have a contract with the peas.”
Camden said, a little impatiently, “Yes, it does. Your body benefits from them. Now eat.”
Alice’s smile vanished. Leisha looked down at her plate. Suddenly she saw a way out. “No, Daddy look—Alice’s body benefits, but the peas don’t! it’s not a mutually beneficial consideration, so there’s no contract! Alice is right!”
...
At the lecture, Leisha noticed that she really liked something about Yagai, something that took her a while to name. “Daddy," she whispered in the half-darkness of the auditorium, “he’s a joyful man!”
Daddy hugged her in the darkness of the lecture hall.
Yagai spoke about spirituality and economics. “A man’s spirituality, which is only his dignity as a man, rests on his own efforts. Dignity and worth are not automatically conferred by aristocratic birth, we have only to look at history to see that. Dignity and worth are not automatically conferred by inherited wealth. A great heir may be a thief, a wastrel, cruel, an exploiter, a person who leaves the world much poorer than he found it. Nor are dignity and worth automatically conferred by existence itself. A mass murderer exists, but is of negative worth to society and posses no dignity in his lust to kill.
“No, the only dignity, the only spirituality, rests on what a man achieve with his own efforts. To rob a man of the chance to achieve and to trade what he achieves with others, is to rob him of his spiritual dignity as a man. This is why communism has failed in our time. All coercion—all force to take from a man his own efforts to achieve—causes spiritual damage and weakens a society. Conscription, theft, fraud, violence, welfare, lack of legislative representation—all rob a man of his chance to chose, to achieve on his own, to trace the results of his achievement with others. Coercion is a cheat. It produces nothing new. Only freedom—the freedom to achieve, the freedom to trade freely the results of achievement—creates the environment proper to the dignity and spirituality of man.”
Excerpt 2: from Beaker’s Dozen, “The Beggars of Spain” by Nancy Kress
“If we achieve better than most other people, and if we trade with others when it’s mutually beneficial, making no distinction whether between the strong and weak—what obligation do we have to those so weak they don’t have anything to trade with us? We’re already going to give more than we get, do we have to do it when we get nothing at all? Do we have to take care of their deformed and handicapped and sick and lazy and shiftless with the products of our work?”
“Do the others have to?”
“Kenzo Yagai would say no.”
“He would say they would receive the benefits of contractual trade even if they aren’t direct parties to the contract. The whole world is better-fed and healthier because of Y-energy.”
Excerpt 3: from Beaker’s Dozen, “The Beggars of Spain” by Nancy Kress
“You believe that competition among the most capable leads to the most beneficial trades for everyone, strong and weak.”
Excerpt 4: from Beaker’s Dozen, “The Beggars of Spain” by Nancy Kress
“You’re a Yagaiist—what do you believe in?” Tony demanded.
Leisha took a breath. “I believe in voluntary trade that is mutually beneficial. That spiritual dignity comes from supporting one’s life through one’s own efforts. And from trading the results of those efforts in mutual cooperation through the society. The symbol of this is the contract. And we need each other for the fullest, most beneficial trade.”
“Fine. Now, what about the beggars in Spain?”
“The what?”
“You walk down a street in a poor country like Spain and you see a beggar. Do you give him a dollar?”
“Probably.”
“Why? He’s trading nothing with you. He has nothing to trade. “
“I know. Out of kindness. Compassion.”
“You see six beggars. Do you give them all a dollar?”
“Probably.”
“You would. You see a hundred beggars and you haven’t got Leisha Camden’s money. Do you give them each a dollar?”
“No.”
“Why not?”
Leisha reached for patience. “Too draining on my own resources. My life has first claim on the resources I earn.”
Tony grinned. “What if you walk down that street in Spain and a hundred beggars each want a dollar and you say no and they have nothing to trade you but they’re so rotten with anger about what you have that they knock you down and grab it and then beat you out of sheer envy and despair?”
Leisha didn’t answer.
“Are you going to say that’s not a human scenario, Leisha? That it never happens?”
“It happens,” Leisha said evenly, “But not all that often.”
“Bullshit. Read more history. Read more newspapers. But the point is: What do you owe the beggars then? What does a good Yagaiist who believes in mutually beneficial contracts do with people who have nothing to trade and can only take? What do we owe the grasping and nonproductive needy?”
“What I said originally. Kindness. Compassion.”
“Even if they don’t trade it back? Why?”
“Because…” She stopped.
“Why? Why do law-abiding and productive human being owe anything to those who neither produce very much nor abide by just laws? What philosophical or economic or spiritual justification is there for owing them anything? Be as honest as I know you are.”
The question gaped beneath her, but she didn’t try to evade it. “I don’t know. I just know we do.”
Excerpt 5: from Beaker’s Dozen, “The Beggars of Spain” by Nancy Kress
As she drove, she talked in her head to all of them. To Kenzo Yagai she said, Trade isn’t always linear. You missed that. If Stewart gives me something, and I give Stella something, and ten years from now Stella is a different person because of that and is able to give something to someone else as yet unknown—it’s an ecology. An ecology of trade, yes, each niche needed, even if they’re not contractually bound. Does a horse need a fish? Yes.
To Tony she said, Yes, there are beggars in Spain who trade nothing, give nothing, do nothing. But there are more than beggars in Spain. Withdraw from the beggars, you withdraw from the whole damn country. And you withdraw from the possibility of the ecology of help. Beggars need to help as well as be helped.
Excerpt 6:
Meritocracy is a system of government or other organization based on demonstrated ability (merit) and talent rather than by wealth, family connections (nepotism), class privilege, cronyism, popularity (as in democracy) or other historical determinants of social position and political power.
Excerpt 7:
[Meritocracy] is very widely used, even more so in the United States than in Britain. It is usually employed in the sense in which Mr. Blair seems from his speeches to have meant it — a social system which allows people to achieve success proportionate to their talents and abilities, as opposed to one in which social class or wealth is the controlling factor.
But this, as recent counterblasts have made clear, is not what the word was coined to mean. Michael Young invented it in 1958 in his book, The Rise of the Meritocracy. He pointed out in an article in the Guardian last month that he had intended a prophetic satire on what might happen if we placed gaining formal educational qualifications over all other considerations. This, he had argued, would lead to the permanent rejection of anybody who was unable to jump through the educational hoops, including many otherwise able working-class men and women. It would also result in the rise of a new exclusive social class as discriminatory as the older ones. So the word as he used it was not a positive one, but deeply negative in its implications for the future of society.
Excerpt 8:
In our book The Meritocracy Myth we challenge the validity of these commonly held assertions, by arguing that there is a gap between how people think the system works and how the system actually does work. We refer to this gap as “the meritocracy myth,” or the myth that the system distributes resources—especially wealth and income—according to the merit of individuals. We challenge this assertion in two ways. First, we suggest that while merit does indeed affect who ends up with what, the impact of merit on economic outcomes is vastly overestimated by the ideology of the American Dream. Second, we identify a variety of nonmerit factors that suppress, neutralize, or even negate the effects of merit and create barriers to individual mobility.
Excerpt 9:
Working hard is often seen in this context as part of the merit formula. Heads nod in acknowledgment whenever hard work is mentioned in conjunction with economic success. … In fact, those who work the most hours and expend the most effort (at least physically) are often the most poorly paid in society [yet], the really big money in America comes not from working at all but from owning, which requires no expenditure of effort, either physical or mental. In short, working hard is not in and of itself directly related to the amount of income and wealth that individuals have.
Excerpt 10:
According to the culture of poverty argument, people are poor because of deviant or pathological values that are then passed on from one generation to the next, creating a “vicious cycle of poverty.” According to this perspective, poor people are viewed as anti-work, anti-family, anti-school, and anti-success. … Instead of having “deviant” or “pathological” values, the evidence suggests that poor people adjust their ambitions and outlooks according to realistic assessments of their more limited life chances.
Excerpt 11:
Playing by the rules, however, probably works to suppress prospects for economic success since those who play by the rules are more restricted in their opportunities to attain wealth and income than those who choose to ignore the rules.
An-arghhh-y: Pirate Organization
Questions to Ponder:
1. Does the presence of government stifle self-governing initiative?
2. Do people only self govern when they have no choice? = lazy
3. Does capitalism i.e. the protection of property automatically lead to hierarchy and control situations?
4. Can democracy really survive in a capitalists system?
Republican Rome only lasted 200 years, and you can argue that the US is turning into an empire rather than a republic, as we speak.
5. Are pirates capitalist?
6. Are capitalistic systems piratical?
7. Would pirate organization have been even more efficient if they could have relied on government [autocratic] authority?
Debate Question:
Are democracy and capitalism compatible systems?
Team A) Yes, of course. Capitalism is a democratic institution, leaving individuals free to pursue wealth on the strength of their merits. It’s been working well for at least 200 years.
Team B) They can, but they are uneasy bedfellows. Capitalism is structurally authoritarian, and democracy at its best is a level playing field.
Team C) Moderator.
Team D) Yes. If capitalist institutions are based on merit and equally distribute resources, they are compatible with democracy.
Team E) No. Capitalism is structurally authoritarian, and democracy is about the equal sharing of power. Capitalism is actually most efficient as a system in a situation of inequality. The US is a good example of democratic institutions sliding into hierarchical ones.
Team F) ___. _________________________.
Articles:
An-arrgh-chy: The Law and Economics of Pirate Organization, From the Chicago Journal of Political Economy
Hsinchu Discussion of Pirates
Participants: Wilson, Peter Wang, Kevin, Robert, Angela
It doesn’t work because the person in power needs to be able to distribute resources to stay in power. The king gets the trust of his dukes by bestowing resources. The pirates can’t work because the quartermaster is separate.
But nobody wants to work for bad boss. Need guarantees of no abuse, guarantees that the money would be shared fairly, so: electibility of leaders.
Trust and reliability.
The captain have the capability to lead the pirate ship to earn the money. But he hasn’t the authority to control all of the ship, because the sailor don’t necessarily to rely on the captain. The captain only leads to earn the money. The captain also needs the sailors to work for him. The relationship is equal, only the responsibility is not the same.
You’re saying if the captain and the quartermaster are the same group, then they can work efficiently. If they have...
The most important thing is that every sailor has their own power. They all have rights to the ship. That’s the fundamental basis, the radical thing of all this.
But if you look at history, most places are kings, not democracy. Why did only pirate ships have it?
You’re all together on the ship. The US was kind of like a pirate ship when it started,
In Ireland, anyone who lives there, even if they are not citizens, can vote, and can also run for public office. So it’s similar to the pirate ship. If you’re there, you can participate.
I’m team d. Capitalism if very effective to go for the maximum benefit, but they sometimes don’t take care of the weak side. But society doesn’t function well, so we have to have democracy. It’s not efficient, but we have to cover the strong side or the weak side.
It’s compatible because you need both.
You have to make a mixture to get the best benefit of both.
I also choose team d. I agree, the capitalist maybe have the responsibility to distribute the resources to the weak side., for instance social welfare. But on another issue, our society have a different tax rate. If you earn more, you have to pay more, it’s a kind of equality. If you earn money from this society, then you have to contribute. So capitalism they earn money, then they pay more money to society to support the wealth.
Okay, I will chose the team b. I don’t think the team d the possibility will realize, so basically I think team b is, I think the capitalism is a must way to achieve the maximum benefits or profits or a whole organization, and I think the democracy, so according to the statement in the articles, pirates organization seems the earliest prototype for modern democracy. Of course, if sometimes change the contents or the democracy, so, of course in the future, we hope the democracy and the capitalism reach the balance point, but somehow, part of team e, because it is same as US. Honestly I’m not really catch up why the US is a good example
I’m more with team b. it’s difficult but they can somehow work together at a certain level. Because true democracy does not exist. But if we want to make true democracy work, maybe we have to make a grading system.
How?
So you have to choose a leader, and if the scale of the country is bigger, so the scale of it is harder to work with.
If it’s a smaller scale, a direct democracy could work. But a larger scale, I don’t have a better system as compared to now.
So maybe at a better scale. Capitalism can exist in a country running democracy, but maybe we can put our view at a different level. The gvt can be run on the principle of democracy, but there is no true democracy, so we have to make things work…
So it’s an ideal to work towards, rather than something to attain. I think capitalism is based on economic interest. So it gives every individual freedom to pursue economic interests. But the idea is different in democracy. So it’s still possible at a certain level.
It doesn’t work because the person in power needs to be able to distribute resources to stay in power. The king gets the trust of his dukes by bestowing resources. The pirates can’t work because the quartermaster is separate.
But nobody wants to work for bad boss. Need guarantees of no abuse, guarantees that the money would be shared fairly, so: electibility of leaders.
Trust and reliability.
The captain have the capability to lead the pirate ship to earn the money. But he hasn’t the authority to control all of the ship, because the sailor don’t necessarily to rely on the captain. The captain only leads to earn the money. The captain also needs the sailors to work for him. The relationship is equal, only the responsibility is not the same.
You’re saying if the captain and the quartermaster are the same group, then they can work efficiently. If they have...
The most important thing is that every sailor has their own power. They all have rights to the ship. That’s the fundamental basis, the radical thing of all this.
But if you look at history, most places are kings, not democracy. Why did only pirate ships have it?
You’re all together on the ship. The US was kind of like a pirate ship when it started,
In Ireland, anyone who lives there, even if they are not citizens, can vote, and can also run for public office. So it’s similar to the pirate ship. If you’re there, you can participate.
I’m team d. Capitalism if very effective to go for the maximum benefit, but they sometimes don’t take care of the weak side. But society doesn’t function well, so we have to have democracy. It’s not efficient, but we have to cover the strong side or the weak side.
It’s compatible because you need both.
You have to make a mixture to get the best benefit of both.
I also choose team d. I agree, the capitalist maybe have the responsibility to distribute the resources to the weak side., for instance social welfare. But on another issue, our society have a different tax rate. If you earn more, you have to pay more, it’s a kind of equality. If you earn money from this society, then you have to contribute. So capitalism they earn money, then they pay more money to society to support the wealth.
Okay, I will chose the team b. I don’t think the team d the possibility will realize, so basically I think team b is, I think the capitalism is a must way to achieve the maximum benefits or profits or a whole organization, and I think the democracy, so according to the statement in the articles, pirates organization seems the earliest prototype for modern democracy. Of course, if sometimes change the contents or the democracy, so, of course in the future, we hope the democracy and the capitalism reach the balance point, but somehow, part of team e, because it is same as US. Honestly I’m not really catch up why the US is a good example
I’m more with team b. it’s difficult but they can somehow work together at a certain level. Because true democracy does not exist. But if we want to make true democracy work, maybe we have to make a grading system.
How?
So you have to choose a leader, and if the scale of the country is bigger, so the scale of it is harder to work with.
If it’s a smaller scale, a direct democracy could work. But a larger scale, I don’t have a better system as compared to now.
So maybe at a better scale. Capitalism can exist in a country running democracy, but maybe we can put our view at a different level. The gvt can be run on the principle of democracy, but there is no true democracy, so we have to make things work…
So it’s an ideal to work towards, rather than something to attain. I think capitalism is based on economic interest. So it gives every individual freedom to pursue economic interests. But the idea is different in democracy. So it’s still possible at a certain level.
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)