roundtable: Re: $100 Billion Giveaway

roundtable: Re: $100 Billion Giveaway

Re: $100 Billion Giveaway

RznDemoPM@aol.com
Fri, 20 Oct 1995 21:37:50 -0400 

Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 21:37:50 -0400
From: RznDemoPM@aol.com
Message-Id: <951020213750_76076406@emout05.mail.aol.com>
To: roundtable@cni.org
Subject: Re: $100 Billion Giveaway


>From "aw shucks" to the professional shuck & jive in one fell swoop!

Last time around, Stefan Schmitz wrote, semi-literately (as we all do from
time to time on the net):


> I just read your $100 billion giveaway mail. How come that anyone claims
> ownership of airwaves? Not even the government can say it owns them. 

Now, suddenly, he wants to claim that MY use of the term "public good" 
is "incoherent" simply because it does not accord with what he presents 
as "THE" authoritative collective wisdom of "economists" and "political 
scientists".


> In the discussion about the preservation of the public benefits from 
> the use of airwaves the term "public good" was used in way which is not 
> coherent. They are defined, amongst economists and political scientists, 
> as goods that are characterised by a legal and a physical peculiarity.

Now, it is not at all fair to shoot at fish in a barrel, but when I am
presented with no other alternative, I say "Shoot!"

(1) An idea which is several millenia old (at least) and exists in 
cultures throughout the world cannot be summarily judged as "incoherent" 
simply because it is alleged to be differently defined by the elite white 
male establishments in two professsional disciplines, neither of which 
has much to show in the way of empirical knowledge.

(2) This sort of judgement, and the use of the term "incoherent", like 
the term "crazy" (as in the attacks on Lani Guinier, for her 'crazy ideas' 
that can be traced back to Madison, Hamilton, Condorcett, etc.) is 
symptomatic of elite racism vis-a-vis cultural traditions which have 
evolved over thousands of years and are way too democratic for any elite 
to tolerate even as a topic of speculation. 

(3) The implication that economics is not itself "incoherent" is downright
foolish.  An old story, but I'm sure someone here hasn't heard it:

A physicist, a chemist and an economists were ship-wrecked on a tropical
island.  the sun rose and the three set off in different directions to
reconnoiter & regrouped half an hour later.  They had found several 
crates of canned goods washed up on the beach, but could not agree on 
how to open them.

The physicist spoke first. "I saw some very sharp rocks up along the cove.
Using the most basic principles of physics, I will be able to concentrate
enough force in a small enough area to pucture the cans with great ease."

The chemist snorted.  "Brute force!  Completely typical!  I have a much 
more elegant solution.  Had you but looked a little closer at those rocks, 
you would have seen a lichen growing upon them.  I can synthezsize an 
acid from that lichen that will eat through the cans in a matter of 
minutes, but will leave the food completely undamaged."

The economist rolled his eyes.  "You call yourselves scientists!  Just 
one night outside of civilization and you've forgotten everything that
civilization has given you."

"All right!"  Said the physicist and the chemist together.  "How are YOU
going to open the cans?"

The ecenomist rolled back on his heels, stroked his chin and waved his 
finger in the air, "First of all, let us suppose that I have a 
can-opener...."

(4) As for dissing political scientists... political SCIENTISTS?  
POLITICAL scientists?  These guys can't even figure out that proportional 
representation is REQUIRED in order to ensure majority rule!  They don't 
know basic arithmetic, where in the world do they get off calling 
themselves SCIENTISTS?????  You can't dis political scientitists!  You 
dis people by CALLING them political scientists!

(5) What Stefan is really advocating, under the cloak of undeserved 
authority mistakenly granted to these unsavory professions, is the good 
old-fashioned tyranny of wealth and the destruction of democratic values, 
processes and practices.

On the one hand, auction off valuable media to the highest bidder.  Talk
about how this competitiveness will increase diversity, benefit the 
consumer, etc. at the same time that media mega-mergers take place so 
fast that no one can keep track of them, while Bob Dole -- a big Macher 
when it comes to this legislation -- simultaneously attacks Hollywood 
for failing to serve the consumer, indeed for allegedly destroying the 
culture!

Contradictions, anyone?  "Let us suppose that I have a can-opener...."

On the other hand, promote a 'father knows best' form of "public benefit",
the best possible way to discredit the whole notion.

But, thanks to the magic of hegemonic discourse, it all sounds so 
reasonable:


> It is this "service" the government can auction off. These funds can 
> be the basis for a politically agreed on public benefit program. These 
> program should be designed such that maximum accessability is ensured. 
> Hence, a decentralized open network seems to be the apropriate 
> institution to avoid beaurocracy and de-democratization.

Got a can-opener?

We got a GREAT can of worms!

 
Paul Rosenberg                           "It was just my imagination --once
again --
Reason & Democracy                   "Running away with me"
RznDemo@aol.com

[CNI Home Page]