roundtable: Re: $100 Billion Giveaway

roundtable: Re: $100 Billion Giveaway

Re: $100 Billion Giveaway

stefan w. schmitz (h8851881@miraculix.wu-wien.ac.at)
Wed, 25 Oct 1995 11:49:58 +0100 (MET) 

From: "stefan w. schmitz" <h8851881@miraculix.wu-wien.ac.at>
Message-Id: <199510251049.AA23676@miraculix.wu-wien.ac.at>
Subject: Re: $100 Billion Giveaway
To: roundtable@cni.org
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 11:49:58 +0100 (MET)
In-Reply-To: <951020213750_76076406@emout05.mail.aol.com> from "RznDemoPM@aol.com" at Oct 20, 95 09:37:50 pm

Thank you, Paul!

Your well founded arguments were a great contribution to this discussion.

Does it help if we clarify terminology? Or should we continue to exchange
notes in "private languages"? What is the contribution of a statement in
a "private language"? 

Stefan 
> 
> >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]