From: bunt0003@student.tc.umn.edu ()
Subject: Re: My opinion about Khun Chuan.
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:14:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.153417.6205@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> fstawit@icomp01.lerc.nasa.gov (Tawit Chitsomboon) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.102546.8376@doug.cae.wisc.edu> 
>nilsuwan@cae.wisc.edu (Sunchai Nilsuwankosit) writes:
>
>I've read a couple of Khun Sunchai's posts in the past. Admittedly,
>many times I didn't know what he was talking about or whose posts
>he was referring to, due to the implicit and compromising style
>of his, I guess. This time around, however, he is more explicit.
>He even mentioned my name :-) What an honor!
>
>>..............
>>.......................... So, please be patient. Being compromise may not
>>satisfy everybody, but as long as it is done basing on the people's profit
>>(please note that I do not say anything about justice, since justice must
>>be applied to both the prosecutor and the defender, and no defender is
>>guilty until he/she is sentenced to.) it can be acceptable. 
>
>I know compromise; compromise is a friend of mine :-)
>And I don't see anything more compromising than investigating
>alleged murderers. If enough evidences are found then indict and
>prosecute he/them. One extreme is to let him go play golf and the other
>is to impose mob's rule and hang him at Sanam Luang without a trial.
>
>What the L.A. (both Dodger and Raider) should do is, IMO, to declare
>the Decree unconstitutional because it was issued in such a manner.
>The House even voted so, what else do you need?
>
>I firmly believe in the buddhist concept of forgive and forget but
>this case is so gigantic that i think it is a referrundum on our
>national justice process in itself. Failing to resolve this case
>according to the Law will undoubtedly develop to be a national keloid.
>The keloid could easily turn malignant upon a minor infection.
>
>>.............(About land ownership)
>>     If we belive that we should get for what we have done, is it wrong
>>to own the land or the properties that we have been working for? 
>
>Of course not. What I advocate is I think based in compromise
>and the Middle Way. According to my scheme, an average family can
>own upto 100 rais (40 acres). What more does one want? I firmly
>believe that individual freedom must be compromised with societal freedom;
>and that land and agriculture is a special commodity that needs a 
>special consideration, different from all other commodities.
>
>Further, my vision of 100-rai cap was based on my vision of the
>national agriculture policy. It was meant for the farmers. It didn't
>put a cap on the level of richness one can garner. If you want to
>be very rich, you can always quit farming and be a politician :-)
>
>>I think
>>the point is that at what point we should feel enough and should give
>>back. Simply say you cannot own that much and take it away is not justfied
>>to you and anybody. 
>
>Only a handful of very hugh land owners must accept the pain for the
>health of the society. However, they will be compensated for their loss
>to some extent. This is not Communism but Dhammic Capitalism (as opposed
>to Dhammic Socialism of Ajahn Buddhadasa-- Actually it's the same but
>I thought people are scared of the word socialism so I change it to
>capitalism.)
>
>-Tawit
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>The Middle Way of a master is much more extreme than that of a novice.
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------


I agree with Khun Tawit.  I don't understand why a person would want to
possess more lands than he or she can do anything with it while his or her
fellow humanbeings have to sleep on the street.  It's not true that
everybody owns a big chunk of land because he or she works hard.  Many of
them got it from their wealthy and cheaty parents.  I know many farmers
who have farmed in their own land for generations but eventually have to
rent it from a tricky bank or loaner?  Those bankers don't have to work
hard but trap poor farmers into an impossibly payable debt.

I'm also sad to see many pieces of land fall into the hands of greedy
foreign investors.  They are not necessarily used productively either. 
Some of them have been used to build  retirement houses for foreigners. 
This fact makes me think of a song "Lung kii mao" in which an old poor man
has to die under the sky way.

Regards.

Thian