From: fstawit@icomp01.lerc.nasa.gov (Tawit Chitsomboon)
Subject: Re: My opinion about Khun Chuan.
Organization: Institute for Computational Mechanics in Propulsion-NASA LeRC
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:34:17 GMT

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.culture.thai