From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 10:28:48 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.163631.20197@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore) writes:
>Twenty years ago, we had a vision that the future would be a world of middle
>class families who worked 20 hours a week, had robot servants and lots of 
>leisure time (ala the Jetsons).  I can't see it.  What I see is guarded 
>palaces of the haves.  Those who have the technology eventually will have 
>machines doing most of their work.  They will build lush palaces, control
>vast natural resources, allowing only select people to share their wealth.
>They will hoard there resources, no longer requiring commerce to accumulate
>wealth, as they already have the power of technology, wealth, control, and
>utility.  Those who can share will be those who provide services unable to 
>be performed by machine, nurses, entertainers, chamber maids.  Laborers,
>pencil pushers, secretaries, accountants, police, teachers, etc., will become 
>obsolete.  Those not sharing in the wealth will have no power to fight the
>technological giants, they will have no natural resources to build a new
>life for themselves. 

Do you think you're the first person to imagine a similar scenario?  No
doubt people have felt this way for centuries.  What you fail to take into
account is that the economy, technology, social structure, and so on are
not entirely distinct.

The economy adjusts to changes in technology, technology changes the way
people live, the way people live influences technology and the economy.
There's a constant churning, of course, and people can be hurt (and helped)
by the adjustments, but if no one group gets the power of government behind
them, things progress more-or-less in a fair and equitable manner.

Have we all been enslaved by the few wealthy folks who were able to buy the
first cotton gins?  No!  Such inventions produce great wealth, allowing 
people to spend a larger percentage of their income on things they value,
rather than on just the necessities of life.  This increases demand for
existing products and services, and spurs the development of previously
unimagined ones.

20 years ago people were afraid that computers were going to cause massive
unemployment.  People did, indeed, fret that the wealthy few that had the
technology would "eventually have machines doing most of their work", and
that they would build closely guarded palaces and "allow only select
people to share their wealth".

Today, we know intuitively that if all the computers disappeared tomorrow and
nobody remembered how to build new ones, the economic world would slow to a
crawl and most of us would, indeed, be out of work.

For example, my father works as a buyer for a wholesale grocery warehouse.
If all of the ordering, accounting, inventory taking, and so on were done with
pencil and paper, they could never move enough product to keep all the
truck drivers and loading dock people employed. 

>People not in the palaces will probably be seen as a threat or a drain on 
>resources and eliminated

Yep, it all started when the lucky few who were able to afford automobiles
started eliminating blacksmiths.  There were too many blacksmiths and
not enough horses to shoe, so the blacksmiths stood there helplessly in
their empty shops, dazed expressions on their faces, breathing air that
could be better used by the rich, auto-owning elite.  They were clearly
a threat and a drain on resources, so had to be eliminated.

>Or maybe we could decide that we have created enough wealth (food, water,
>shelter, toys, utility) to provided everyone with a piece of the pie.

Right.  Redistribute the wealth.  We have all the wealth we need, and there's
no need to create more.  Therefore, there's no more need to reward those
who work hard with higher pay.  No need to reward those who risk their savings
from that higher pay on schemes to create more wealth.  Absolutely no reason
what so ever to not just take wealth from those with an abundence  of it and
just spread it around amongst those who have less.  But wait..

>Maybe we could focus on preserving resources,

"Preserving resources", huh?  You mean allowing society to enjoy resources
in the future that otherwise would have gone to waste today?  That sounds
like creating wealth to me.

>recycling

By magic?  Or do you think it would be handy to *invent* ways to recycle
stuff, *produce* the equipment and materials needed to do it, and *provide*
the service?  How is this possible if "we .. decide that we have created 
enough .. utility"?

>cleaning up, building a world that provided sufficient comfort for all,
>since we know that we really don't need an expanding society, expanding
>markets anymore.

We should focus on BUILDING a better world with sufficient comfort (UTILITY)
now that we don't need expanding markets and have already created enough
utility?

>I say there is a choice.  Allow those who crave power to take over, or be
>willing to share.

Only with government coersion could they "take over".  That is why the founders
of this country wanted a WEAK federal government.  So that those that craved
power would not even be attracted to it.

>Why do relatively wealthy (middle class) work so hard? Why do they eat boxed 
>dinners?  Why do they live in messy homes? 

What are you talking about?

>Why do they ignore polluted waters and air?

I didn't know that all environmentalists were either very poor or very rich.
Can you back that up?

>Seriously, with all the wealth, why do people put up with such conditions?

I don't know, why do you?

>Who's the wealthy person, the one who works hard, eats three square meals,
>drinks clean water, breathes clean air, enjoys his life, or the person who
>works hard, has lots of money, breathes smog, drinks chemicals, and has an
>ulcer?

Is this a trick question?  It can't be as easy as it looks, can it?

Ok, I'll bite:  I say it's the first person, the one who doesn't drink poison
or have health problems.  He'd be even wealthier, though, if he had a lot
of money.  Besides, if he works hard and *doesn't* get a 'lot' of money, he
probably won't be happy and will get an ulcer.

   Thanks awfully,
             Patrick

Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3376 soc.culture.usa:9708 alt.activism:20371