Rogues, Boneheads, Independent Minds, Wizards, Etc.

["John Gelles" <johng@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Among the class of US leaders who fail to prize
new thinking about real wealth (water, food, homes,
schools, scientific know-how, energy, communi-
cations, habitual respect for other people, etc.),
in relation to money (and its effect on production),
are people like Scowcroft, Eichelberger, Lugar
and Baker, as well as, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield,
and Rice.

The first four above disagree with the last four
on using pre-emptive war to reduce the threat of
major loss of American lives posed by Islamic
fascism.

In another realm, (that of the world's do-gooders),
James Cumes and his team at VOW appear to
question the skill and intentions of many who have
gathered in Johannesburg to right the wrongs on
Earth.

What do I make of these independent minds who
in separate realms fail to find agreement on HOW
to do what they WANT to do?

Are any of us rogues or boneheads when it comes
to planning for peace and plenty?

Is there really a force in nature that captures men
in its grip to make them chase power and wealth
solely for selfish ends?  Is there the evil that the
American President sees in others--but not in him-
self in the mirror?  Is there a narcissus effect that
blinds us to the possibilities of a kinder and gentler
political economy?

James Cumes concludes in his message on rogues
and boneheads that people, of good will, have the
potential
     "to join together, in democratic determination
      --in pragmatic determination--to discuss the
      realities, the needs and the wondrous future
      that can and rightly should belong to us all,
      right here on our good Earth.
     "Another world is possible. Let's help to
      create it."

I believe an honest Martian visitor who observed
the Johannesburg events would conclude that the
people there DID join together just as James
Cumes suggests.
                    What is missing from their acts
and proceedings is readable DOCTRINE (or a
set of several doctrines) for newspapers to carry
that might explain how to do what James and
the conferees and you and I all want to do.

In my last message on "income distribution",
(sparked by a debate on PKT), I tried to offer
a DOCTRINE that I believe Lincoln would
follow were he here to help us. No one on VOW
or PKT picked it up (or mentions the need for
doctrine in these days of war and global
warming.)

I do not think we can forever debate past theory
on  "if supply creates demand or demand can create
supply".  Nor can we ask for a general victory over
want without offering doctrine ahead of hope for
membership.

For the benefit of those who ignored my doctrine
yesterday, here it is again:

   "If Lincoln were alive today he would use his
    greenbacks (with the power that Nixon gave
    us to forget gold) and the theories of Adler
    which imply that prices--not tax revenues--are
    key to stimulating growth;   and that if work is
    rewarded by affordable "things" (and savings
    workers trust), government can spend into cir-
    culation money enough to grow an economy
    big enough to distribute income enough to
    end poverty, pollution and some of the
    threats to peace.
            The sought after balanced meshing of
    command and commerical economies would
    rely on commands for priority programs that
    spent all the money they needed.  Commerce
    would be untaxed and unhindered--but in no
    position to monopolize production, restrain
    competition or interfere with priority programs.
            At its heart would be money managed
    so well you wanted to have an inflation-indexed
    dollar in the bank for every dollar you were
    worth in non-monetary property."

In short, the doctrines that competed for our
attention in the 20th century, socialism versus
commercialism, remain the best source for
finding new doctrine now.

Socialism failed for "hardening of the business
management arteries" (and because police state
ideas defeated respect for human rights).

Commercialism failed because the riddle of
which comes first, supply or demand, was never
solved (and because extreme commercialism
often dominated over moderate commercialism
committed to democratic values).

We at VOW and on PKT must focus more on
doctrine (and choices of readable doctrine) if we
would influence the people we are trying to save
from the rogues, boneheads and stalemate
artists of who sit on the podium at the internet
conference we attend in perpetuity.

    John Gelles