On Mon 24 May 2004 08:50, Katipo wrote: > David P James wrote: > >On Sun 23 May 2004 18:56, Katipo wrote: > >>David P James wrote: > > >>>No system is ever going to be completely accessible to the > >>>destitute, > >> > >>So let's make sure they stay where they belong? > > > >Take that back - right now. Take it back. I neither said nor implied > > any such thing. > > No, in the terminologies you employ, you accept the situation and > thereby condone it. You're insane. You're being rude and insulting. I accept that the situation exists but that's a long from condoning it. > > > What I wrote was a statement of what I believe to be a > >fact, not a desireable outcome. > > It is a fact. > Something can be done about it. > All it takes is a change in mental attitude. > These people are not merely to be written off as 'Collateral Damage.' > They are one of the many costs not incorporated into economic theory. And again you do it. You prove you understand nothing at all and can't read what is written. To set things straight, they are not written off and in fact those costs are incorporated into theory (believe it or not - probably not in your case). It's funny how people who have clearly never taken any economics (or at least didn't pay attention) claim to know what is contained in economic theory. > > > The reasons for that is a whole other > >issue, but it's safe to conclude that free email access isn't going > > to solve their destitution (because if it would, it would already > > have happened or at least be underway). > > Communication is the beginning of every solution. > It *is* under way, e.g:- > > http://www.globalcn.org/es/article.ntd?id=178&sort=1.11 > > http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/innovation/pdf/award/extrem >adura.pdf > > The implementation of open source software, along with internet > access and associated email, is creating the basis for an economic > (in the comprehensively true sense of the word) revolution in > Extremadura. Very well, but would you care to enlighten us how providing free email is going to help feed starving people in war torn countries in Africa, like Somalia? That's what you've been arguing all along, so I'd love to hear some details about it. > >> > >>Rubbish. This is 'The Tragedy of the Commons'. > >>This idea has been disproven any number of times. > > > >Really? many species of whales, fish, elephants/rhinos for ivory, > >erosion of pasture and farmland, depletion of forests, waterways > > filled with pollution, roads congested with traffic, etc etc. All > > of it Common or treated as such, all of it driven to > >depletion/exhaustion/extinction. > > All of it was *supposed* to be a commons. And at at least one stage, > it was. Dominant interests displaced the mechanism of the commons so > that the vast majority of the common administrators had no vote in > proceedings. Corporate greed, ably assisted by misinformed and > corrupt political entities, misappropriated the commons from the > majority of its rightful community owners, allowing only one factor > of the community to usurp the common ground. This is not a failure of > the commons, how can it be? The environment of the commons was not > permitted to operate, it answers more to the definition of grand > larceny on a national and international scale. All rationalised at > the time, by economics. I should save this bit for posterity as an example of completely blinkered thinking. This problem goes way back in time. The Mammoths were driven to extinction this way, as were North American prairie horses (until re-introduced by the Spanish) and no doubt other species all over the globe. But hey, I guess it was corporate greed and dominant interests that did them all in. -- David P James Ottawa, Ontario http://david.jamesnet.ca ICQ: #42891899, Jabber: firstname.lastname@example.org If you've lost something, you had to lose it, not loose it.