www.nettime.org
Nettime mailing list archives

Re: <nettime> New Media Education and Its Disconnects
Daniel Young on Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:11:49 +0200 (CEST)


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: <nettime> New Media Education and Its Disconnects



Young: This numbered response by Ian Dickson and his call for constructive
ideas caught my eye. It is the nature of all social systems to go to
extremes in which distortions, excesses and abuses occur. However I think
the wisest course is not to change the capitalistic system for another but
to move it in a better direction. For myself, in my capacity as an artist
and designer interested in bringing about improvement from within the U.S.,
the goal is constructive change. At the moment my priorities are changing
the leadership, reducing the power of corporations and reducing the reliance
on force as an instrument of government. My comments on Mr. Dickson's point
1 are intended to show how the difficulties of a  country are sometimes
connected to the good things in the society.

Dickson:   
> If the system is bogus, how would you change it? It is not constructive
> to cry foul unless you have a better idea.
>
> And remember - the reason that today's young people have these issues is
> several fold
>
> 1) Their parents and grandparents voted that their children pay for
> massive benefits, not very much caring how this might impact on the
> children.

Young: Such generational after-effects are inherent in the democratic form.
This is the same form that has embedded in it the American constitution,
containing such improvements as freedom of speech and separation of church
and state. Those constitutional rules were made the most difficult of all
for later generations to change. (Approval by two-thirds of the states is
one of the conditions, I believe.)

There is always going to be a tension between what one generation does and
the desires of  later generations. Does anyone have a better way for later
generations to change the laws than the one in effect in the U.S.? The
"massive benefits" system can be changed by legislative majority vote in the
federal government so it is relatively more susceptible to the will of later
generations. I put "massive benefits" in quotes because I do not think they
are "massive" from the point of individuals who have to rely on them for
living. Also they were originally instituted for good cause and it is not
certain that the capitalist system can provide social security in old age
without special legislative arrangements. I am of the opinion that one of
the few things that can temper the excesses of dominant capitalism is
legislated social protections.

Best Wishes,

Daniel Young
>

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net