RTMark admin on 14 Aug 2000 19:25:43 -0000

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

[Nettime-bold] Re: <nettime> Re: AW: AW: Urgent inquiry for Paper bags!

Citizens do certainly have a responsibility for their welfare. That's the
idea behind democratic government: it means people can decide--ONCE--what
is correct (e.g. bananas from Africa, not from Chiquita; gas taxes high;
etc.) and then live according to the rules they have made, via their
elected leaders. That's the theory, anyhow.

Here's Will Durant writing in 1927, when liberal (in the old sense)  
arguments for the elimination of the state were already about 140 years

"... There are defects in this philosophy of freedom. For first, it
underestimates the violence of the strong: the same ruthless domination
that makes the state would rule with more visible and direct force, and
with more suffering and chaos, if there were no state at all."

I'm sure you're not arguing for the elimination fo the state, but I
think it's important to remember what the state is, or can be, for.

Turning information resources into emotional capital.

On Fri, 11 Aug 2000, wade tillett wrote:

> > > are not
> > > disney and starbucks only the symptoms of a culture which refuses
> > > responsibility for its leisure, for its consumption?
> >
> > No they are not. They are taking advantage of a situation. Part of that
> > situation is that people basically just want to live well and be happy.
> > This is the way people have always been. To ask people to be supermen is
> > not realistic. Suddenly people will change?
> must be nice to blame everyone but yourself. sit and smoke your cigarettes and
> blame the government for not stopping you, and the evil corporations for
> killing you.
> as a consumer, you would have no problem buying disney products? (since you are
> not responsible, since no government has stopped them.)
> i'm not asking anyone to be superman. everyone makes mistakes. i am only asking
> that we own up to our responsibility as consumers. that we become conscious of
> our consumption. not just say its too hard, its not my fault, somebody should
> have passed a law, but since they didn't i'm going to disneyland. whether there
> are laws or not we are responsible for our actions. there are laws against
> certain drugs and you can still take them and live with the result. there are
> no laws against certain other drugs and you can still take them and live with
> the result. (maybe if you were informed about drugs you would either not take
> them or take them in a way which reduces your chances of hurting your self.)
> you are expecting too much of government and not enough of people. this live
> well and be happy, don't worry be happy attitude is the exact attitude which
> breeds the blind and irresponsible here-we-are-now-entertain-us culture. the
> 'situation' which starbucks and disney are taking advantage of is the cultural
> attitude that we are not responsible for our consumption and leisure. disney
> and starbucks are symptoms of this attitude. and yes, internally perhaps they
> are committing crimes. but you cannot solely blame the evil corporations for
> the culture which consumes their product. people just want to live well and be
> happy...
> if you make people in corporations personally responsible, but then there is no
> personal responsibility, who is responsible? where does that magic line of
> responsibility start and stop in your opinion? when you punch in your timecard?
> when you buy stocks but not products? what about bank loans - are they a
> product or a stock? would i be responsible for taking a loan from a privacy
> robbing political heavyweight bank?
> often people think that freedom is the absence of responsibility. the opposite
> is true. prisons are places where we take away people's responsibility, their
> opportunity to have a direct effect and action on the world. a space without
> responsibility is sterile. freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. so if we
> don't want to live well and be happy as sterile slaves staring at a screen, we
> had damn well better learn how to live well and be happy and be responsible.
> > I never suggested a company could be expected to know about Susane
> > Feminine Concept.
> >  Susane Feminine Concept
> >
> >We have striven to discover something about this company, but have found
> >only
> >http://www.duced-iua.dk/network/susane/Susane.htm :
> >
> >  Susane DEA
> >  Sustainable Sanitation Network in DEA Countries
> >
> >This is alarming. Is sanitation a feminine concept? Why? There is no
> >indication
> >on the Susane DEA website of what they actually do. What do they do?
> ...
> >What about Dresdner Bank, from your front page? UPS? SGS? Geologistics? How
> >do you
> >KNOW for certain they are not engaged in criminal behavior that could put
> >their, your,
> >and our, shareholders at risk of jail and fines?
> ...
> >Sincerely,
> >Alice Foley
> >
> >http://rtmark.com/
> >Bags for the Pursuit of Happiness
> > > following the logic of being personally responsible for corporate crime,
> > > should not the punishments proposed for corporations also be extended to
> > > consumers who support these corporations by consuming their product?
> >
> > If you think that's more feasible, more decent, better, and easier, than
> > by all means, vote for that solution.
> ...>not only as a citizen, but
> ...> also as a consumer, you ALREADY are personally responsible. and i am
> ...> personally responsible.
> (that's what i mean by direct democracy. we live in a space which is an
> aggregate of our decisions and those around us.)
> > > does
> > > this really mean that we are justified in using cars to go protest gas
> > > companies?
> >
> > If it's the only way to go to the protest, yes, certainly!
> how often is this the only way to protest? not as often as we think. it is
> always the most convenient way to protest - to use the avenues of power which
> are already in place, thereby increasing their power (even if it is a protest).
> this is no coincidence. corporations and governments want us to protest within
> the boundaries of their power and legislation. this is why corporations
> assimilate anti-corporate web-sites. this is why governments and trade
> organizations set up advisory committees - to assimilate the rebellion onto
> their own turf, thereby increasing their own power. this sort of protesting is
> encouraged.
> >Appropriation of oppositional work by the dominant order silences the
> >oppositionality of the work.
> >(Re: <nettime> con.troll, jen Hui Bon Hoa <epistrophy@yifan.net>)
> if we remain within the power limits of what we are protesting and think we are
> subverting that power structure, we are only subverting ourselves really.
> > Imagine living
> > in a society so deeply woven with criminality that almost everything you
> > did supported some nasty entity, directly or not. Would you go live in the
> > woods?
> no i don't live in the woods. i am not a pacifist. i make non-perfect choices
> in a non-perfect world, but i try to make it a little better through those
> choices.
> > > we can fight our addictions too.
> >
> > But that's not the main battleground.
> i disagree. if government is a representation of our selves, and yet we expect
> nothing from our selves, how can we expect anything of government?
> >  It's the tiniest, most insignificant drop in
> > the bucket compared to the environmental wreckage perpetrated by
> > corporations every day. *That's* where saving/fixing the environment
> > starts: controlling corporations.
> consumer pollution, and corporate pollution are inter-related. if no one
> demands a product, the product will stop being made. and/or if we choose
> products based on the fact that they do less damage, has less packaging, comes
> from a company that is more responsible, at least that helps.
> > Corporate crime can be fought through legislation.
> i agree. but consumers also must be responsible. yes we can attempt to make the
> world better through a top down hierarchy. but we cannot ignore the bottom up
> possibilities too. boycotts have worked before also. but even beyond boycotts,
> our every minute decision is political.  don't be fooled into only thinking of
> the big picture, all the while increasing the power of those you are fighting
> against with your everyday life. don't buy into 'the end justifies the means'
> because there is no end

Nettime-bold mailing list