> > 'Government' is defined by the people - even the
> > most totalitarian of governments was and is
> > defined by the people. Free-market Capitalism
> > is 'dynamic centralism' - although the point(s)
> > of control may change far more quickly than
> > other centralist systems, they still exist. If
> > you were to take a single moment in time of an
> > FMC system, you would clearly see the consumer
> > majority gathered around the supplier minority.
> IAN: A skillful answer, but not an accurate
> answer. Yes, suppliers are fewer than consumers,
> however, the paradigm you posit of a "consumer
> majority gathered around the supplier minority"
> avoids the fact I highlighted, that consumer de-
> mand controls who those suppliers are and what
> it is they are doing. Therefore, while "central"
> implies "control of the many by the few,"
> consumer-demand implies exactly the opposite,
> which is control of the few (suppliers) by the
> many (consumers). So your paradigm collapses.
>
> Free-market capitalism is true decentralization.
Consumer/citizen/subject feedback is also 'many to few.' Central does
not have to mean "control of many by the few" it can be any 'many to
few' relationship (i.e. control of few by the many.) If you disagree
with this then you own paradigm collapses, as a government cannot
exist unless it responds to the demand of the people (even if that
response means tear gas.) By your definition a government is "true
decentralisation" so the term "centralised" has no meaning. You now
have two choices - stop using the term or change you definition of it.
Free-market capitalism is not true decentralisation.
--Wax
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com