re: http://www.lucifer.com/exi-lists/extropians/2914.html
>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.
IAN: Your effort is to equate Hitler responding
to Jews with deadly gas to suppliers responding
to consumers with better washing machines. It's
a shell game. The difference that your analysis
obscures is that one set of responses are acts
of aggression and the other are acts of service.
The response by Hitler is an effort to suppress
control by the many, the response of suppliers
to consumers accepts control by the many. Your
trying to make "the different" "the same as."
>Free-market capitalism is not true decentralisation.
IAN: Free-market capitalism is true decentralisation.
So what's your (central) plan for decentralization?
****************************************************************
VISIT Ian Williams Goddard ----> http://www.erols.com/igoddard
________________________________________________________________
REV. ROGER WILLIAMS ---> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/roger.htm
________________________________________________________________