Thank you for speaking about my country elegantly. The U.K. is absolutely unqiue.
When I read this part of the dialogue:
"Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson used the model of consensus governance and the exemplar of a written constitution taken from the over 800-year history of the Iroquois"
I immediately came to the conclusion that Ravi has no idea what he's talking about.
Thank you for correcting the historical record. As I'm sure you know, Jefferson did correspond with Madison when the papers were being written, but as you pointed out he was too far away to contribute.
American's should be proud of the framers; they were an exceptional group of individuals existing at the same time, brought together, I believe, by the almighty God. I'm sorry if that religious reference bothers people, but it's just so rare for such great minds to be in the same place at the same time, working towards the same objective. And I would encourage anyone who thinks they can provide a good rebuttal to Hamilton and Madison to put pen to paper. I think you'll find yourself cornered by their logic pretty quickly.
I'd like to expand on your anarcho-syndicalism comment: we all know that investing capital comes with the obvious risk of losing the capital, but the issue here is that when you permit employees with no skin in the game to determine the allocation of that capital (someone elses savings) you've now increased the risk a hundredfold. I mean, who is going to take that risk consistantly? Not me!
This is kind of where people say -- well, just let the collective own the means of production. But now someone else owns the rights to your subsistence. Am I the only one afraid of such things? It didn't work out so well under Mao and Stalin.
But I would argue this is not just about capital; it's about merit too. Most workers don't want managers chosen by popularity; they want their managers to be chosen by merit. Anarchosyndicalists think they are helping workers, but I think the evidence is against them.
Thank you for speaking about my country elegantly. The U.K. is absolutely unqiue.
When I read this part of the dialogue:
"Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson used the model of consensus governance and the exemplar of a written constitution taken from the over 800-year history of the Iroquois"
I immediately came to the conclusion that Ravi has no idea what he's talking about.
Thank you for correcting the historical record. As I'm sure you know, Jefferson did correspond with Madison when the papers were being written, but as you pointed out he was too far away to contribute.
American's should be proud of the framers; they were an exceptional group of individuals existing at the same time, brought together, I believe, by the almighty God. I'm sorry if that religious reference bothers people, but it's just so rare for such great minds to be in the same place at the same time, working towards the same objective. And I would encourage anyone who thinks they can provide a good rebuttal to Hamilton and Madison to put pen to paper. I think you'll find yourself cornered by their logic pretty quickly.
I'd like to expand on your anarcho-syndicalism comment: we all know that investing capital comes with the obvious risk of losing the capital, but the issue here is that when you permit employees with no skin in the game to determine the allocation of that capital (someone elses savings) you've now increased the risk a hundredfold. I mean, who is going to take that risk consistantly? Not me!
This is kind of where people say -- well, just let the collective own the means of production. But now someone else owns the rights to your subsistence. Am I the only one afraid of such things? It didn't work out so well under Mao and Stalin.
But I would argue this is not just about capital; it's about merit too. Most workers don't want managers chosen by popularity; they want their managers to be chosen by merit. Anarchosyndicalists think they are helping workers, but I think the evidence is against them.
Thank you again for your comment.