Re: Kurlands false accusation

["VICTOR THORPE" <victhorpe@hotmail.com>]

Dear Friends,
Am I alone in thinking that the enervating Turnbull/kurland controversy is 
just the kind of navel-gazing that gives the movement a bad name?
Vic Thorpe
Belgium




>From: Shann Turnbull <sturnbull@mba1963.hbs.edu>
>Reply-To: EOpriv@cog.kent.edu
>To: eosubnat@cog.kent.edu, eonation@cog.kent.edu, homestead@cog.kent.edu,   
>      eopriv@cog.kent.edu, eotrans@cog.kent.edu
>Subject: Re: Kurlands false accusation
>Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 10:08:48 +1000
>
>Dear all
>
>In my private e-mail to Norm of September 26th, set out below, I requested
>that he did NOT broadcast to lists members his false accusation about my
>position.  I very much regret the need to burden all members of ALL lists
>with a rebuttal.
>
>I have never "admitted" that I do not agree with binary economics as
>claimed by Norm.  I support much of the economic analysis of Kelso but not
>the inconsistency in the Kelso Kurland kind of thinking in wanting to
>maintain monopoly corporate property rights.  I advocate the spread of
>corporate ownership along the lines Norm describes for land in point 10 of
>his message.  It is not a matter of accepting or rejecting Kelso as
>proposed by Norm or if Kelso is right or wrong or if one paradigm is
>"superior" to another but of what is accepted and works.  I use my own
>analysis to support the mission of COG, Kelso plans and the democratisation
>of credit and wealth as set out in my paper:
>
>'New Strategies For Structuring Society From a Cashflow Paradigm',
>presented to the Fourth Annual Conference of the Society for the
>Advancement of Socio-Economics held at the Graduate School of Management,
>University of California, Irvine, California, U.S.A. in a "track" on the
>Third Way, Friday, March 27, 1992
>
>I have requested the COG list editor to make this paper available in the
>COG archives so it may be downloaded by interested parties or I can send it
>as an attachment on request.  It was later used in the MBA program of the
>University of California at Irvine.  It was written to provide an
>intellectual bridge between business/Kelso like thinking and mainstream
>economic analysis.
>
>
>At 02:06 PM 26/9/1999 -0400, OWNCO@aol.com wrote:
> >Dear Tom,
> >
> >Thank you for your kind comments on the debate I'm having with Shann.  
>I'm
> >glad that he's finally admitting after 25 years that he doesn't agree 
>with
> >binary economics, the heart of the Kelso paradigm.  Now I'm trying to get
> >Shann to debate me openly on the Kelso paradigm so that he can say 
>precisely
> >why Kelso is wrong and then articulate clearly what paradign he thinks is
> >superior to that of Kelso for democratizing capital and economically
> >empowering the people.  Would you be interested in joining a new COG
> >discussion group on A New Paradigm for the New Milleniu?  Several other
> >people have indicated an interest in that subject, a subject which 
>affects
> >all the other discussion groups.
> >
>
>COPY OF PRIVATE MESSAGE OF SEPTEMBER 26
>
>Dear Norm
>
>Our technical disagreement is over the nature of property rights.  You and
>Kelso object to my proposals to change the nature of ownership. I want to
>limit monopoly real property rights in a like way that every nation in the
>world accepts for all intellectual property.  Kelso and you want to
>preserve the existing system and yet still claim to be against monopolies
>and greed.  I view the Kelso Kurland kind of thinking in this regard as
>inconsistent.
>
>I accept your right to take a different view, please accept my right to
>differ.  Live and let live.
>Let a thousand flowers bloom.  If you are sincerely interested in making
>the world a better place you should support any alternative and/or
>complementary proposals to this end.
>
>I agree that many conventional economists have missed many insights of
>Kelso.  I have always supported Kelso techniques as is evident from my book
>"Democratising The Wealth of Nations" which is dedicated to Louis.  I
>believe that my approaches are complementary to Kelso and supports his.  I
>have always supported and promoted his proposals and still do. I find it
>exasperating that you impute that I do not.    So please stop being a pain
>in the butt about it.  You told Deb that you did not want to be a "party
>pooper" so why argue against her and me when we have such similar goals?  I
>have never mentioned binary economics to promote Kelso techniques and I
>have never said anything against it because I have completely ignored it
>and used my own analysis partly inspired by Kelso as set out in my academic
>papers.  So your imputations about me in this regard are also false.
>
>Please do not distribute to other members of the lists your false
>imputations about my position as you proposed at the end of your message.
>
>Regards
>
>Shann
>Shann Turnbull
>P.O. Box 266 Woollahra, Sydney, Australia, 1350
>Phone: 02 9328 7466 office; 02 9327 8487 home
>Fax: 02 9327 1497 home & office.  Mobile 0418 222 378
>Outside Australia, replace first "0" with "61" after international access 
>code
>Life long E-mail: sturnbull@mba1963.hbs.edu
>http://www.mpx.com.au/~sturnbull/index.html
>

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com