Re: OWNERSHIP: The New Capitalists - Excerpts

["Stephen V. Kane" <svkane@naisp.net>]

KW----->>My own view of the human beast and its prospects is closer to that of More, and that is why my vision of the "leisure society" discounts Stephen's optimism.  To me, the leisure society is the one we have--full of corruption, lawyers-promoting-lawlessness-by-fighting-for-"rights", warfighting, the arms industry, mafia morality, unemployment, welfare mothers raising children of anger, crazy consumption, environmental destruction, etc.

svk:  Mankind has earned this harsh judgment.  I have argued that Mr. Kelso's ideas are rooted in a *change of heart*.  What is valuable? What is valued?  The economic system is a reflection of that change, and vice versa.  So sweeping was the change envisioned by Kelso that the change in social systems and ethics must be sweeping as well.  We flatter ourselves if we think corrupt systems are capable of handling that now.

A command-style approach is too dangerous, as von Hayek and von Mises warn us.  The government as architect of investment?!  Only under certain desperate development circumstances, maybe.  von Hayek believed that ownership of the means of production by the state was more dangerous to freedom than any other act. Is the "Homestead" orchestration much different?

What is wrong with a more incremental approach, with voluntary actions in the market taking ownership to the masses investment-by-investment? In this, the political will by the 'ownership constituency' is tested, which means the change in values is tested.  Otherwise, it's leaders and their acolytes who impose a thing for 'the good', or their opinion of what's good, onto the uninitiated -- starts all on the road to serfdom.

vty, svk