You just try to write simple plain unambiguous rules the meaning of which is so clear, and the application of which to unanticipated situations so obvious, that any reasonably intelligent person can understand them. Just try it.
> The implementation of such a system would mean the rule of the managerial & intellectual class.
A class is a group of people with differential ownership and control over
the productive assets. Bill and I agree that such a group has no place in a
socialist society. Lawyers and judges do not, simply in virtue of being
legal professionals, have such differential control.
>I think the suggestion that such people would "rule" over everyone else is
>incorrect though. If policies and procedures are arrived at democratically,
>then it is the people who will "rule".
Yes.
The important issue though is *what* will such policies and procedures rule over. The answer has to be that they will rule over the economy and not the people. Government of the economy, for the people and by the people.
No. The economy is just people in economic relationships. The rules tell _people_ what to do, and what not to do.
>Justin Schwartz and I have been somewhat at cross purposes on that, his
>comments seem to be premised on socialism being consistent with continued
>political government and some kind of market economy. My comments are
>premised on socialism being inconsistent with these things.
That's right, Bill and I disagree about that. But all my remarks apply to a nonmarket economy too. In fact more so, because there will have to be more rules and more politics.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com