7545 replies to this topic

[donquijote]

This is what we need to finance the Water Well...

"at least a third type, namely financial networks of
mutual credit."

Whatever the name, we need this--I think the name comes back to me now, "social capital," right?

I consider this article illustrates very well what we have in mind: competition can tame the lion. Confrontation is out, competition is in...

Subject: On "Economic Emancipation"

(snip)

After all, regardless of the size of its strategic impact in the
struggles of workers versus employers, if it is itself a desideratum,
then it's worth fighting for independently of how much one is (or is
not) expecting it to also have a strategic impact helping attain
concessions from the bosses.

With that said, my claim is that we absolutely need to
create worker-run alternative workplaces on a MASS scale
to the point where that seed has a spreading effect,
highly leveraged, because now workers need corporations less, and the
corporations need to offer more, for the workers to want to work for them.

Remember: Managers' don't have to ACTUALLY move a plant to Mexico, to
lower wages; it's enough that there is a CREDIBLE THREAT that they
*could* do so (even if at a significant cost to the employer), to get
more concessions from workers.

The same dynamic could work for us. It's enough that there is a
credible threat of moving to the autonomous collective or even less
than that -- that there is a credible threat that unless employers
give us more, we will increase the number of such autonomous
collectives from 100 to 1,000...

At this point if I say, "but the employers are correct
for saying that 'The Economic IN ITS PRESENT FORM [my added words]
would crumble'" then we are probably in heated agreement, that if it
did under these conditions I just outlined, alternatives would be in
place.

But, even if you don't agree with me that it's *necessary* to have
such "credible threats" of worker-owned/run workplaces before
capitalists ever move remotely close to 20hours/week, it's enough that
you agree that it's a helpful force. And certainly , even less, it's
enough if you agree that not being a wage-slave, not having a boss,
but having democratically worker-run workplaces are a Good Thing,
then I hope you will agree with his as a program towards, a tactic
towards, the 20 hours per week, rather than restricting our strategy
and tactics only to "head to head versus employers"

I hope this makes sense..

So when you write

"You can be sure the capitalists will fight this with every weapon in
their already immense arsenal"

I think at just how much turmoil the system has been in
for far, far less radical demands, even
even $1/hour in min wage SCARES
hell out of them, and a few revelations (WorldCOM, Enron, etc) have
been enough to kick the daylights out of the stock market like you
haven't seen in 30 years..

Again this is a CRITIQUE of "capitalism" (I put the term in quotes;
I'm not sure it accurately describes are economic system which is
state-coordinated, powerful-are-protected-from-market-forces, etc) NOT
a defense.

But they speak the truth when they
say the economy couldn't handle it...I can't prove that
no capitalist system could accommodate it, but certainly
nothing like corporate capitalism in its present form could support
doubling people's wages and giving them extra leisure to boot.
Again, even if you're not convinced of this, surely you will agree
that if something which is independently desirable, and could
help pressure employers in that direction, is worth doing.

I do NOT disagree with your suggestion that those who are
in contact with working class folks, those doing labor
organizing etc, "start talking to workers about a 20 hour week".

But those of us working for fundamental systemic change on the
national/global level rather than day-to-day organizing, must realize
and take into account that quit simply that is NOT how it's going to
happen. I supported Nader's running for President even though I knew
he wouldn't win because it would advance progressive social movements
and DO GOOD. Similarly talking about 30 and 20 hour weeks can and
could DO GOOD. But it's not going to happen. I'm not saying we're not
going to win; on the contrary; but we're not going to win that way.

The way we will Win is when they start to make concession in that
direction when there is a Credible Threat of worker-run collectives
across the country (and world) who to a greater and greater extent,
dont' Need the corporation in order for people to supply the basic
material needs they have for survival. Then, instead of saying "ok,
we'll take your 31 hours a week offer and destroy our autonomous
collectives" we'll use our extra power to not only demand more from
them (great, but not enough) but to Build more for ourselves, until we
reach 100% self-sufficiency for any human being who wants to have
freedom from wage-slavery; those who want to continue being
wage-slaves and do so. I don't have any doubts as to the (long-term)
decisions people will (eventually) make given a real choice like that.

So what I've been trying to argue is, even if you are not convinced
that capitalism "can't handle" 20hours/week, as you ARE on the
Anarchist page, I imagine that getting 20 hours per week like
"working for the man" is NOT your "ultimate" quest; rather, a liberated
workforce which is democratically run and self-governing and not under
an employer's rule. Right..?

Well I am stating, we don't' have to Wait Until we win that battle for
20 hours a week from employer, to only THEN fight for the next step
(or several steps ahead) of eliminating wage slavery.

Actually I'm saying much more: not only we don't have to wait, but we
Must Not wait. And not only because workers deserve for us to move in
that direction because they deserve to be free, but because the extent
to which we *partially* get there (meaning, the number of
democratically run workplaces/collectives available for workers)
is the extent to which workers negotiating power vis a vis their
employers will be hugely increased.

There are other parallel struggles:

Likewise, while we should continue to fight for national nonprofit
health care as a right for all, we need to create grassroot
co-insurance networks which, step by step, move towards providing
that. As such, we don't beg for the corporate state to give it; we
TAKE it for ourselves; you'll be amazed at how "generous" the
corporate-state nexus will become when we have barely achieved 50% of
it for ourselves independently of them; they will suddenly offer to
do something for us when they realize we don't NEED them because we
can get it for ourselves.

Similarly, there is a power shift of a gigantic order of magnitude, to
the extent that a worker, or group of workers, can tell the boss (or
the corporation) and tell the truth when saying this: I can GET
20 hours per week (plus a democratically worker-run workplace, plus
much more) OVER THERE. Now, what counter-offer do you have for me to
get me to want to continue to work for YOU?"

The dynamics of the negotiation are radically altered from begging, or
even "pressuring" for them TO GIVE TO US what we want, to one where
we ALREADY CAN provide for ourselves what we want (or a substantial
percent of it, at least...) and ask them for a counter-offer. This is
extremely potent, as you can see!

While the 11-point program for action you suggest includes
issues for fight for which are all admirable, they are great
reformist measures that folks like Sen. Paul Wellstone and Bernie
Sanders and the Greens and many others can and should fight for, but
are not -- with the exception of your item 2 with its mention of
anarcho-syndicalist organizing -- are not aimed towards eliminating
the lord/serf master/slave relationship that you are as aware of as I,
namely the employer/employee relationship.

What I'm suggesting is an expansion on item 2, in tune both with our
ideals, and with the pragmatics of changing the balance of power

My vision is to have a large scale national (and eventually global)
growth of networks of autonimous but interdependent and cooperating
groups which nurture one another. Technology could be a powerful force
to harness here. The "Groups" and networks would be of different
kinds anarcho-syndicalist types by profession/vocation; networks by
areas of life-needs like in the area of health the co-insurance
network idea; and at least a third type, namely financial networks of
mutual credit. This is a thumbnail sketch. I am working on a piece
which will go into much more detail, hopefully done by end of this
summer (I started incubating these ideas in 1999 and earlier,
the Media, rather than Economy ideas, are already under Projects
in my www.EconomicDemocracy.org)

But even when that is done, I will solicit the input from many other
who share the vision to refine, modify, improve, expand on, and make
this strategic vision and its tactics ever more detailed. I hope this
sounds exciting to you in the sense of your being interested in
(sometimes less frequent, sometimes more frequent, but) long-term
contact and collaboration.

Best,

Harel Barzilai

www.EconomicDemocracy.org

http://www.economicd...ic-emancipation

[woj1@cyberonic.]

Originally posted by donquijote
This is what we need to finance the Water Well...


I hope this makes sense..


While the 11-point program for action you suggest includes
issues for fight for which are all admirable, they are great
reformist measures that folks like Sen. Paul Wellstone ....
www.EconomicDemocracy.org

Water Well needs water and you don

[donquijote]

Originally posted by woj1@cyberonic.
Water Well needs water and you don-t want to join Sen. Paul Wellstone because he is dead.
Memento mori.

Water is there, and should be free, but the lion wants to bottle it and sell it throughout the world. Then other water wells are polluted so his water commands a higher price. That's free market...:confused:

You know origin of water?

The Origin of Water

Once upon a time the land had no water, or so all the animals were led to believe, because the only way to get a drink or quench their thirst was to chew "Gulbirra", kangaroo grass, or lick the dew from the leaves.

One day the short nosed bandicoot Gudjilla saw Bangarra the blue tongued lizard drying himself behind a rock, and when all the other animals heard this, they were very angry, and said to Bangarra "You must have some water hidden away! Where have you hidden it?"

Bangarra would not tell because he wanted the water for himself.

The animals called a meeting and chose Gudjilla the bandicoot to follow Bangarra wherever he went. But Bangarra was very clever and could see Gudjilla out of the corner of his eye and never revealed where the water was hidden.

The animals called another meeting and chose Jiggirrjiggirr, the little willy wagtail because he was smaller than Gudjilla and could move a lot faster in case he had to hide when Bangarra looked around when he heard someone was following. But when Jiggirrjiggirr did hide, he could not keep his black and white tail from flicking about. Bangarra still had the water hidden.

The animals did not know what to do. Bangarra was too smart. Then Gula, the rat, the smallest of all the animals said he could follow Bangarra but all the other animals laughed at him, and Midin, the ring tailed possum pushed his way in and told Gula that he was too small and should not be heard.

Gula very hurt, went his own way and crept up very close behind Bangarra, the blue tongue lizard. Now when Bangarra thought someone was following, and looked to the left, Gula the little rat would jump to the right, and when Bangarra looked to the right, Gula would jump to the left, and so it was that the little rat Gula followed the blue tongue lizard Bangarra to the spring that was hidden under a big flat rock, and when Bangarra lifted the rock to let the spring flow, Gula jumped out from hiding and frightened Bangarra away, and all the other animals praised Gula for what he had done.

The animals were so happy for all the running water bubbling from the spring, they all jumped in and began to splash water everywhere and the kingfisher was so glad, he swam to and fro, and with his beak made drains and gullies in front of the running water all the way down to the sea and that is how the small creeks and gullies were made to this very day.

The moral of this story: He who is thought of least and of no account will be the greatest.

http://www.didjshop..../bluetongue.php

[donquijote]

The Kingdom of the Lion
by Aesop
THE BEASTS of the field and forest had a Lion as their king. He was neither wrathful, cruel, nor tyrannical, but just and gentle as a king could be. During his reign he made a royal proclamation for a general assembly of all the birds and beasts, and drew up conditions for a universal league, in which the Wolf and the Lamb, the Panther and the Kid, the Tiger and the Stag, the Dog and the Hare, should live together in perfect peace and amity. The Hare said, "Oh, how I have longed to see this day, in which the weak shall take their place with impunity by the side of the strong." And after the Hare said this, he ran for his life.

***

Woj
Is this what you what to do with the beasts?

Don't you realize we have to separate the predators and the prey?

[Bader]

Howdy DonQ;

The first quote about Douglas (Social Credit) you responded to as sounding terrific. It should and you should have recognised the principles are exactly as in a coop- the returns go to the owners
and not bankers (or govt). That was a small section of what Douglas has proposed, the problem and proposal are much bigger than that sample.
The second quote isnt Douglas, he was invited to go to Alberta
to be the advisor and never went and what Alberhart did may have been inspired by Douglas' proposals they were not the full monty by a long stretch, and so the article saying "based on
Douglas's theories" is misleading.
Someone could be inspired by one of those successful models you have referred to in the past and it may have not been successful. To judge one by the other doesnt make the first one unsuccessful but the mud in propoganda sticks.
The media and orthodox politics are Lion servants. SC renders the Lions water-well monopoly strategy defunct, so you can guess what to expect from the propoganda. They used Alberta
here mis-represent and condemn by the use of misleading vague terms. Pliny fell for the same. Note in the second article it was rejected as an obscurity by the Lions Court.
A few lines cant do it justice. Note in the first quote Doulgas was
acknowledged as having got onto finer details than the orthodox
economic academics, and he was a Engineer.
Its interesting that engineers have been outstanding in attacking the orthodox finance system, and I suspect it is their mental approach. They cant tolerate systems with built in faults, if they had the same unscientific appraoch building and bridges and aircraft would be falling down all over the place and they would be getting sued.
Douglas attended a commission on finance in Britain on which Keynes was one of the presiding experts. Douglas made his presentation and proposal. Keynes who was a world leader
made no comment, never challenged him.
No one has made any claims surround this, but if Douglas'
ideas were as faulty or funny as his opponents usually make out
Keynes could have shot him down and the record would have been quoted around the world to debunk him and his proposals.
That would have been the end of him and the proposals.
Keynes was a systems (lions) man. My conclusion is that he knew Douglas knew his subject and has an exceptional grasp of the subject- recognising another as himself. To challenge him would have given Douglas the opportunity to show his proposals couldnt be discredited and the reverse would happen- the fact would have been usable all over the world in Douglas' favour.
That is why I believe Keynes just let it pass.
Some of Douhlas'book are on line, I will get the address for you.
Take time to have a look and I can assure you it is well worth the time. It is a science not theory, the journalists like to use the word theory which is actually suggestively derogitory.
Othodoc economics is s suedo-science and transparently so, no
one disputes it. Its designed by the bankers which is why engineers wont tolerate such faulty nonsense.

[Bader]

You are right DonQ.
I suspect the photos you saw are the same as I have seen.
I re-saw them a few days ago on Kunicichs site, he has a small video clip about it as part of his campaign (US pres.)
I guess a search on his name would bring it up if anyone wants to see the issue re DU.

It acts an an aid for armour piercing for boimds, shells and bullets. It radioactive and contaminates. It's in the ruined miliatry vehicles and building, minute particles are blowing around in the dust which can be blown long distances, gets in water supplies.
Children are being born deformed in US to US soldiers, wives being affected.
Some are claiming 30% of Iraqis have some form of cancer
developing. Some claim it will be a genocidal epademic that will
wittle the population right down over the next decade or so.
Its a WMD, which they invaded Iraq over, claims not substantiated, and its banned by the UN which ignores it. I cannot believe that the UN staff in Iraq dont know about it.

Neither the Greens or the socialist movement worldwide has made any move to force this issue into the headlines. Not that
the jewish dominated press would give it space except on the minor pages, inspite of them being victims of holocausts themselves.

The US troops suffer from DU, from a bad cocktail of immunisation injections which may well be spiked, plus a bad biting insect, plus exceptional heat at times which saps the bodies endurance while infected with one or all of these which is why some of them have died suddenly.
The US people can bury their heads in the sand over the embarasement of going to war on a bunch of lies but this one
means that a large section of their experienced fighting force will be in wheelchairs and the like if alive in a few years and Bin Laden will have nothing on those responsible for poisening the
US defence forces. As Roosevelt said if it happened it was because it was planned that way.
It has to be pretty bad when the professional soldier (in the Pentagon) are prepared to condone the destruction of their own troops by treason. The GIs biggest enemy is behind them.

[woj1@cyberonic.]

Bader; Jumping in one skin wouldn

[Bader]

If you are referring to the SC issue Woj, Alberharts face and Douglas'are not the same face. Judge Douglas' face by looking into his writing not someone else he decided not to support.

However for an outside party to the two party system of the lion
to get into power for 35 years shows they did something the public was quite happy with so they must have done some good things. Nothing was specified as to anything negative or disatrous was mentioned yet the intention to discount it by suggestion was there was it not. We have had years of that in NZ in the past, that why certain interests control the media to
control the past etc. The prevailing sentiments are taken into the future as the only interpretation of history- based on spin and
bias.

It is a very big and comprehensive exercise to fathom the whole western banking/accounting-price-costing/economic systems and redesign one that works as a servant to society after being one that captured society several hundred years ago. Same as to
comprehending it all in more than one book- a big exercise. I cant repeat the books in this medium Woj, I have given much in short bursts to indicate what its about so if it hasnt wet anyones appetite they are not ready yet. It doesnt come overnight.

The degree at which one searches represents the same as to the desire to find an answer.
It oppose everything you hope for as well a brutal capitalism, so
I dont expect you to show any other humour.

You dont miss me Woj, your Lion is the English, now toothless and humiliated. The bigger lion who used them you still havent spotted yet, crounched down behind that daisy!

[woj1@cyberonic.]

Originally posted by donquijote

Woj
Don't you realize we have to separate the predators and the prey?

I don

[woj1@cyberonic.]

Legality and propriety .
King is dead and Long live King.
Mickey Mouse is patented but the Bader doesn

[donquijote]

<The first quote about Douglas (Social Credit) you responded to as sounding terrific. It should and you should have recognised the principles are exactly as in a coop- the returns go to the owners
and not bankers (or govt).>

Howdy Bader
Thank you for your clarification. I was just subscribing to the general principle that small (coops) is better, and that competition to the lion would be better than regulation.

Firstly, it's so much easier to sell COMPETITION than regulation. That's probably why I've had so little resistance to my proposals. How can the lion say openly say he hates competition? What excuse could he come up with? You know, it would blow his cover.

Secondly, it's easier to achieve justice for those who want it, not for all. Why should we liberate workers that don't want to be liberated?

So, do we want to regulate outside the coops as to make it better than the coops? Or perhaps, I'm all wrong and there's no regulation in SC?:confused:

I don't know, the just coops with a not-so-just society, seems more stable, easier to achieve, more democratic, and even more fun than a uniformly just society, is it not?

[donquijote]

<You dont miss me Woj, your Lion is the English, now toothless and humiliated. The bigger lion who used them you still havent spotted yet, crounched down behind that daisy! >

Woj is on guard for outside lion and he'll be attacked by own lion from the back.

[Bader]

Propriety Woj is exactly what I have been arguing for and refusing to allow someone else using the SC label to reflect on the one whom it belongs to.
You seem to be the one objecting to seperating propriety from
confusion with someone elses ideas.
Try a subject you have a little knowledge of.

"....promote own and different views"

I cant understand that one Woj, you will have to come back on that and clarify.

I am surprised Woj you are opposed to coops and believe in nationalism because they are basically the same concept only on a different scale. If a nation was constituted on the same principles as that of the coop it would be the strongest form of
nationalism. The difference however is that it would be people based which is where it would get its stronger unity, whereas you have the idea of an elite on a power trip as the basis and thus creates dissent and the potential for coups and public revolt and thus it tends to depend on excessive use of state power over people which inhibits enterprise and inventiveness and like Albania drifts into a static-time warp.
You cant legislate enterprise and inginuity you have to allow a favourable social environment.

Your beliefs parallel Edward Bernay's.
From his book "Propoganda"
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our governemnt."

"It is not usually realised how necessary these invisible governors are to the orderly functioning of our life group. In theory, every citizen may vote for whom he pleases. Our constitution does not recognise political parties as part of the mechanism of governemnt, and its framers seem not to have pictured to themselves the existence in our national politics of anything like the modern political machine. But American voters soon without organisation and direction their individual votes, cast, perhaps, for dozens or hundreds of candidates, would produce nothing but confusion.
Invisible government in the shape of rudimentary political parties arose overnight. Ever since then we have agreed, for the sake of simplicity and practicality, that party machines should narrow down the field of choice to two candidates, or at most three or four."
He obviously believes that without a an elite providing leadership society becomes chaotic.
While his work includes many truisms it is totally loaded propoganda. The coop shoots his theory to pieces.
Incidently is shows why people have captured the media and why.
Can you explain Woj how an elite should be chosen and by whom? And you dont have to patent your answer.

[donquijote]

<Can you explain Woj how an elite should be chosen and by whom? And you dont have to patent your answer. >

Woj, like the Hare, believes the Lion's words, and I can only hope he's got good legs...

The Kingdom of the Lion
by Aesop
THE BEASTS of the field and forest had a Lion as their king. He was neither wrathful, cruel, nor tyrannical, but just and gentle as a king could be. During his reign he made a royal proclamation for a general assembly of all the birds and beasts, and drew up conditions for a universal league, in which the Wolf and the Lamb, the Panther and the Kid, the Tiger and the Stag, the Dog and the Hare, should live together in perfect peace and amity. The Hare said, "Oh, how I have longed to see this day, in which the weak shall take their place with impunity by the side of the strong." And after the Hare said this, he ran for his life.

***

What we are saying though is that we got to organizaze the little animals, who by their SHEER NUMBER and by their POWER TO STRIKE (ie. stop working for the lion), should command respect from the biggest of predators...

Little Animals Unite!

[donquijote]

It's not the lion, but the little animals who got the most power: the power given by GENERAL STRIKE...

General strike

A general strike is a strike action by an entire labour force in a city, region or country. In the late 19th century, the growing international labour movements advocated general strikes for industrial or political purposes.

General strikes are effective because of the wide-reaching disruption they cause. Few official services continue to run in a general strike because other workers will often be pressured by strikers and labour organisations to join the strike.

A large-scale strike like a general strike requires a high level of labour organisation. Often a galvanising motive like widespread economic hardship or social unrest is necessary to provoke one.

Many leftist and socialist movements have hoped to mount a "peaceful revolution" in a country by organizing enough strikers to completely paralyze it. With the state and corporate apparatus thus crippled, the workers would be able to re-organize society along radically different lines. This philosophy was favored by the anarcho-syndicalist labor organization Industrial Workers of the World, especially in the early twentieth century. General strikes were frequent in Spain during the early twentieth century, where revolutionary anarcho-syndicalism was most popular.

many links...

http://www.nationmas.../General-strike

[Pliny]

A general strike sounds like force to me. In the interest of justice perhaps a necessity and a rarity, but in the interest of economy it sounds like a coercive action that would be a regular occurrence to make unnecessary and many demands upon the the market structure that would inevitably destroy it.

I just thought I would make your day and post this article for you.

http://www.mises.org...px?control=1607

[donquijote]

Originally posted by Pliny
A general strike sounds like force to me. In the interest of justice perhaps a necessity and a rarity, but in the interest of economy it sounds like a coercive action that would be a regular occurrence to make unnecessary and many demands upon the the market structure that would inevitably destroy it.

I just thought I would make your day and post this article for you.

http://www.mises.org...px?control=1607

Howdy Pliny
General strikes are NON violent. Actually it may be the most effective way to tame the lion without major pain. Take into account though that it can not only be used against capitalism but against communism or any tyranny that doesn't hesitate to use violence. And, if not strike, what would the best strategy? Nonviolence has a wide arsenal, but this sure is the quickest...

I read the introduction and ending of the article, and it's too biased and simplistic. If the noble savage is not an accurate picture of human nature, there's no doubt in my mind that the jungle's "kill or be killed" law turns people into an ignoble savage...:confused:

I don't think kibbutz members are perfect either but they can afford to be human beings without fear of the lion. They did away with the boss. Wouldn't that be a step closer to perfection? Do we need to be intimidated to behave or work or whatever? Do we need that much POLICING? Then it really speaks too lowly of human nature.

Of course, a better capitalism is possible, but it may only come as a result of COMPETITION--very much a capitalist law, no?

[Pliny]

Originally posted by donquijote
Howdy Pliny
General strikes are NON violent.

I didn't say they were.

Biased and simplistic. Gosh! Why didn't I think of that?

[Pliny]

I have reread some of the thread here and it seems that the solutions to the world's problems are right here.

There is no need for further input as it will only obfuscate the issues.

Bader, your questions are not ones that are indicative of someone attempting an understanding and I believe all the answers you want are found in your ideology. I don't pretend to have a full understanding of it and I do not pretend to be an economist that has a full understanding of the economy and what the best course of action is for the world. I do know large governments are wasteful, inefficient, coercive and easily corrupted.

I know also that because a government or bank says a currency is legal tender does not make the person who holds it feel more secure. I would prefer to have a commodity in my hands than a government decreed piece of paper if it came down to druthers.

Have fun!

[donquijote]

> > I have very little doubt that if more people lived like I endeavor to
> > do (no car, no TV, energy conserving, living close to work, exercising
> > reduce/reuse/recycle, using human powered recreation, carrying debt
> > only to buy my house, etc.) than like you imply you do, not only would
> > our economy be stronger, but we would not as a nation have made so
> > many enemies all over the world.
>
> I have very little doubt that those people would be healthier, happier,
> and live much fuller lives, too.
>
> Imagine a literal "Renaissance Man" - a wise man in the mold of
> Michealangelo or Leonardo, or a Francis of Assisi or if you prefer, a
> Buddha.
>
> Imagine bringing them into 21st century America, letting them peek
> through the windows of the time machine. And explain that we no longer
> have to grub for our food and pray that the harvest will stave off
> starvation. Explain that our medical discoveries have given us entire
> decades of life, and that our labor-saving devices give us more leisure
> and comfort than Renaissance princes.
>
> Then tell them that we use all those extra hours and years to watch
> sitcoms on TV, and we spend our riches not on art and learning, but on
> disposable junk. Explain that our neighborhoods have little sense of
> community, that we don't know the name of the folks five houses away.
> Tell them that that we never sing in public, we never visit with our
> neighbors at the weekly market - that instead, we drive to the mall to
> buy more junk, and we avoid conversation with the strangers there.
>
> Personally, I think they'd be appalled. They'd think we had a chance
> for heaven on earth, and we squandered it

Not only that, if the time machine traveller saw that Da Vinci's dream machine--the bicycle--is kept out of the streets out of fear, but that the dinosaurs came back to haunt us with a motor, he would die again.