Next: A Concept for Government
Up: The World Solution for
Previous: Characteristics for Governors of
We all 'have' to share Earth and everything on it. We
therefore all have the responsibility for its functioning
and upkeep on a healthy level. This points to the familiar
principle of pooling. Pooling is acting together losely,
socio is the co-operation of pooling, is intelligent structure,
is organization. Mondial sociologists cannot study a
concept for a fair and safe society without a thorough
knowledge of man's characteristics with regard to this pooling
phenomenon.
Schwarzschild and many others expressly
pointed to the absence of knowledge about man, that made for
the total failure of the League of Nations (and the United
Nations) and for wars and wars, and torture and bestiality.
An example of the pooling of words without the pooling (cooperation)
in acts. Had the members pooled their power,
their forces, their armies, World War 2 and Hiroshima would not
have happened (59).
Pooling in money is well-known. When a large group of people pool
a little money each, the total of which is to go to
the person who predicts the outcome of a physical process or
a game, correctly, this winner (?) gains a tremendous lot of
money (60). Often, a large part of this gain
is strainedoff for the cost of the organization of such lotteries, in
fact, even the simple raffle in a pub, the fruitmachines,
the bingo-evenings, are designed to produce a gain for the
non-participants, for the organizers. When one hears of a
person who spent every week, 25 units of money, during 25
years, in a State Lottery, for the chance of winning 100,000
of these units as gain, but without result, one can calculate that,
had he put this money in the bank, with a reasonable
interest, he would have had the 'certainty' to attain
these 100,000 units. Obviously, the truth about these matters is
entirely different from what the advertisements
declare. This same State then, when it recognises the misery
brought by gambling and wanting to do something against
it, certainly looks very odd indeed.
The pooling of risks too is habitual and similar to the
general use of police, firebrigade, army, etc. (61).
When there is a risk of a great loss by circumstances, one can
put this loss on the bill of an insurance company, meaning
that, in order to make it at all possible, many and many
people must pay and pay without ever claiming such loss.
On first sight, insurance seems advantageous for society.
It makes it possible for a person to run risks that formerly
he could not dream of, the consequences of which he could
never hope to suffer in his life. On second sight however,
there is the question of: 'why should you (like to) run
risks like that at all?' 'We pay, and you get away with it
cheap, others not'. When a boxer or mountaineer enthousiast,
takes a risk of very high costs in hospital or rescue
operations, this is community money, risked for the pleasure
of a few (62). He can say: 'it is insured',
but he forgets
that it affects the premium rate for all others. Clearly,
we need a simple concept for understanding the principle of
pooling.
When in a block of flats, the water was pooled, i.e.
everybody paid the same part of the total bill, I encountered
a woman who had a clever system for cleaning her empty
milk bottles. She simply put them under the running tap for
a quarter of an hour or half an hour. Had she had to pay
for her own use of water, she most certainly would have
saved water, or would even have left the cleaning of these
bottles to the milk company. Even severe advice for everybody to use
water sparingly (in a very dry summer) would not
convince her. 'Others will do it', and 'nobody would know
about it', was the word.
There was a similar case of a block of appartments in
which the bill for central heating was pooled. Instead of
turning the radiators down a little when the room temperature
was too high, people opened windows and let the draught
take care of the superfluous warmth, stoking the environment
thereby. These examples are not incidents by cranky people,
but only those that came to be noted down for later use.
The reality must be far worse. It points to a different
society with regard to laws. There should be a code
instead, an internal law of conduct. With Wells:
Necessities bury rights. And create them. We've
done with that way of living. We wont have more law than
a code can cover and beyond that government will be
free. The World Set Free.
Look at the trains, the busses, waiting halls, the streets
'n parks, dustbins, etc. that are all pooles (public money) !
I once had the experience to be unable to convince a student
in social science, of a decidedly anti-social act. It was
with regard to a canteen that worked on the principle of the
so-called cafeteria system, meaning that the customer was
supposed to fetch his food on platters and dishes which he
took himself, and put away after use in the proper station
for dishwashing. Not doing this latter, I marked down as
contra social. He answered that this would imply that it
meant something to me (and others). I affirmed this, showing how,
when the dirty dishes remained on the tables, the
proprietor had to take on extra personnel for doing this
gathering, hence higher prices (for the same product) and
therefore a disadvantage for all other customers. He could
not grasp this reasoning and made a diverting answer (the
customary strategy in such cases) saying that this was
advantageous for the un-employment problem. I, going along
with the digression, answered that it was a mis-appreciation
of our reality to think that we must have less unemployment,
that on the contrary we must have more and more.
Quoting Cicero first, who had praised un-employment adequately,
I remarked that; the more employment, means the
more production, which in turn means faster devastation of
our environment, and death coming faster. But a social scientist
of that sort, will never be able to understand that
all argumentation (against common sensical co-operation)
stops when our extermination looms near.
It was the groans of dying men she wished to hear Iliad.
Another example is a pooling principle that resembles insurance.
When a workman is paid only for the work he does, a
situation of an earlier century, he will spread his spending
of money in order to cope with rainy days when work (pay) is
impossible. When there is a little rain, he will easily
endure it for the sake of the upkeep of his family. When
his payment is pooled, i.e. spread over the year, in combination
with the payments of others, the result is that when
there is a tiny drop of rain ... down tools. Even the man
who wants to go on a little, is sanctioned by his comrades
for doing so (Summum Bonum fallacy). There is nothing to be
'gained' from going on working.
In our circumstances, pooling seems to be subject to a
simple law. When it is 'I, to have' (the normal rule for
all life (63) ), there is no thought of any other
human being
and his rights, when there is responsibility involved,
duties, there are 'only' others to do it, not I, (I, to
have, not I, to do, i.e. only rights no duties). People
think by nature that they have rights, never that they have
duties, except in small families or tribes somewhere.
I have my rights, you have your duties is normal in our world.
A governmental system should be based upon this knowledge
(by advisors).
The whole earth belongs to everyone. That is not a
doctrine, that is a fact - long overlooked. Wells, The Holy Terror.
Next: A Concept for Government
Up: The World Solution for
Previous: Characteristics for Governors of
Ven
2007-09-11