User talk:Rodney Shakespeare

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] "Binary democracy"

Please explain how democracy in Binary economics is different from other forms of democracy. I can see nothing in the Binary economics article regarding the political process. Does it advocate or reject voting? Representatives? Liberties? If you are simply arguing that real democracy requires more economic equality, then this have been argued many times before, going back to ancient Greece. But giving everyone equal wealth does not in itself create a new form of democracy. A representative democracy where everyone has equal wealth is still a represenatative democracy. So please explain what new form of democratic process Binary economics propose.

Ultramarine 19:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ultramarine

Binary economics upholds the political vote -- thanks for pointing out that the b.e page does not mention this. I will make the corection. However, b.e well understands that the political vote has little or no meaning in everyday life if the material basics (which include a secure income) are not available. Please consider the significance of one fifth of the USA population living on under $7 per day - neither the vote nor jobs/welfare make sufficient difference. That is at best a hollow democracy; at worst, something akin to a fraud.

B.e. does not mean more economic equality as such because such a proposal -- like all similar proposals -- fails to address the question of production. But b.e. does address it. Uniquely, it develops and, at the same time, spreads productive capacity (and thus the associated consuming capacity). It also creates independent economic power bases for everybody and as you, a political theorist will well understand, that is the only thing which gives people real everyday power. I trust you can now understand how b.e. deepens democracy. Rodney Shakespeare.

You did not respond the points I made. Please explain how the political process differ from those in other forms of democracy. If it is just a a representative democracy with a modified market economy, then it is not a different form of democracy as claimed. All socialist democracies makes similar claims, that they are more democratic due to equality, so this is nothing new. Unless you explain exactly how this supposed form of democracy differ from others in the political process, I will remove this section.Ultramarine 21:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Considering your edit pattern, inserting links to Binary economics into numerous articles (Wind Turbine? Pravda?), please also read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.Ultramarine 21:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
May I chip in here as a disillusioned ex socialist and a disgruntled "capitalist"? The unique contribution of binary economics is its emphasis on the need for wide distribution of income generating capital assets. The old socialist notion that redistributing income can narrow the gap between the rich and poor stands discredited by evidence from social history (allow me not to quote that evidence here for reasons of brevity).
As I understand it, binary democracy differs from democracy under the current mode of capitalism in that it offers the mechanism whereby all citizens are enabled to derive a substantial part of their income from productive capital assets (a genuine property owning democracy). Whereas now society is divided into a minority employers and a majority of workers (including the self employed working for clients) who only have their labour as a marketable asset, the binary paradigm ensures a democracy where "everyone is a capitalist" (my phrase). This has profound political repercussions since citizens are liberated to acquire required competency (if they so choose) for effective participation in political democracy.
I trust this is a direct enough response (summarised in the previous sentence) to the points you raised.
As to the author's edit pattern, the question is, or should be, "are those links relevant in the context of the article and do they point to helpful additional information?"
Janosabel 15:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine, 1. Your points. 2 Alleged conflict of interest. 3. My day off.

1. The b.e. text now refers to " periodic political vote". That covers your first point about voting. The word 'periodic' implies representative government (otherwise there would need for a continual mechanism to ensure that those who are elected act as delegates). That covers your second point. As for your third point -- about liberties -- all is mere words unless liberty is real in the everyday world. You might like to look up Louis Kelso & Patricia Hetter Kelso Democracy & Economic Power(1986 & 1991)which spells out that, where democracy is concerned, the economic aspect in everyday life matters as much as the political. Binary democracy is a Kelsonian concept.

You are also misunderstanding b.e by comparing it to a socialist democracy or even a modified 'market' economy (in the sense you mean). Indeed, moderate Muslims would be unhappy, even insulted, by that description because b.e is not atheistic and, crucially, interest (riba) is NOT involved. Four Islamic universities have made agreements to teach b.e and about ten want to and probably many more will in future. That most certainly would not be the case unless something new, different -- and very important -- was evolving in and around moderate Islam.

2. a)Pravda. During the Cold War Pravda attacked b.e. and saw it as extreme right-wing and Milton Friedman saw it as extreme left-wing. Neither Pravda nor Friedman could understand because b.e. is outside the normal left-right paradigm. That is a hugely significant matter and I am at a loss to understand why it should not be clearly stated as an interesting and significant part of b.e.'s, Pravda's and Milton Friedman's history.

b) Wind turbines, etc etc etc.

A major new policy is being proposed for ALL the areas mentioned. I am not aware that anybody (apart from b.e) has made the proposal of central-bank issued (banking system administered) interest-free loans for ALL forms of productive capacity and their spreading. The b.e. text clearly makes the point and the other pages in effect note that b.e. says that interest-free loans should be available. Where is the conflict in that? What b.e. proposes is a straight fact and one very relevant to the areas concerned. Cost is halved -- that is hardly a matter to be suppressed. So why should it not be noted as I have done?

3. My day off. a)I would add that you and I have only been in contact for a few hours and it is disconcerting to see you already talking about removing a section before you have considered what is being said.

b)I have spent today doing a lot of Wiki work which has been previously prepared. Surely you are not objecting to my doing a lot of work all on one day? I have full-time work, have just done two books, am doing another and also have two papers to do. I have to take my opportunites when I can.

I also presume that today is the first time you have come across b.e. and realise that at first it can seem a bit strange but please do not rush to hasty comparisons with socialism and, in particular, please don't assume a usual 'market' economy is involved. Such economies are based on interest-bearing fiat money which Muslims hate. I have enough problems without risking being associated with dangerous misconceptions like that getting out into the Muslim world (which I regularly visit).

[edit] Binary Economics -- main page

Hi Radeksz,

I presume it is you who has put up a Not Neutral notice on the Binary economics page.

What is not neutral or a neutral point of view? B.e does state what is stated on the page. That is fact. Plenty of references have been given. If there's any error please say so but a blanket notice, without being specific, is not helpful to people trying to build a page.

I think you are referring to what is on the Talk page done by Janos Abel (who has been kindly putting up the main article). Exactly what is the problem? The main page deals sufficiently with the issue.

Rodney Shakespeare.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Radeksz"

[edit] Binary Economics conflict of interest

I am concerned that many of your recent edits to articles such as Geothermal power, Solar cell, Riba, Monetary reform and others represent a non-neutral point of view, as the result of a possible conflict of interest.

The reason I have this concern is that many of the edits add information about Binary Economics to articles that are not directly related to it, and all of them put Binary Economics in a strictly positive light.

Please read the Wikipedia policy pages on Conflicts of Interest and on Neutral Point of View. In particular, there are suggestions in the conflict of interest page on how to deal with potential conflicts of interest; for instance, restricting yourself to editing pages not associated with your conflict of interest, or inviting the Wikipedia community to read over potentially contentious edits before they are made.

Once you are familiar with these Wikipedia policies, feel free to comment here if you have any questions. If I don't respond promptly to a comment here, you can also contact me at my own talk page to get my attention.

Please note that I am not an administrator; I am just a normal Wikipedian who noticed your recent edits. If you wish to speak to someone with more authority on this issue, you can request arbitration or comment on the administrators' noticeboard. marginoferror 02:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Marginoferror, I think you are missing the key point. The world needs the clean technologies. Many of them generally work in a practical sense but they are not viable in the financial sense -- which is why they can only be implemented by a major policy of interest-free loans. If you want geothermal, wind, solar etc (and I presume you do) you are apparently doing the one thing which will ensure that they will not happen i.e. denying knowledge of the mechanism which can enable them to happen.
Rodney Shakespeare 23.59 29th May, 2007
Sir, it doesn't matter how good your financial plan is; Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy.
I think that you are trying to say that information about Binary Economics belongs in these articles because Binary Economics makes their implementation economically possible. Is that correct? Regardless of my personal opinion of your financial plan, I have to argue that since Binary Economics *has not to this point* been a driving force in the adoption of these technologies, then information about that economic policy does not belong in their articles. Furthermore, there were many non-technology-related edits that cannot be argued for with that logic at any rate. marginoferror 01:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Marginoferror,
Thanks for replying but you are still missing the point -- the situation is dire. We won't get the technologies unless the proposal is adopted -- it's a straight matter of (roughly) half the cost or even less. The sensible, non-pedantic thing, is to allow a short reference to the financing which permits the introduction of the technologies because the world climate situation may soon spiral out of control. Either you see the danger of the situation or you don't. Furthermore, as regards your opinion of the finance aspect, I would point out that interest-free loans are proposed although, of course, grants are also possible and perhaps a reference to grants should be added.
Rodney Shakespeare 23.45 30th May, 2007.
Sir, I'm sorry, but I don't understand what your argument has to do with the Wikipedia articles in question.
Since you haven't re-edited the affected articles, then there is not really any problem at this point. Wikipedians will fix the articles, whether that involves deleting information about binary economics, moving it elsewhere, leaving it as-is or editing it to present a neutral point of view as the case demands. I just wanted to leave this note to alert you to the dispute and explain the reason for the editing. You are welcome to continue to debate Binary Economics on this talk page, and to a limited extent on other talk pages. Any edits to actual Wikipedia articles should follow the rules on conflicts of interest and NPOV as I linked above, but within these guidelines I encourage you to improve Wikipedia however you see fit.
Please contact me, or an administrator if you prefer, if you have any further questions on Wikipedia editing guidelines. marginoferror 03:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 10:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Binary economics editing

Please note that ownership of articles, tendentious editing to keep an article in a state you favor, and edit warring are not acceptable practices. I see that you have engaged in these practices for quite some time. When you submitted material here, you agreed to let others edit it. Please honor that agreement by allowing that to actually happen. Please also be mindful of the three-revert rule. Thank you. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)