RD: BTW- Morris reminded me of another term- would you accept 'Plutocarcy'? Its what you and gee advocate- rule of the people, by the wealthy, for the wealthy. Would that be an acceptable comprimise term?SDF: Actually, RD, neither Jacobson nor Gee has claimed to advocate "rule of the people, by the wealthy, for the wealthy," so I doubt this is going to look like a "truce" to either of them.
And I don't think you've produced The Emperor's New Clothes here, either. Gee might argue, justifiably, that he isn't interested in "rule of the people" so much as he's interested in the sovereignty of the individual. Perhaps more to the point would be the observation that in Gee's posts he argues things like:
The only issue for me, in the above, is not that I get $10 and that BillionBoy gets $10million, the only concern is that MrPoor gets $0 regardless of cake increases. How to get MrPoor into the cake without curtailing cake growth (and robbing current cakeowners) is a more challenging question. Even though Ive just made it sound like a side comment in a bakery!
but of course if MrPoor has nothing to trade, if he's shut out of the market (and, again, one can turn to a random page of Jeremy Seabrook's VICTIMS OF DEVELOPMENT to recognize that there are millions of people in this situation around the world), then Gee's primary response to the situation is to accuse MrPoor of "robbery" if he develops a sudden urge to eat that can't be satisfied by existing charities. Gee also doesn't seem to think practically about situations like the one described here.
Jacobson's perspective upon poverty amidst wealth? I really wouldn't know.
