Okay, here's a thing.

[avevale_intelligencer]

Many of my friends want to ban the teaching of religion in science classes, and I think they're absolutely right. Most say they would be happy for it to be taught as comparative mythology--that is, surrounded by caveats pointing out that none of this stuff is actually real or relevant and none of it will be any use to you at all, so unless you're a geek about this sort of thing you might as well take a nap guys--but I think they would be just as happy if it all quietly went away.

And as I say, I think they have a point. It's arguable, after all, though I don't argue it, that religion is only a thing because people believe it's a thing, that the misery caused in its name far outweighs the good it does, and that it gives undue power and authority to people who do not deserve that. Freedom is not an issue here--nobody is threatening anyone's freedom to believe, if they can find anyone who'll tell them what they're supposed to be believing. The only freedom under threat here is the freedom to be dumb, and that's not guaranteed under any legal system I know.

And I'm willing to grant all that, if a modest proposal of my own might be entertained.

You see, there's a thing that bothers me. Like religion, it's only a thing because people believe it's a thing. It has no practical use in itself. It's arguable that it's caused more misery that it's done good, and that it gives undue power and authority to people who don't deserve it. I could see it being taught, say, in history, surrounded with caveats pointing out that it's neither useful nor relevant--but as a real thing, no. I'd be just as happy if it all quietly went away.

I refer, of course, to "Business."

Business produces nothing. It simply gets in the way. The only freedom under threat here is the freedom to be greedy--to want more for what you do than what you do is worth. I don't know that that's guaranteed under any legal system, and if it is it ought not to be.

If I ruled the world I'd pass a law--nobody who is not directly involved in the manufacture of a product can own or operate any concern devoted to the manufacture or sale of said product. I'm sure this would cause problems, but I'd like to find out what those problems would be and whether they'd be more amenable to solution than the ones we've got. The only qualities governing the success of a small-b business should be the quality and availability of the thing that business makes and sells.

As far as I can see this would have several good effects. It would level the playing field for all those who are good at making stuff but not so much at selling it. People might not be able to become quite as rich as they can now, at least not without being very good at doing something useful. It would legitimise shared ownership of a business without dragging the state into it--if all the workers in a factory own the factory in common, they all get the benefit and they have incentive to work well. It would put responsibility where it belongs--if a business makes something bad, everyone knows who's responsible and what to do about it. And it would make it very clear to the world exactly how much work is necessary to keep things going, and how many people are needed to do it, and something practical would have to be done to support all the rest.

The problems...well, they might be horrendous, and I look forward to several comments from my friends pointing out exactly what they are. Let me be clear; I'm not proposing to outlaw arithmetic, or to abolish accountancy. Some skilled or talented people can't add up and need someone to do it for them; I'd count that as being "directly involved," though perhaps at a secondary, non-voting level. These are details to be ironed out in the planning stages.

But I am as firmly opposed to the teaching of Business, as an end in itself, as any of my atheist friends are to the teaching of Religion. Sadly, there's only one of me.

This has been one of Zander's Things. Thank you for your patience.

Comments

[feetnotes.livejournal.com]

ummm... not that they'll long survive anyway, but would you outlaw bookshops - new and second-hand, both?

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

No, indeed, and thank you. I should have added "or the provision of a service." What I would outlaw is five hundred bookshops being bought up by an oil company or whatever, which has no interest in anything except the money rolling in and will close the shops as soon as it becomes apparent that there isn't any, or not enough to satisfy them. All bookshops should be owned and operated by people whose sole concern is the selling of books and related items.

I do lament the demise of independent bookshops, and hope that when the full effects of the changes in the medium have played out they will be able to reinvent themselves and once more become what they should be...but that's unlikely to happen while Business is allowed to rule our world.

[filkerdave.livejournal.com]

All bookshops should be owned and operated by people whose sole concern is the selling of books and related items.

The issue I see her is that business are operated by people who have, as a major, if not THE major concern, the goal of making money. Any business that doesn't have that as a goal doesn't stay in business.

And, of course, there's not a neat division of interests in the world. Take your hypothetical oil company. They sell oil, which means, presumably, that they also explore, drill, extract, ship, refine and distribute. Oil is also found with natural gas, so that fall in.

And it's all energy. Why would they not therefor want to (at some point, although I don't think this happens in the real world) sell electricity? It's related.

Oil is often moved by tankers on roads. Why wouldn't they consider buying tankers, or manufacturing them? And once doing that, what would prevent them from, as a related business, manufacturing other vehicles?

Again, in the real world, this doesn't happen because there's not enough money in it, but it certainly could.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

And that's exactly the problem. Of course a business will want to do everything and take all the money. That's their nature. That's why we're in the mess we're in. My point is that they should not be allowed to do so.

[filkerdave.livejournal.com]

So you're proposing a complete restructure of the economy on all levels?

At what point do you say "this is not a legitimate interest of this company, therefore they can't do XYZ?"

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

I did say "if I ruled the world." That's a fairly hefty restructuring right there. For one thing, I'm fairly sure there's a rule disqualifying all Brits from the job, on the grounds that we had our chance and blew it. :)

Precise limits would have to be determined by committees, but off the top of my head I'd say that the legitimate interest of an oil company begins when they locate the oil and ends when they finish refining it. Yes, this would mean that lots of different smaller companies would have to co-operate for their mutual benefit without being owned by the same multi-millionaire. Diversity is worth a little inconvenience; in fact I'd say that those who would sacrifice diversity to gain a little temporary convenience deserve neither diversity nor convenience. :)

[filkerdave.livejournal.com]

OK, you TOTALLY lost me when you said committee. The world would come crashing to a halt!

(Oil is perhaps a small example. Where would you put smaller retail items. Books, say -- there's really NOT enough traffic in a small bookstore in a great many areas, which is why they sell so many other items (like pens, paper, journals...) (Note that this holds true primarily in high-density and high-cost areas like London or New York; I expect it may be different in smaller towns)

[eintx.livejournal.com]

I have no idea how you managed to write this while I thought we were rehearsing!! Magic, I say. :)

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

I wrote most of it the previous night. That was just when I hit "post." :) One thing I love about LJ is that it saves your draft automatically even when you switch off.

[filkerdave.livejournal.com]

Does it really? I always write longer things in a text editor because I didn't know that!