Network Nation

Sender: millershed@EARTHLINK.NET
Subject: Re: Fwd: Action: Creating a coalition for a revenue neutral carbon tax for payroll o
Date: Tue, Aug 19, 2014
Msg: 101126

Hello all,

It seems to me that we do need to back up and slow down a bit, yet it also feels like we're tantalizingly close to something that could draw widespread support in a big way.

Close and not close. My hunch is that a substitute for the corporate tax is about as likely to draw concerted opposition from the left as a substitute for payroll taxes would be from the right. I somehow don't like the either/or here. It seems to me that we need a win/win/win.

To explain: To me, Michael Strong's general proposal to internalize externalities is a win/win in that self interest coincides with the general good (whereas mere exhortation is likely to be perceived as pitting the two against each other). A win/win/win would involve the coincidence of corporate self-interest with little guy self-interest with everybody's interest in having a healthy planet (and/or society--I agree with Rick that the two go hand in hand).

I don't think such a possibility is at all far-fetched, but we do need a good dialogue process to get there (which might involve addressing some or all of Michael Briand's questions). Face-to-face seems better than listserv back and forthing. Mark Gerzon and John Steiner, any thoughts? That said, I am most appreciative of this listserv dialogue!

John Miller

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Briand
Sent: Aug 17, 2014 12:40 PM
To: TRANSPARTISAN@LISTS.THATAWAY.ORG
Subject: Re: [TRANSPARTISAN] Fwd: Action: Creating a coalition for a revenue neutral carbon tax for payroll or corporate tax swap

Friends:

I'm sure the issue proposed by Michael S. would lead to a useful and productive discussion. But I don't wish to weigh in on the matter of what topics we ought to consider or what actions we might take. I want only to observe that it's very difficult to get anywhere in decision-oriented conversations like this without being explicit about our purpose and our criteria for evaluating and choosing among options.

Even if we don't need something as formal and detailed as a strategic plan, we still need to think, generally, as if that's what we're developing: a plan that addresses purpose, goals, objectives, resources and assets, obstacles and deficits, criteria for action, action options, deliberation, prioritization, decision, timeline, division of labor, evaluation, etc. I know this will strike some as unnecessary. I can only repeat what I've said before: go slow to go fast.

Despite (or because of) the rich discussion we've enjoyed to date, I'm becoming less sure of where we're headed. I would recommend backing up a bit and talking, even if only briefly, about purpose, goals, decision criteria, and action options--or even further, by taking the survey Bruce constructed. In the absence of clarity about these, and of course speaking only for myself, I worry about finding myself unable to make sense of it all.

Thanks.

Michael Briand

Chico, CA

530.345.3709

To unsubscribe from the TRANSPARTISAN list, click the following link:
http://lists.thataway.org/scripts/wa-THATAWAY.exe?SUBED1=TRANSPARTISAN&A=1

www.greenteaparty.us  FB: green tea party movement  Home: (952) 887-2763  Cell (952) 797-2302