 | | RFC: An Alternative..
|
|
Disclaimers ===...=== First off, I don't have the benefit of being incredibly smart, so there are bound to be holes. But even the simplest idea can spark others into greater feats of insight and imagination - hopefully that will be the case. I (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: RFC: An Alternative..
|
|
Need to dig in deeper (over the weekend?) but... I think this has a lot of merit. Not perfect. Nothing is. But better, perhaps than what we have now. And not that different from Libertopia! Where I see an area in need of further exploration is in (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: RFC: An Alternative..
|
|
(...) Hm, interesting. We seem to actually be making some progress here. At a quick read, Richard's proposal sounds like Liberatopia to me. I agree with Larry that there needs to be more understanding of the flow of money and power. It's interesting (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: RFC: An Alternative..
|
|
(...) Which flow of money? Apart from the minimal tax (admistration+State Responsibility fees (which pays for national defence and other things of that nature)), the flow of money is entirely up to the aggregate group. Ie, a community, town, region, (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: RFC: An Alternative..
|
|
Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) that (...) extra (...) Marxist-inspired (...) workers (...) who (...) choose (...) in (...) there (...) part, (...) when (...) As (...) feared (...) makes (...) When (...) that (...) social (...) What I read (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: RFC: An Alternative..
|
|
Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) that (...) extra (...) Marxist-inspired (...) workers (...) who (...) choose (...) in (...) there (...) part, (...) when (...) As (...) feared (...) makes (...) When (...) that (...) social (...) What I read (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: RFC: An Alternative..
|
|
(...) The shift of power from top-down to bottom-up is a major difference straight off. The Social Groupings that I named will sound familiar, as we do have a structure already in place for community and society.. I could have used different terms (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: RFC: An Alternative..
|
|
(...) The weekend sounds fine with me, thanks for considering it! I hope that you didn't mind the dedication :) What seems funny at 5am, isn't always. Richard (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An Alternative..
|
|
Its late, I may be too tired to think straight (1). At first glance, I had plenty of arguments and questions, but I don't feel those are necessary just yet. I think the system you are trying to devise is our current world. Since man began, we have (...) (24 years ago, 14-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An Alternative..
|
|
(...) Please don't hold back on the questions :) (...) I have to respectfully disagree! * Power is bottom up, not top down. * State Funding is at a minimum - you pay for what you want. * Individuals are offered a role in community issues and at a (...) (24 years ago, 14-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An Alternative..
|
|
(...) By this I don't mean that they would all meet - there would be a meeting and anyone who wanted could attend. (...) Although a more practical idea may be internet-voting, or they may sign up to have a list of things voted to them mailed (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: RFC: An Alternative..
|
|
I am a little curious as to why no non-Libertarian people have commented so far.. does it look like I've strayed? :) Have I fleshed out the power and funding areas any further, or is there a lot more that I haven't considered? Richard (24 years ago, 15-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An Alternative..
|
|
Richard, I am not being argumentative just for the sake of it. I am truly having difficulty seeing your side of this, and as is usually the case, wondering why you can't see mine. I made some replies below that I would like you to look at. I am (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An Alternative..
|
|
(...) I'll give it my best go. (...) I agree - because once you have Social Groupings that organise their own affairs independently, there won't be *MUCH* that you'd need *EVERYONE* to vote on at one time? (...) Well, if that means that you think my (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An Alternative..
|
|
Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) vote (...) Except, I suppose, officials? (...) great (...) It was a comparison. I wasn't sure if we were ready for square one yet. We need to be sure we are on about the same wavelength. (...) everything (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An Alternative..
|
|
(...) Official what? (...) Ah - *thats* what you mean.. cool, agreed! (...) There's no reason why you couldn't use the existing infrastructure as a scaffolding to create a new one. (...) Except that the federal government can close or open any (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An Alternative..
|
|
Sorry Richard, this has been sitting in my draft folder... Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) <snip> (...) country (...) agree, (...) almost (...) That depends on geography. The Federal government doesn't exert that much control here. (...) (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
