Subject:
|
Re: An Alternative..
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Jan 2000 07:43:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
354 times
|
| |
|
|
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 been acting as individuals. We have, as
individuals, formed communities in various areas. As these communities grew
and merged, various smaller communities arose with various distinctions.
Alliances (regions, states, countries) were formed. In the past and
presently, individuals have violated each others rights. In your aism,
individuals are given the freedom (somehow) to choose which rights are
violated and which are protected, at the individual level (by choosing the
community that suits them). I suppose it has always been this way, more or
less, and very well may continue endlessly. Essentially, the power has
always been from bottom to top, not vice versa, only not every individual
involved was aware of it. This is how it is now. How do you propose to
spawn "awareness" in every person?
1 - After reading what I just wrote, I really wonder.
--
Have fun!
John
The Legos you've been dreaming of...
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/lego
my weird Lego site:
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/
Richard Franks wrote in message ...
> 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 didn't intend to publish these ideas before I had oportunity to research • and
> mull them over a bit more.. but in the spirit of fair play, and a fair bit • of
> "Give us an alternative then", I present one for the noose..
>
> Disclaimers aside - I welcome any comments, so feel free to fire away with • good
> or bad or good and bad, or whatever. It doesn't have a name, but in view • that
> Libertarianism is so long.. you can call this A-ism, aism, whatever!
>
>
>
> Introduction
> ============
>
> I will start off by saying that it will take time, maybe 2, 20 or 200 years
> before we know not only what we want, but how we can implement and achieve • it.
> But I've got ahead of myself already - what is it that I percieve that we • want?
>
> Liberty
> -------
>
> At the very least the freedom to do whatever one wants with their property • as
> long as it does not violate the rights of others.
>
> A social philosophy should allow its members the freedom to create whatever
> consentual sub-groupings as desired. Whether any moral guidelines should be
> enforced upon the sub-grouping is another issue.
>
>
> Happiness
> ---------
>
> Was it the greek philosophers who said that happiness was being able to • become
> learned at something, and being able to use this knowledge? (Terribly
> paraphrased, and it probably wasn't them - it's late). Anyway it is evident
> that a great deal of dissatisfaction comes from being unutilised or not • being
> able to fulfil potential.
>
>
> Community
> ---------
>
> Although these still struggle for survival, many people don't even know • those
> who live next door to them. Community can perform many important social
> functions, not least self-regulation and in the right circumstances
> self-responsibility.
>
>
> Family
> ------
>
> Parents and children spend increasingly long hours apart, as working hours • get
> longer and commuter lines more crowded.
>
>
> Government
> ----------
>
> Too centralised and too corrupt. It gives too much power and claims little
> responsibility from those who make the decisions.
>
>
> Those are just a few things that our current social structure doesn't • encourage
> to change. In fact, this is because society has evolved as a whole, and • evolved
> structures find niches, exploit them, and are more geared towards • self-survival
> than allowing change.
>
> Now we have identified a few problems, I'd like to propose that we consider
> redesigning our governmental and social systems - from the bottom up if • need
> be. This is redesign rather than change something, as that may encourage
> something else equally unsuitable to evolve in its place.
>
>
> How and What?
> =============
>
> We've got a vague idea that we'd like something that gave us freedom, gave
> opportunities to be happy, encouraged community and families to flourish • and
> took the power from Government and shared it between the people it effects.
>
> Everything stems from how you slice and dice Government - Libertarian • Policy
> gives all the power to the individuals, all other Political Policies seem • to
> give all the the power to the state.
>
> We will use the word power to mean, power to make decisions and have affect • in
> the current local sphere.
>
> We will use State Responsibility to mean making sure rights are not being
> violated. Such rights, and the extact extent of the State Responsibility is
> determined by those exercising the Power.
>
> I propose a heirarchical tree structure:
>
> * States/Greater Regions grouped under one Country
> * Cities/Regions grouped into States/Greater Regions
> * Towns grouped into Cities/Regions
> * Communities grouped into Towns
> * Individuals grouped into Communities
>
> Power goes up from the individual towards the top. No power goes down.
> State Responsibility goes down from the top.
>
> Individuals would be appointed to sit upon Community Councils. Whether they
> were elected, randomly chosen etc is not our decision, but that of the
> community itself. These Community Councils would perform a lot of the nitty
> gritty - organising community events, taking suggestions, discussing them, • and
> organising community voting etc. They are directly accountable to • individuals,
> and they have no power over individuals, unless individuals are violating
> anothers rights.
>
> Members from each Community Council would meet together under a Town • Council,
> here is probably the most interesting political locus. Remember the power • and
> responsibility directions? If three out of four of the communities think a
> local nuclear power station is a good idea, but the proposed location is in • the
> middle of the community voting against, then it doesn't happen - no • questions.
> Similarly, if one community would like to open a cinema, and have money to • do
> so.. then it happens - even if the other surrounding communities think that • it
> lowers the intellectual tone of the town!
>
> Members from each Town Council would meet together under a City or Region
> Council. If one Town was planning to build a Nuclear recycling plant, then • the
> nearby towns would only be able to veto this if the risk of contamination • was a
> geniune violation of their rights. This of course depends on the set of • rights
> adopted by the City or Region.
>
> Similar stories, untill you reach the top of the tree.. and what is at the • top?
> A committee, who don't have power, but whose task it is to implement those
> things that filter up to that high level.
>
>
> Conclusions
> ===========
>
> Money
> -----
>
> This relies on funding for the heirarchical structure - renting meeting • halls,
> buying paper, etc. There are other biggies as well, such as national • defence.
> Correct me if I'm wrong - but even Libertarian Policy requires a tax to pay • for
> these things?
>
> For the structure to work, it would require mandatory fees, or tax of this
> kind. Administration costs and State Responsibility fees are the ONLY
> neccessary public charges.
>
> Communities have to pay town tax, towns have to pay region/city tax etc.
>
> I guess what this does is to provide a structure for something like
> Libertarianism to flourish? Ie - if a community want a school - they can • buy
> one, if they can't afford it then they can appeal to the other communities • of
> the town they are in.. if that doesn't work - tough.
>
> If a town (collectively) likes the idea of tax, then it is free to • adminster
> its own to provide services.
>
>
> Wacky Ideologies
> ----------------
>
> Yep - if this isn't wacky enough for you then a community upwards can • implement
> any political ideology they wish - if a Communist community sells enough
> potatoes to pay their Town Fees then they could flourish. If a community of
> ex-polititions can sell enough smarm to do the same then that's fine too!
>
> I hope that I'm not being too optimistic, but I think even Libertarianism • could
> work under this system. If you would forgive the subject heading, which is
> meant in good-humour ;)
>
>
> Evolution
> ---------
>
> I touched upon this earlier, but with so many concurrent, adapting • communities
> and towns etc.. good efficient schemes and techniques would evolve. The • ability
> to change dynamically, not just every 5 years (and then not even), would • mean
> that inefficient strategies would not have to be kept as there would be • proven
> ones else and everywhere.
>
>
> Liberty
> -------
>
> I believe that a structure like this would provide a true freedom - freedom • to
> choose what sort of life you wanted to live, without fear of losing rights.
> Freedom to effect your environment, and directly effect those that govern • you.
>
>
> And Good Night..
> ----------------
>
> I'm sure there's more than enough here for you to sink your teeth into and
> dismember! Carpe Jugulum!
>
>
>
> Dedication
> ==========
>
> To Larry P, who is never wrong in obvious ways.. just subtle ones.
> Thanks for calling my bluff, I think.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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 (...) (25 years ago, 14-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
17 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
