Subject:
|
Re: An Alternative..
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Jan 2000 23:47:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
355 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John DiRienzo writes:
> 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.
Please don't hold back on the questions :)
> I think the system you are trying to devise is our current world.
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 higher level
* Personal Responsibility and self-regulation is encouraged through increased
community interaction.
You could make the point that it's Libertopian, and I'd still disagree.. but
you wouldn't be as wrong. IMO :)
> 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).
More than that, a Social Grouping (community or town or region etc) can choose
its own laws and define its own rights. How far you'd want to take that I
don't know - could a community that practiced ritual sacrifice of its adult
members be permitted? How about a community that practiced ritual sacrifice of
it's child members?
A higher level Social Grouping has no power over lower ones, except to make
sure that no rights are being violated. Eg Region cannot interfere with a Town
and tell it to stop having Gay Pride marches.
I don't know if a higher level Social Grouping SHOULD be allowed to impose its
morallity upon lower groupings. Or whether the State Responsibility is to
uphold the rights as self-defined by any Social Grouping.
What do you think?
> 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.
I disagree - the power comes from the individuals at the bottom, but is
manipulated by those in the middle layers who make the decisions - and enfore
their will upon everybody else. A system whose upper layers are directly
accountable to those below (not the other way around like we have now), and
whose upper layers cannot enfore their will (ALANVORO(1)) on those below..
seems very different to the one we have now.
Have I done a better job of explaining it this time?
> How do you propose to spawn "awareness" in every person?
Probably I wouldn't - not everyone is pays attention to their environment, but
that may change.
I never defined the scale of communities - they may be a street, a group of
streets, half a town or any group capable of self-representation. For the
moment, lets just consider physical communities - ie those defined by an area
or boundary of land.
These communities would meet regularly (at least once a week), and would act on
a social and political level. Because of the small scale of these communities,
people would be encouraged to participate as it would effect them personally.
Someone may want to make a community garden from some wasteland, someone else
may want to open up a coffee-shop franchise on that land, yet someone else may
want to preserve the wildflowers growing there - everyone would be able to
discuss it and have a community wide vote.
People could drop in once a week, whenever they wanted and cast community wide
votes on an entire range of issues at once. Details and discussion may flourish
on internet forums, or they may be settled in the meetings.
Community events would be organised - nothing expensive, and would mostly be
ice-breakers at first to get people TALKING.. and once communities start
communicating amongst themselves, who knows what will happen? :)
Richard
(1) As long as no violations of rights occur
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (25 years ago, 14-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
|
|
|
|
