Subject:
|
Re: An Alternative..
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 16 Jan 2000 01:56:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
425 times
|
| |
|
|
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 making another point right now. I think, after somehow implementing
this bottom to top power structure, you would find that it is impossible for
a large (quarter of a billion or more) system to agree on giving any power
to a system wide governing body. If they could agree on anything, I think
the most likely thing would be a form of defense, so that some violent
people don't start attacking the various communities. I sincerely doubt
that they could agree on much more than that if the communities are as
diverse as the people who reside in them. And if they would agree on more
than that, I think its flawed, as some individuals' rights are going to be
violated.
Richard Franks wrote in message ...
> 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 :)
Well, I won't. Though, I am not sure if we'll get past this (maybe we
can call this square -37 on your proposal).
> > 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.
OK, my argument against was the same (i.e. - thats what I said) as yours
for the first three, and the fourth point of yours seems implausible - how
do you propose to encourage community interaction? We seem to have quite a
lot of community interaction already!
> You could make the point that it's Libertopian, and I'd still disagree.. • but
> you wouldn't be as wrong. IMO :)
I don't think I made such an assertion.
> > 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?
Ok, what you are calling Social Groupings (towns), I was thinking of as
countries. Each country comes up with its own rules and regulations, the
system below have their own, too. Our world has quite a bit of diversity at
that. It seems like most countries have little control over others, as to
what "human rights" they allow to be violated. In some cases they try to
intervene.
> A higher level Social Grouping has no power over lower ones, except to make
> sure that no rights are being violated. E.g. Region cannot interfere with a • Town
> and tell it to stop having Gay Pride marches.
Well, there is a higher level social grouping, called all of us, the
world, there is no higher (political) power over all the subgroups
(countries). Your country really can't tell another country to stop the
Gay Pride Marches, can it?
> 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.
So there shouldn't be a UN? I don't know if you'd like that too much. I
wouldn't.
> What do you think?
Well, I think we already have that. Trying to put it into one particular
system within a somewhat violent and unreceptive world might be impossible.
I'll look at it though.
> > 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.
My point is... right now individuals have the right to choose whatever
they want, they have complete power, they just may not be aware of it. I
basically asked you how do you get all of these individuals to look at each
other and say, "Hey this is pretty stupid, why are we doing this to each
other? Why are we letting others do this to us?"
> Have I done a better job of explaining it this time?
Well, I understood it the first time, I just wanted you to see what I saw
in it.
> > 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 like that. I think finding a way to get people to be aware of what's
going on is a good idea. I don't know how to achieve it, except by coming
up with a system that makes it in their best interest (even necessary) to
look at these things. A system where they ~feel~ powerless at the
individual level doesn't encourage that.
> 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 - i.e. those defined by an • area
> or boundary of land.
Thats what I did.
> 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.
The person who owns the land would only have one vote? That seems odd.
> 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.
What if a community doesn't feel like doing this?
> Community events would be organized - 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
--
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/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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 (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
