Subject:
|
Re: An Alternative..
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 16 Jan 2000 02:54:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
422 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John DiRienzo writes:
> 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'll give it my best go.
> 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.
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?
> > 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).
Well, if that means that you think my proposal is hyper-dimensional then great
- thanks! :)
l
> > * Personal Responsibility and self-regulation is encouraged through
> > increased community interaction.
>
> how do you propose to encourage community interaction? We seem to have quite
> a lot of community interaction already!
Great, maybe we won't need that much more then. I think it's like everything
else - you make a road - people will drive on in, you make a LEGO newsgroup -
people will lust after sets they never wanted, you make .off-topic - people
will discuss politics. IE - once the forum is in place, and people ARE able to
do something worthwhile - they will.
The key is to making it worthwhile. Ie if the Community Council had to check
everything by the Town Council first then it would be pointless getting
involved, the fact that it's the opposite way around may just make it more
interesting than TV.
> > 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.
Nope - you didn't say that at all.. I was making the point that you *could* say
that though (as others have done).
> > 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.
Yep - an interesting point though, is should the Moral Code of one Social
Grouping supercede that of a lower Social Grouping?
Some Social Groupings are: (but not limited to)
* Country
* States/Greater Regions
* Cities/Regions
* Towns
* Communities
How do the US States work? IE - does State Law overrule overall US law, or is
it the other way around? Which way *should* it be for the proposed system?
> > 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?
No it can't :) I was wondering whether to include that Social Grouping you
mention, but it sounded a bit too sinister.. world politics and all that. I
still don't know whether it's a good idea or not.
> > 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.
That's a different issue - one of rights as opposed to morallity.
> > 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.
What is it that we already have?
> 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?"
Do you mean how would you start up an a-ism movement? (obviously choosing a
name for it would be a start). I dunno, my favorite would be to tuck it into an
existing ideology.. Libertarianism could be a suitable host for my parasite
meme.
> > > 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.
Definately agreed - you mean like the top-down systems that we have at the
moment right?
> > 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.
My head was hurting when I started thinking of virtual communities, where
people subscribe to the tax-rates and services ranges online.. but I have no
idea how you'd implement it, or if it would be useful.. so I preferred to
ignore it for the meantime :)
> > 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.
In the example it was "community land" - if it was owned by an individual, then
that individual would be free to do what they wanted withit (ALANVORO). The
community cannot enfore their will upon an individual (ALANVORO).
Alan Voro is the kind chap that smiles - As Long As No Violations Of Rights
Occur.
> > 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?
There would be a number of individuals from the community who were members of
the Community Council, some (or all depending on the size of the town) of them
would sit on the Town Council, some of these would be on the Regional Council
etc.
If the community couldn't be bothered participating then these individuals
would decide upon matters themselves.
If community participation was lower than average than the Town Council may
investigate why, possibly removing some of these individuals and getting in
some more dynamic ones.
The individuals don't have to do anything - they are free to participate as
much or as little as they like.
Richard
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
