Subject:
|
Re: An Alternative..
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 16 Jan 2000 04:47:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
560 times
|
| |
|
|
Richard Franks wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John DiRienzo writes:
> 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?
Except, I suppose, officials?
> > 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! :)
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.
> 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.
You take away the current government(s), and the people will make a new
one according to your proposal?
> The key is to making it worthwhile. I.e. 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.
Again, I am seeing that this is how it is now, to an extent. One country
does what it wants, doesn't have to get permission from any other. I agree,
it would be more interesting if there was more obvious power visible at
lower levels. Still, in the US, besides paying a lot in tax, this is almost
how it works. I think many people would like having more voice in where
their money goes and for what purpose. Those that don't are those that get
more out of the status quo than they put into it, for the most part.
> > 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?
I don't think so. But, could that work?
> 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?
Well, good question. The Civil War determined that the Federal
Government had power over the states. Too bad we had that war, it was very
wrong in that sense. In the slavery sense (which I think of as propaganda
to increase Federal power and so someone could make a buck) it was right.
The majority shouldn't have had the right to tell the minority what to do.
However, how did this country begin with such an oxymoron? I guess when it
was founded, the states with Slavery were needed or were seen as too
powerful an enemy, so the non slave states let that slide. Ever since the
Civil War, the Federal government has expanded and become even more
powerful. With this, some states exert quite a bit of power over other
states, which is wrong. Its the same as one person exerting power over
another.
> > > 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.
Well, the world as one... it has bad connotations. But why? Because
some guy a few thousand years ago had a dream that one day there would be
Heaven on Earth? Either that's true, and might as well follow the Prophecy,
or its false, and then it doesn't matter. Seriously, though, it is kind of
scary, viewing the current "way of the world". Its also not scary, if you
envision a better system by then. Finally, it is interesting to ponder the
possibilities of this culmination, a variety of emotion can be felt.
Regardless, I think it already exists: we are a whole bunch of
individuals in communities, in side of larger communities, within very large
communities, within the world. Why, we as individuals decide to give each
other power over one another baffles me. Alpha males, leaders/followers,
this dynamic has existed since the onset, but why do we allow it to
continue? Its barbaric, and we think we are so high.
> > > 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?
I think the world fits that to an extent, just that people are unaware of
it. Would that you want this to be one neat system... it would either have
to be the whole world, where the upper most level (the entire community)
doesn't have to agree on any one thing - there is no need for defense at
that scale, unless we discover threatening intergalactic life. Or for a
system less than world scale, there is a need for defense, because their are
menacing systems out there. The need for defense should be obvious, and
should be agreed upon by all the individuals within that system, but if one
person says we don't need it or I don't want to pay for/be a part of it,
then his right to property is violated - the system can't work. Well, it
can, but wouldn't it be flawed?
> > 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.
Libertarianism could be a means to an end. It could bring us closer to
that. It actually could be the same thing, if it were purified. Its a
little less scary than what you are talking about, at any rate.
> > > > 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 don't look at it that way - I don't view the world as this top-down you
keep bringing up. Only I have power over my actions. There will obviously
be a reaction to whatever action I take, but I am free. We all are. Most
of us don't believe it, I think. I think Libertarianism can be a movement
away from the top-down, a way of liberating people in their heads.
> 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 :)
Doesn't sound too hard with the technology we have and will have.
> > 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).
Community land? Well, whatever, I doubt if I'd live in that particular
community if I had a choice. I think you are trying for too much with the
way you are setting up the lower communities.
I think there would need to be a variety of structures for the plethora
of diverse community types you talk about. I again see our current world.
I do believe that when a better community type (something Libertarian) is
introduced, others will see the advantages and adapt. I think, in time you
will see this in our current world, without the major mass overhaul you are
proposing. The sooner the better, the least blood shed and the least
starvation the better.
> Alan Voro is the kind chap that smiles - As Long As No Violations Of Rights
> Occur.
I guessed as much by context when I saw it again twice above.
> > > 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.
See my last paragraph. Further, who is to impose this method of
"community interaction" in your proposal?
> The individuals don't have to do anything - they are free to participate as
> much or as little as they like.
Thats good, but I think there is a duty, not in an altruistic way, but in
a selfish way, for each person to be involved. I think the world would be
better under your plan, if people learned to care about their own self
interest, instead of expecting someone else to do it. When one person
expects another to watch out for his own interests, the person's interests
are often overlooked. I think whole societies that adapt this mentality
sooner will be more prosperous, and will be emulated by others.
> Richard
--
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..
|
| (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
