Subject:
|
Re: An Alternative..
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 16 Jan 2000 14:18:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
422 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John DiRienzo writes:
> Richard Franks wrote in message ...
> >
> > 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?
Official what?
> 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.
Ah - *thats* what you mean.. cool, agreed!
> You take away the current government(s), and the people will make a new
> one according to your proposal?
There's no reason why you couldn't use the existing infrastructure as a
scaffolding to create a new one.
> 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.
Except that the federal government can close or open any school, hostpital,
anywhere it wants in effect?
> > 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?
It certainly opens up some interesting possibilities, re the adult sacrifice
community, and re the child sacrifice community. Both of which could define a
community members rights as that to be fed and give up everything for their
god. In that case the higher Social Grouping could step in if the children
where starving, but not if they were being murdered.
It may seem like a silly hypothetical, but I think it's important to get it
exactly clear on how intercedence works, and in what circumstances.
> > 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.
>
> 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.
It's not barbaric, it's just a good evolutionary strategy. Unfortunately it's
not good enough to avoid being taken advantage of. Not a problem, we just need
a subtle new meme.
> > 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.
True, or a multi-world scale. I am envisioning it on a country scale at the
moment, generally countries are tied by culture and language. Hopefully by some
point we will come to inherently accept and cherish our other ties as well, and
it won't seem that sinister any more.
> 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?
True, there would be mandatory fees to be paid (how it was generated decided by
the community), which would cover government administration and State
Responsibility fees (defence).
I think Libertarianism has these base charge-responsibilities as well. Is there
a way to get around it? Government-corperations for funding?
As Larry said - no system is perfect. And that, btw, is a weak defence rather
than a statement of acceptance saying that we shouldn't strive for a perfect
system :)
> 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.
Heh, I find what I'm talking about less scary than vanilla Libertarianism. In
what way do you find what I'm talking about scary? (genuine puzzlement!)
> > 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.
Apart from ominous things like the international monetary fund, and world bank,
it definately isn't. But on a country to individual scale it is - the
government can decide to do whatever it wants, whereever it wants - that's
top-down power surely?
> 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.
We're not entirely free though, otherwise there would be no call for something
like Libertarianism, but I get your point. In vanilla Libertarianism though,
no-one would ask your opinion if a corperation wanted to buy your town. In
a-ism, when the community does have areas that is its own - like we have at the
moment, then the collective community gets to choose what happens to and on
that land. So if a corperation wanted to open up a fish-processing plant on
community land, then the people could decline the offer.. and choose a
chocolate factory instead.
That has some connatations that Libertarians will be concerned about - it
doesn't let the market be completely free, but the people are free to choose
their local employment. So yeah, I don't know where Libertarians will fall on
this issue.
> > 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.
Mmm.. well, it wouldn't be much use to someone who wanted to take their
children to a local school.. and if communities are allowed to set their own
morals and rights, then how does a member of a virtual community have their
rights upholded in the middle of another community? And if virtual communities
can't have morals and rights, then is there any point having virtual
communities? Still doesn't sound hard? :)
> > > 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.
Doesn't your community have a local park funded by local-government???
> I think you are trying for too much with the way you are setting up the lower
> communities.
The lower communities are definately the most important layers, in what ways am
I trying for too much?
> 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)
I have to disagree - starting anything with the concept that one ideology is
the best way to go, is definately NOT a good idea.
> 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.
Exactly, but the a-ism isn't really an ideology in that respect, not really an
alternative.. more of a structure to allow any type of ideology to exist, while
protecting the self-defined rights of those with it.
I don't think a-ism would cause any blood-shed or starvation, it could be
implemented overnight! What it would do is help prevent starvation and
bloodshed.. but only in Social Groupings that had rights protecting
individuals from starvation and bloodshed.
> See my last paragraph. Further, who is to impose this method of
> "community interaction" in your proposal?
No-one would impose it. Once people realise that they can make a difference,
that in fact the system is designed to make individual participation easy and
meaningful, then people will.
> > 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.
While I would be happy seeing as many people as possibe involved, in no way
would I tell them they had a duty to get involved. That seems to me to be
taking away from their freedom?
> 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.
True, but even if I wanted to, I couldn't say to the people in my community -
hey - we're paying taxes for these schools.. lets stop paying tax for schools
and instead we'll bring in a corperation to educate the kids, and the parents
could pay for it themselves.
In a-ism, I could.. and the structure would be there in place to do it. Not
that I would :)
Richard
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: An Alternative..
|
| Sorry Richard, this has been sitting in my draft folder... Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) <snip> (...) country (...) agree, (...) almost (...) That depends on geography. The Federal government doesn't exert that much control here. (...) (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
