Subject:
|
Re: An Alternative..
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 31 Jan 2000 01:34:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
584 times
|
| |
|
|
Sorry Richard, this has been sitting in my draft folder...
Richard Franks wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John DiRienzo writes:
> > Richard Franks wrote in message ... • <snip>
> > 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?
That depends on geography. The Federal government doesn't exert that
much control here.
> > > 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.
Well that makes sense. In fact, thats what we've got. Intercedence of
the higher Grouping (in the US) was totally corrupted with the Civil War.
The Federal government was not intended to have so much power. Somehow it
got it. But, in the Civil War the majority imposed its will on the
minorities in separate communities. How do you propose to stop that from
happening in the ideal system? The Federal Government clearly acted
unconstitutionally, and still does to this day.
> > > 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.
I agree.
> > > 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.
Its not all that sinister, it just doesn't seem any different (so it is
as sinister as the current).
> > 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 (defense).
Also, this is how the US operated until 1907.
> I think Libertarianism has these base charge-responsibilities as well. Is • there
> a way to get around it? Government-corporations for funding?
In Libertarianism, I think the user fees are assigned to each individual.
I think that is superior, because when you have a "community" paying the
fees on behalf of its individuals, that is bureaucracy. And when there is
bureaucracy, individuals aren't making their own choices. Eventually,
bureaucracies will make some very poor choices.
> As Larry said - no system is perfect. And that, btw, is a weak defense • rather
> than a statement of acceptance saying that we shouldn't strive for a • perfect
> system :)
No, I think he is accepting life on life's terms. Whether he accepts God
or not, I don't believe Heaven, Utopia or perfection is possible on Earth.
Sure we can strive for it, but we can not achieve it.
> > 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!)
Because its what we've got! And I don't trust what we've got!
Libertarianism, the more pure the extract the better, is not scary for those
who are life-affirming. It reduces anti-life.
> > > Definitely 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 definitely isn't. But on a country to individual scale it is - the
> government can decide to do whatever it wants, wherever it wants - that's
> top-down power surely?
I can do whatever I want, whenever I want, where ever I want. I know my
government can't do that. I know you can. I know anyone can. Maybe you
don't know it. Maybe you refuse to recognize it. Maybe you don't really
want things to change, because you are unsure. Individuals remain stagnant
because of fear.
> > 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 corporation 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 corporation wanted to open up a fish-processing plant on
> community land, then the people could decline the offer.. and choose a
> chocolate factory instead.
If you owned property in your town, what do you mean no one would ask
your opinion?? They couldn't force you to sell! Thats stating your opinion
very strongly. If the community hates the fish factory, then who is going
to work there? Does anyone want to sell me the Lego 1620 Chocolate Factory?
Please!
> That has some connotations 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? :)
Sounds like virtual freedom.
> > > > 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???
Yes, but why should it? There are also private, superior parks.
> > I think you are trying for too much with the way you are setting up the • lower
> > communities.
>
> The lower communities are definitely the most important layers, in what • ways am
> I trying for too much?
Well, you were talking about voting on line and what not. Trying to
design how the lower communities operate isn't your business, if you aren't
a member.
> > 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 definitely NOT a good idea.
Its already started. It started thousands of years ago. There is no
start>shut down>restart with this.
> > 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 think Libertarianism allows for everything A-ism does. Allowing people
to freely enter any contract they desire is the same as allowing the lowest
communities to be structured however those involved like.
> 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.
Oh! Well, how do you get the ball rolling? Oh, wait, it already is.
How do you implement it overnight?
> > See my last paragraph. Further, who is to impose this method of
> > "community interaction" in your proposal?
>
> No-one would impose it. Once people realize that they can make a • difference,
> that in fact the system is designed to make individual participation easy • and
> meaningful, then people will.
OK, then, how do you get rid of the powers that be so they can realize
this?
> > > 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 possible 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?
If they want to remain free...
> > 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 corporation to educate the kids, and the • parents
> could pay for it themselves.
Thats something you might want to get changed.
> In a-ism, I could.. and the structure would be there in place to do it. Not
> that I would :)
>
> 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 is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
17 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
