Milutin writes:
> From Adler:
> > "A people have political liberty under favorable circumstances when they
> are governed with their own consent and with a voice in their government."
>
> What happens to the individual who withdraws their consent to be
> governed?
It depends on how they withdraw their consent. If he withdraws his
consent by robbing a bank, it's 7 to 15 in a prison of their choice.
If he withdraws his consent by practicing medicine without a license,
the criminal penalty might be less, but the malpractice judgment might
run into the millions. If he withdraws his support by leaving the
country, nothing.
> >Or they already know what you are proposing won't work. It will slowly
> transfrom itself into a combination of the four forms Adler describes. In
> the early stages, the single "org" will split voluntarily into multiple
> separate orgs. These will be at cold war with each other. Some of the cold
> wars will become shooting wars. In these wars, winning orgs will take over
> losing orgs by force. Some of these winning orgs will become tyrannical
> despotisms. Others will become benevolent despotisms. Over the long term,
> orgs will gradually topple the despots and move to constitutional
> oligarchies, which is pretty much where we have been for much of this
> century. Gradually, those oligarchies will switch to constituional
> democracies, social democracies of the type Adler describes. At least I hope
> that is what is happening.
>
> AGAIN, the man misses the point. Martin now I know where the problem lies.
>
> The structure of power of an org is greatly determined on how
> individuals within that org will act and therefore how that org will
> act.
I agree.
> The moment you start to centralize power, corruption will follow.
Corruption is an act performed by individuals. Some of the
individuals in your org would corrupt.
> Then you get individuals who desire power more then others(this
> isn't social democrat) wanting to move up in the ranks and take
> control.
That isn't corruption, but it is a fact that some people desire power
over others. They are the ones who are most likely to corrupt.
> Once in power, their major concern becomes maintaining their
> position and maybe even expanding.
I agree.
> Ask any CEO, the best defense is ofference. Therefore, this orgs
> with centralized power will attempt to control others outside their
> reach and then the problems of repression starts.
People who desire power will act to accumulate power whether they are
in your org or not. If they are in your org, they will corrupt your
org. If they are in a different org that has relations with your org,
they will be in a cold war with your org.
> I see that is why you cannot support the idea of decentralized power
> organizations because you believe they will act like centralized
> ones.
I didn't say anything of the kind. Decentralized power is fine with
me.
> Therefore, you see centralized power as a solution to curb human
> nasteness. In reality, it does not curb it, instead, it acts like
> an exaggerator and, in your mind, reinforces the need for
> governments(how SAD!!!!).
No, an org *is* a centralization of power.
> If Martin, you were right, that decentralized and centralized
> organizations acted the same, then decentralized orgs would bring
> chaos and centralized would bring order and I would choose the
> orderly one anyday.
No, I think drugs should be legalized. I think the Olympics should be
discontinued.
> You see then Martin, you and me are more alike then different.
I never denied it.
> >Your best shot is to go up north to that new Inuit state in Canada and
> >convince them to make it an anarchy. The old tribal systems of the
> >North American Indians are probably the closest thing you'll find to
> >what you want. If you can't convince them to do it your way now, then
> >I think you better develop a new five year plan.
>
> The five year plan will start by killing all the good hunters in the
> tribe and then killing all the smart Indians in the tribe and ......
Why would you do that? It would be immoral; it would be stupid, and
you would find yourself being stuffed through an ice hole.
> >Lazy?
> >Stupid?
>
> >You want these people in your org? Or do you think they will become
> model citizens when you tell them they have to make their own shoes.
> They'll be real pleased when you tell them doctors don't have to go to
> medical school anymore. That'll go over real big.
>
> Martin, I take back what I said eariler! You and I are not the same. I do
> not think the majority of Europeans and Americans are Lazy and/or stupid.
>
> If anything the smart ones are the ones who DON'T vote because they have
> already realized that eating a cheesecake will have more effect on their
> lives then voting!
Not voting is lazy and stupid. I know because sometimes I don't
vote. When I don't vote, I am being lazy and stupid. I also know
that the government of the US needs to be overhauled. I'm not doing
anything about it. That's also lazy and stupid. If I suddenly found
myself in your perfect world, maybe even in your perfect org, I would
probably go along with it as long as it worked smoothly. When it ran
into problems, I would begin working for implementation of a social
democracy, and I'm quite sure that in an anarchist org under stress, I
could convince most of the people to move toward social democracy.
And that is what would happen, if I were there. If, instead of me,
you had, say, Slobodan Milosevic, the outcome would likely be more
bloody.
> I pray you were joking(and you read Chomsky, but WHY?!)
>
> >No, universal suffrage means universal. If it isn't universal, it
> isn't a constitutional democracy. What part of universal don't you
> understand?
>
> Everyone well have "the right to vote". How far have we come if
> this where we stop?
You didn't read what Adler wrote. Universal suffrage refers to the
universal right to vote. That is a necessary condition for social
democracy, not a sufficient one.
martin
Martin Smith Email: [log in to unmask]
P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet Tel. : +47 330 35700
N-3194 HORTEN, Norway Fax. : +47 330 35701
|
