> "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?

>> Only 25 percent of the population exluded?  That's the way I like it!

>No.  INcluded.  25% of the polulation were INcluded.

I read that over too quickly, my mistake.

>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.
The moment you start to centralize power, corruption will follow.
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.
Once in power, their major concern becomes maintaining their position and
maybe even expanding.
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.

I see that is why you cannot support the idea of decentralized power
organizations because you believe they will act like centralized ones.

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!!!!).

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.

You see then Martin, you and me are more alike then different.

>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 ......

>> When universal suffrage was established in the great America, we see
>> a trend in voters not even bothering to vote.
>
>So what makes you think they'll do the work it takes to make an anrchy
>run?  Please don't say it will run itself.

What makes you and I think that people will bother to get up in the morning.

Anarchy, like a government(a form of organizing) will not run itself but be
run by the members of the org.

>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!

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?

Milutin

--
Weapons not food, not homes, not shoes
Not need, just feed the war cannibal animal