Re: Consensus/ was Another Bush Crime against humanity and Gaia

Whether it suits me or not is beside the point. In any system, consensus or
otherwise, we can't all have it our way all the time. My preference is for
local or regional governance that has minimal intrusion on my life and the
lives of others -- few rules and demands, leaving people to live as they
like so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. Want to smoke
dope? Fine, but not in my house. Want to grow your own vegetables and
fruit? Fine, but you can't make everybody else do the same. You can help
friends and neighbors but they can't just take anything they want from you,
or vice versa. In that system, most people can have most things their way,
free of rules, so long as they don't insist on making rules for other
people. 

What about the environment, you say. Well, under consensus or so-called
democracy, people can ruin the environment and get by with it. All it takes
is a vote or agreement.  There's simply no guarantee that consensus will
produce results that are morally right or sustainable. People are human and
make mistakes.  A local industry can pollute the air and ground water if
most everybody goes along with it for reasons of their own.  But if you
have a minimalist governance under common law you can have a semblance of
real law and order and sue such an industry to stop and remediate, or never
start polluting.  

The rule of thumb is, your rights end where my nose begins, and vice versa.
 But too many people have traded freedom for false security to even
comprehend the simplicity and practicality of minimalism in government.
Both consensus and democracy can easily be as oppressive as any fascism or
police state.  Minimalism opposes that. 

paul [email protected]
http://largocreekfarms.com
http://medicinehill.net

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 1/29/2005 at 8:13 PM John Schinnerer wrote:

>Aloha,
>
> > Call it
>> whatever you want, but traditional local or tribal governance
>("consensus",
>> if you will) generally rejects or ignores dissenting views because they
>> can't be "integrated".  Most want it one way, and some want it the other
>> way. They can't have it both ways. A little common sense would go a long
>> way here. 
>
>Does this traditional local or tribal governance process you describe 
>suit you equally as well when you are one of the dissidents who is 
>rejected or ignored as it does when you are getting it your way?
>
>As for common sense, IMO Will Rogers has the last word on that.
>
>Far more human endeavors of all kinds (including ICs and EVs of course) 
>fail due to issues of human relating (or lack thereof) than any other
>cause.
>
>"Consensus" as it's been formalized in current first-world cultures only 
>deals with specific aspects of human relating in decision-making.  When 
>people are using such a process and their personal fecal matter starts 
>to hit the fan, that process may no longer serve and others are necessary.
>
>John S.
>
>
>-- 
>
>John Schinnerer - MA, Whole Systems Design
>------------------------------------------
>- Eco-Living -
>Whole Systems Design Services
>People - Place - Learning - Integration
>john-/Gao9/[email protected]
>http://eco-living.net
>
>------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe to ecobalance go to:
>http://www.ecovillage.org/ecobalance
>------------------------------------------------





------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe to ecobalance go to:
http://www.ecovillage.org/ecobalance
------------------------------------------------