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

I won't bother you any more. I do enjoy a battle of wits, but not with an
unarmed opponent.

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

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

On 1/31/2005 at 8:28 AM forest wrote:

>on 1/30/05 3:43 AM, Globalcircle at [email protected] wrote:
>
>> 
>> 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.
>
>if our way is truly a fair way, we can have it our way in consensus in
>groups of twelve or less speakers or members....we simply need to be
>patient
>and state our case....if it is not fair, then we need to be willing to
>compromise...if we have an open fair mind, then in the end it will still
be
>our way, because we voted to agree with it, not have it pushed on us by
>majority rule....
>
>>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.
>
>sure, we all want that, tho easier said than done....and rather than rules
>i
>prefer the term agreements in the consensus paradigm...rules imply there
is
>a minority who don't agree, while agreements imply we all agreed before
>taking action or implementing new ideas/ideals....
>
>> 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.
>
>the trouble is that what me neighbor does does affect me more and more
>every
>day with more and more people living on the planet closer and closer
>together....individuals pollution, often they feel justified about cause
>they do not see the whole picture clearly, spills over onto their
neighbors
>in very subtle yet real ways....i feel it better to reach agreements with
>neighbors rather than have every man for himself attitude....
>> 
>> 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.
>
>in consensus it takes unanimous agreement, if you don't like the agreement
>or think it is not fair, you have the right to not pass or hold up that
>agreement and/or propose what you feel is a more fair one....
>
>> There's simply no guarantee that consensus will
>> produce results that are morally right or sustainable. People are human
>and
>> make mistakes.
>
>well, making consensus agreements does not have to be percieved as
>something
>set in stone....if a group unanimously agrees on something and later it
>proves to be less than ideal, the same group can consensusly agree to
>refine
>it to something better....that can happen endlessly or until no one feels
>the need any more for change on that particular issue....
>
>>  A local industry can pollute the air and ground water if
>> most everybody goes along with it for reasons of their own.
>
>that is majority rule, with consensus in small neighborhood councils of
>twelve or less, where you are a member, if you don't like the plan you can
>stop it by not agreeing or propose a more ideal one....
>
>> 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.
>
>i agree, tho easier said than done, without a consensus support group....
>> 
>> 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.
>
>imh-bs it seems you do not fully understand the many varieties of
consensus
>to choose from, but rather seem to put it in similar category as
democracy,
>which is far from the truth...minimalist concepts are ok, assuming people
>have a high degree of consciousness and/or respect for each other and are
>not too polluting or corrupt themselves, but most libertarians i meet are
>alchoholic angry macho dudes, who have high ideals, while still living
>within the corrupt system they put down....the ole, "actions speak louder
>than words" syndrome....
>
>forest
>[email protected]
>http://www.lavazone2.com/forest/
>
>
>------------------------------------------------
>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
------------------------------------------------