Fw: PRs comments on opinions by MH & DE

Paul,  

I'd like to sort of sum up here why I feel that policies have to emanate
at the community level and work themselves up to then become policies at
the level of governance, whether regional, state, national or
international.

People will not be governed by rules which they had no part in making. 
And, I feel this is largely the case today -- it is certainly true of the
WTO, which holds its meetings in secrecy and establishes policies that
come from the 'top' and not from the 'bottom.'  So, consequently we are
approaching revolution thru protest in the streets, which if not
addressed, may turn violent and become guerilla warfare, as people
worldwide begin to turn on their governments.  Tyrrany is simply not
acceptable today. 

I also do not believe that world trade is necessary to feed all the
people of the world.  What is necessary is to take back the land that is
now used to raise and feed beef cattle and use it to raise food to feed
people. (Currently 29% of the world's available land surface is used to
feed beef cattle.)  So feeding the people of the world is not relative to
world trade; it is relative as to how land is used to produce food. This
is only one example of how land is used inefficiently, there are others. 


One of the others is that developed countries ship 'relief' produce to
developing countries at prices lower than what the current rate is in the
developed country.  This 'under-cutting' thus serves the local farmer
from entering into production.  

Also food is frequently raised in one country and then shipped to another
for processing and then back to the country of origin where it is sold at
a price that the locals can simply not afford.  

For further information, I suggest you read:  'Global Problems and the
Culture of Capitalism." by Richard H. Robbins.        

You also write:  Though there are many problems that can and should be
addressed locally,
the gravest ones affecting humanity today are global. To address them,
one needs information and capacities for action, that are rarely
available at the local level. That does not mean, that input from local
communities has no value; quite on the contrary it would always be
needed, but for effective actions, a central body should not only
assemble such inputs, but should have the capacity to search for the
best solutions, before proposing them to local communities and seek
their approval and support.    

MH: I addressed the above in a prior post.  But for the main, central
bodies frequently do not understand the problems from the 'community'
viewpoint and they consequently try to design a 'one size fits all
solution' that doesn't really solve anything.  So the central body should
stay out of it and let communities search for and design 'best solutions'
for their particular community. 

As I said in the prior post if you have people acting response-ably; that
is, if they have information upon which to make informed decisions, and
do so at the community level, then there is little need to have the
central body do anything as the problems will have been taken care of by
the people doing it without a lot of government regulation.  What we need
is not more government but more responsible people taking action to do
what's right.  

What you see is a 'big brother' need to take care of all of us.  But if
we all become more response-enabled then the less we need a Big Brother. 


best regards, 

marguerite

Paul Riez wrote:            

I should like to comment on your latest exchange of opinions, such as


"[MH] What I see here is that Simpolicies is trying to act as a 'policy'
formulator and I don't feel that we can accomplish that no matter how
many people become involved with SP.  I hope I can make myself clear
here, but I feel that policy has to emanate from the small community
groups and flow up to SP, if SP is setting itself up to address world
governance, and which can then act as an information gathering
organization to assess the data provided by the small community groups
and format it into some sort of arrangement whereby all communities are
permitted the freedom to regulate themselves as long as they do not
infringe on the rights of other communities and as long as they obey the
ground rules of the ecosystems and human rights within their particular
community.  I don't feel that the four groups as set up on SP can
accommodate enough people to intelligently discuss issues.  I really
feel it has to take place in the individual communities themselves and
SP can perform the function of coordinating the policy recommendations
that arise from these communities."

"DE: I agree policy formulation must originate with individuals and
local groups achieving consensual perspectives. But some policies need
also a perspective beyond the reach of local communities, just as the
problems they confront -- global disparity, divisive and short-sightedly
competitive nationalism, global warming, elite appropriation of
transnational monopolies, a culture of economic growth and profit
regardless of social and environmental impacts -- are beyond the scope
of sub-globaly sovereignties and authorities to regulate. I do not think
ISPO can wait for perfect model communities before trying to foresee and
foretell democratizing trends or facilitation beyond local, regional and
even national levels of law and order to develop global harmony."

PR: Here are my comments on such subjects:

Though there are many problems that can and should be addressed locally,
the gravest ones affecting humanity today are global. To address them,
one needs information and capacities for action, that are rarely
available at the local level. That does not mean, that input from local
communities has no value; quite on the contrary it would always be
needed, but for effective actions, a central body should not only
assemble such inputs, but should have the capacity to search for the
best solutions, before proposing them to local communities and seek
their approval and support.

May I give some examples:
Many small communities might be successful in implementing schemes for
getting by with a fraction of the energy used by their more wasteful
neighbors and for developing local sources of sustainable energy. But to
address the problems of most great urban centers, much more powerful
actions and investments far beyond the scope of local communities are
needed.
The same applies for reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases and for
cleaning up the supply and for finding ways for a less wasteful use of
fresh water.
John Bunzl's simpolicies organisation might be capable of doing what is
needed.

As to my proposals for reforming the WTO and other centralized bodies, I
should like to add the following:
Even after reducing the need for most of the superfluous and wasteful
products, misguided people seem to want, worldwide TRADE would still be
vital to feed the present world population and to supply them with other
real necessities. Such global trade needs rules and regulations in order
to function effectively and such rules are at present administered by
the WTO. It is undeniable that their rules are grossly unfair to
developing nations and give undue advantages to TNCs and urgently need
to be changed.
The question is whether a new body should be created for this purpose or
whether it would be easier to reform the WTO. I personally think the
latter option has a better chance to succeed..
Regards             Paul