Re: human rights and national sovereignty /moronic oxymoron

In a message dated 5/4/99 4:37:34 AM, mrkdwhit@wallet.com writes:

<<      
 Therefore, it seems to me, to 
>devise a non-system where there is no sovereignty to protect other than for 
>the individual. 

        If only the individual (a state imposed and protected social
construct) is 'protected,' then other forms of human community--presumably
the basis of any local communisms (mutualities of identity, politics,
economics, culture, etc.)--are deselected and colonized by the informal
power 'individuals' embedded in the formal structure of the state. Look at
all the perks of being Communist Party in USSR days--private dachas and
special shops with unSoviet manufactures. 


That is why, I would hope that our future world would be 180 
>degrees the opposite of today: mutually co-operative, self-sustainable small 
>communities. Where relationship supersedes materialism in the human 
hierarchy 
>of values. As well as co-operation vs. competition.. Where consensus is used 
>as the basis for group decisions. This is the most democratic form that  I 
>know of.
>

        Consensus (meaning 'everyone agree'  I suppose), breaks down in high
populations. I want to avoid insinuating that consensus is some form of
'impediment' however. Only that consensus *as a technique* (whereas you are
describing it more in the normative sense I feel) has a field range that is
rather low before the politics of factional representation (or simple
martial fiat) take over.


Regards,


Mark Whitaker
University of Wisconsin-Madison
	

P.S. - More explicit definitions of 'fascism' and 'human nature' would be
appreciated as well by those who have used them, in hopes it can emper what
is turning out to be a typical internet discussion of extremist normative
screeds battling each other.

>>
______________________________________
No "state" is  necessary to regulate our affairs. I'm suggesting communities 
be autonomous. Rules are for fools. The less "rule" the better. Of course, 
this presupposes a culture where citizens are zens, natural and "normal", not 
twisted into monsters by a monstrous culture. Where values are "natural", 
relationship, compassion, etc. take the place of acquisitiveness and all the 
perverted manifestations of the survival instinct we see. As a result of a 
culture that doesn't nurture and support individuals.

I am suggesting simply, that once we come back to a "normal" culture, one 
that supports and nurtures every individual from infancy until death, people 
will respond in kind. The coming disaster(s)(provides for the first time in 
history, and opportunity to lay the groundwork so that a net will be provided 
for all of humanity and once they have fallen into the net they will come out 
with the beginning of a transformation. Their values will be shaken. They 
will see how, their whole lives have been lacking in having the support of 
"community". 

Making neighborhoods "self-sustainable" will be the net. The community will 
be formed from this net. Where people will be sustaining one another, not for 
money, but out of community, to survive and exist with a modicum of dignity.

Is this too simple for some of you?

As far as consensus not working with lots of people. This is an assumption, 
based probably on all the separate agendas individuals have. When we have a 
world based on interconnectedness, one family, mutual cooperation, personal 
freedom, non-violence as our shared and common values, I should think 
consensus would work wonderfully as a decision making technique.
										
				Kind Regards,
										
				bagelhole1 from deep in 
										
				the bagel bunker