|
|  |
|
|
|
| |
| Mar 15, 2010 8:09 pm |
|
re: re: re: Transition to benevolent anarchy |
Thomas Holford
| |
Ken Hilving sayeth:
> For Anarchy, they govern best who govern least. The first step is defining the role of mayor. A mayor, or some similar office, is necessary to interact with other government agencies at the local, state, and federal level. However, in Anarchy the job carries no inherent authority. The mayor is only the authorized signature, and only when the residents authorize the signing. Since it carries no power or authority, the role is fulfilled by lottery with every resident eligible to vote subject to serving a year as mayor.
This smacks of some of the "radical egalitarianism" of the sixties.
I recall a news story many years ago where a small group of anti-nuclear activistists passionately committed to egalitarianism were plotting to demonstrate against a nuclear power plant. Their social compact demanded that there be consensus about every activity of the group. It took them thirty days to discuss and debate every nuance of when, how, where, and why they would do a demonstration before they could reach a consensus.
I'm sure they were very pleased with themselves, but if you're trying to accomplish "societal change", at the rate of one group decision every thirty days for a group of twelve people, well, you're probably not going to get there.
T. HolfordPrivate Reply to Thomas Holford (new win) |
|
| |
|
