|
|  |
|
|
|
| |
| Mar 16, 2010 9:22 am |
|
re: re: re: re: Transition to benevolent anarchy |
John Stephen Veitch
| |
Hello Kenneth
If I can go back to the original post:
The first two paras:
If the rules establishing "government" are properly formed it should be possible to choose different people by voting and to change not only the people but also the policy.
I recognize that in national elections in the USA, two party control of the process, excludes proper debate and buries many issues both parties choose never to talk about. Politics operates inside a "box" the two major parties have defined for themselves and to retain power unto themselves.
Add to that the need to finance the political process, at massively excessive cost, and the process is for sale to the highest bidders. Both parties prostitute themselves to the powerful and the wealthy. As James has complained recently.
I don't know how that plays out in city politics. I have heard that in New York, because of the two party process, effectively three people run the city. All politicians in both parties have to toe the party line, or they will lose support from the party leadership, and be removed.
So there may be elections, and the people may change, but it's possible that the real power is unaffected.
***
The idea of "limited companies" is very old. The original Limited Incorporations insured the cargo and ships on sea voyages. One expedition at a time. When the seafarers returned the profits were shared and the losses compensated, and the incorporation dissolved.
However, it was costly and time consuming to keep reforming corporations for events the occurred in a repeating manner, and so some of these groups became "permanent" and evolved into shipping companies and marine insurance companies for instance.
I expect that the limited objective cooperatives you imagine will evolve in a similar manner. Some of them will become standing committees.
***
Further on in the discussion both Matthew Hartstein and Thomas Holford make relevant comments. Then Kenneth outlines at length how he imagines his little community might become self managing.
James Booth responds with "suck it and see." It will either work or it will break down. Either way the community will eventually be better off.
Thomas Holford, makes the very relevant point about the pain and effort needed to achieve consensus. Green parties around the world have been working on this one for many years. They have documents that outline the process. Essentially everyone agrees before they join that consensus is desirable and the nobody has the right for personal reasons to prevent the group from reaching an agreed position.
The process works like this. There is discussion, and a policy position is developed. There is more discussion. Those who have objections are asked to be very explicit about what they object to. Efforts are made to meet those objections. Consensus is tested.
Those who object are then asked to rewrite the policy (or clauses in the policy) as they choose, and bring that text to the meeting, for approval by consensus. (Usually this process fails, and the objectors recognise that the position they hold cannot be won.)
Then they go back to whatever has been generally agreed. Consensus is tested again. This time those who objected originally, now accept the outcome. However if they don't the "dirty and crude method" of voting can always be used.
***
In my view most people don't want to be bothered with all this community life decision making. There are two ways to deal with that.
1. You have a rule book with lots of written rules. When you need a decision you read the book. "The rule of law" applies.
2. You have a group of people who are interested in community issues who specialise in this work. Elected officers. Employed town officials. They make decisions firstly on how to apply the existing rules, and secondly on the drafting of new rules.
That's pretty much what happens in the communities I know.
***
I'm concerned Kenneth that in your small community, without the underpinning of rule sets and permanent officials; that some ruthless land owner will suddenly arrive in your district. He'll buy one farm, then another, and a third. Then he'll announce that he's going to establish a private University on his land.
Buildings start to go up and he's building something "big". So you form one of your Limited Corporations, to oversee the development. There are concerns about roads and sewerage and power supply, and a sudden influx of young people with no roots in your district.
I could get a LOT worse. This is going to be a Muslim Religious School, with 500 live in pupils and 220 staff. Suddenly, the freedom you wanted for yourself is being used against you, and there may be very little you can do about it.
John Stephen Veitch; The Network Ambassador
Open Future Limited - http://www.openfuture.co.nz/
Innovation Network - http://veech-network.ryze.com/
Building an Open Future - http://openfuture-network.ryze.com/Private Reply to John Stephen Veitch (new win) |
|
| |
|
