|
|  |
|
|
|
| |
| Mar 17, 2010 3:15 pm |
|
re: re: Barriers to transition to benevolent anarchy |
Ken Hilving
| |
Funny how so much debate comes from those in "violent agreement" on subject.
Taking the shared approach a step further, we might argue that our common objection is to "everyone in society is coerced into paying for and receiving the blessings and restrictions of" whatever "whether they are welcomed or not." Like you, I don't mind other people taking other approaches. I mind when those approaches are imposed on me.
I see benevolent anarchy as an evolutionary step, rather than revolutionary. We have outgrown in many locations the constraints of time and travel that representative government models (elected officials) solved. From a purely practical perspective, regular review of objectives and requirements identifies the opportunities to improve. New solutions based on the new objectives and requirements keeps the solutions current.
There may be an issue with speed of action. I believe that a community vote approach can address this with a time frame (vote by date) and a choice of for/against/don't care to determine an action. Since the action is well defined and limited, the harm down by a poor action is reduced.Private Reply to Ken Hilving (new win) |
|
| |
|
