Originally posted by PawnokeyholeI have no interest in realism. It is naught but the final resting place for people who have abandoned all hope.
You call it cynicism; I call it realism. You question my motives; you should be questioning my grounds.
I feel the same way about reducing carbon emissions: it's noble to try in the West, but ultimately pointless. The incentives for China and India to keep developing, and thereby increase the world's overall carbon footprint, are just too strong to c ...[text shortened]... at James Lovelock and his ilk are being pessimistic in predicting a worldwide torrid future.
PANARCHISM PT. 2
Alright, we've all had our basic introduction to Panarchism by now. Henceforth this thread will proceed in a new direction. It shall now operate as the Panarchist Constitutional Convention. By this I mean that the topic of discussion should not be whether Panarchism can work, but what could be done to make it work better. So if your contribution consists solely of saying "I hate it. It'll never work", then don't waste your time because I will continue to ignore you. If you have identified what you think to be a potential problem, then you must offer a solution that is best in keeping with general Panarchist principles.
I realize that if these guidelines are strictly adhered to, this will probably be the last post in the thread as it seems everyone would much rather continue to curse the darkness than to light a candle. But ultimately I am an optimist at heart, so we'll give it a try.
Originally posted by rwingettI hate it. It'll never work.
[b]PANARCHISM PT. 2
Alright, we've all had our basic introduction to Panarchism by now. Henceforth this thread will proceed in a new direction. It shall now operate as the Panarchist Constitutional Convention. By this I mean that the topic of discussion should not be whether Panarchism can work, but what could be done to make it work better. S ...[text shortened]... than to light a candle. But ultimately I am an optimist at heart, so we'll give it a try.[/b]
(C'mon you KNEW that was coming, didn't you?) 😀
Originally posted by rwingettSo you would have to change jobs when you change govt. What about property ownership, schools etc etc? Your children would have to change schools, and you may have to move into a different house (for example if you are rich and live in a mansion, but under your new communist govt such wealth is not acceptable).
The businesses in the capitalist sphere would be privately owned. Businesses in the socialist sphere would be publicly owned. Citizens would work in the sphere they are politically associated with.
So although you initially stated that you would not need to move, it would in fact at times be necessary.
I still think that what you are trying to achieve with it is really not separate governments at all rather you want liberalized social services where people can choose whether or not to have a pension scheme, medical aid etc etc. In other words what you are proposing is probably similar to some current forms of government (which many people would find undesirable).
The very allowance of choosing your government is in itself a feature of a government which may not be desirable.
Originally posted by rwingettWell first I think you should help us to understand what it is all about. Can you break down the different functions of govt?
I realize that if these guidelines are strictly adhered to, this will probably be the last post in the thread as it seems everyone would much rather continue to curse the darkness than to light a candle. But ultimately I am an optimist at heart, so we'll give it a try.
1. Taxes.
2. Company ownership.
3. Infrastructure
4. Internal security
5. External security
6. Laws
etc etc.
Most laws have to do with interactions between people. If the laws are not common to all then are you barred from interacting with anyone from a different govt?
Does each govt maintain its own army? Don't forget that an army is one of the largest slices of tax.
If you change govt, must you transfer all your investments or can you maintain investments in another country (govt).
I am not trying to find problems, I am trying to understand the concept. I cannot propose solutions before I understand the concept.
Originally posted by rwingettMy point was that I like it but it will never work.
[b]PANARCHISM PT. 2
Alright, we've all had our basic introduction to Panarchism by now. Henceforth this thread will proceed in a new direction. It shall now operate as the Panarchist Constitutional Convention. By this I mean that the topic of discussion should not be whether Panarchism can work, but what could be done to make it work better. S ...[text shortened]... than to light a candle. But ultimately I am an optimist at heart, so we'll give it a try.[/b]
Well, here's a positive contribution then. Could it be implemented on a smaller scale, e.g., within an organziation? What organization might be suitable?
Originally posted by twhiteheadI find this comment HIGHLY interesting. What are you basing this factual statement on? Only one country - or world wide?
Does each govt maintain its own army? Don't forget that an army is one of the largest slices of tax.
Please give country(ies) and their budgetary numbers, so I may study them.
Thanks.
Originally posted by twhiteheadSome small changes would be necessary when changing spheres, of course. It's no different than it is now if I move from Royal Oak, MI, to Grand Rapids, MI. I'd get a new job, a new house, new shool district, etc. But that's the type of move people make all the time. It's a minor move. It's not like having to move to Cuba if you want socialism. But you may not have to physically move at all if your desired sphere has a sufficient presence in your present neighborhood.
So you would have to change jobs when you change govt. What about property ownership, schools etc etc? Your children would have to change schools, and you may have to move into a different house (for example if you are rich and live in a mansion, but under your new communist govt such wealth is not acceptable).
So although you initially stated that you w ...[text shortened]... e of choosing your government is in itself a feature of a government which may not be desirable.
I'm not just talking about the availability of social services. I'm talking about parallel economies. A capitalist economy would be physically intermixed with a socialist economy, but each maintains their separate status. If it's only the use of the term "government" which is causing you problems, then feel free to drop it. As long as you grasp the concept, I don't care what you call it.
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeI suppose it could be implemented on any scale you want. It might be better to start small and phase the program in slowly, over several decades, instead of changing everything overnight. That would alleviate your implementation worries considerably, I should think. I'm all about gradualism these days. Build your way slowly from the bottom up, rather than an overnight system-wide change implemented from the top down. Give people a chance to get used to the idea.
My point was that I like it but it will never work.
Well, here's a positive contribution then. Could it be implemented on a smaller scale, e.g., within an organziation? What organization might be suitable?
As for what organization might be suitable...how should I know? Any input, anyone?