PowerSwitch

Due to demand from the people it's been unofficially passed onto, we've released the discussion paper from the Free Range Network's Summer Gathering:
http://www.fraw.org.uk/projects/ecologi ... he_box.pdf

We've had a few enquiries as to whether our paper inspired 'Occupy' -- we think not. However, we think that Occupy are missing the most important point about their actions -- which is that it's setting up camp on someone else's land that presents the greatest challenge to the state, not the subject of the protest itself; a fact testified by the number of media taking-heads who state that they tolerate protest but not camping!... e.g. see the Cardiff coverage.

We're still working on the ideas that came out of the June Gathering -- primarily a series of practical briefings on land rights and protest in the UK. For next year we're planning some educational "camping" weekends out in the sticks -- most likely a site of rural industrialisation (e.g. a new wind farm deforestation site) and quite likely a camp on Kinder in April to mark the 80th Anniversary of the mass trespass.

If people want to join in setting up some gigs, get in touch.

It's one thing to disobey an unjust law when it is getting in the way of acting justly or rightly, quite another to go out of your way to do it to make a point. An unjust law is still the law, and the likes of the Occupy movenent, if they are not acting legally in this regard, are just going to alienate people (or at least galvanise the opposition). I don't buy the maxim that all publicity is good publicity.

As for the rest of what that paper says- for one thing I don't think democracy has died and has become ineffectual solely down to the activity of the elite. If it is failing, it surely must be in part down to apathy or a 'better the devil you know' attitude when it comes to the main parties. On the other hand, it is fair to say that you can't rust governments and 'the system' to effect real change. (Then again, I think the only real change can come through salvation in Jesus Christ, and ultimately His return to the earth, we can only do so much. The sin of all human beings is the root cause. Most revolutions merely exchange one set of corrupt, incompetant tyrants for another.)

Dn't let this discourage you from doing anything- just keep it relatively legal.

the_lyniezian wrote: (Then again, I think the only real change can come through salvation in Jesus Christ, and ultimately His return to the earth, we can only do so much. The sin of all human beings is the root cause.)

The trouble with sentences like that is that those of who operate in a different paradigm find no meaning in it.

biffvernon wrote:The trouble with sentences like that is that those of who operate in a different paradigm find no meaning in it.

There's a much simpler restatement of that in Matthew 17:15

Er, I don't think I understood that either.

Lord, have mercy on my son: for he is lunatick, and sore vexed: for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water.

I'm all in favour of appreciating the beauty of the prose (and spelling) of the King James bible, but I've no idea what it means.

the_lyniezian wrote:Dn't let this discourage you from doing anything- just keep it relatively legal.

Why?

Saying that something is "legal" doesn't mean to say that it represents "justice"; e.g., why are we bitching at bankers if making profit is not only legal, but institutionally directed? Saying "keep it legal" is liberalism's apology for inaction in the face of raw political power. There is justice in "truth", but not necessarily in the law -- especially when the law isn't open to everyone in equal measure.

If you want to change the course of our development then you must take charge of the agenda that directs it, and the possession of land -- as illustrated by the furore over Occupy's activities -- is at the root of human justice. Land provides the essential support for our existence, and therefore equitable access to the land (and the servies to support life that land grants) is an intrinsic part of how we create justice in society (a fact that both traditional Marxist leftists and liberal/right techno-libertarians often have complete ignorance of).

biffvernon wrote:Er, I don't think I understood that either.

Matthew 17's all about the return of Jesus, and the casting out of unsettling demons (as in the return of Jesus sorting out all our problems)... t'was the first thing that entered my mind on reading your comments.

Actually, Matthew 17:15 is considered to be one of the most notable Biblical references to bipolar disorder -- representing the the transition between fire (mania) and water (depression).

I do love conversations about the Bible -- although I have an unfair advantage compared to the "average person in the street" because I've read it. I especially like street preachers. After all, if Jesus represents the 'new covenant' and the God of love and peace, why are so many Bible-bashers so hung-up on the Old Testament and the God of vengeance? (as in the famous observation, it's no wonder God moves in mysterious ways given the type of staff that he employs. )

I've dipped in to it a bit but I'm saving it for my turn on the Desert Island.

biffvernon wrote:

the_lyniezian wrote: (Then again, I think the only real change can come through salvation in Jesus Christ, and ultimately His return to the earth, we can only do so much. The sin of all human beings is the root cause.)

The trouble with sentences like that is that those of who operate in a different paradigm find no meaning in it.

That's what I consider truth and I'm sticking to it. I would like to hope you believe it, but that's not for me to decide.

Even so, then it doesn't take a given belief to admit that human nature inevitably tends towards screwing up- or at least, we can't seem to do it in large, organised societies.

(This wan't meant to turn this thread into a religious debate).

Well, our local Catholic priest let us use his church-hall kitchen for making bacon butties for the picket-lines on 30th, so sometimes religion has its uses

the_lyniezian wrote:(This wan't meant to turn this thread into a religious debate).

But this is a spiritual debate about the beliefs that guide our lives... it's all about the religion of economics and its worship of the holy trinity of wealth, power and growth. It's the first global religion in history to preach the desirability of deeply disruptive human-centred values, such as greed and covetousness, rather than externalising our guiding principles to non-human natural (nature) or supernatural entities that frame our desires within the ecological framework we inhabit.

Please do keep the values of your beliefs, because they're clearly a lot more wholesome than the dominant theory that guides the modern world!
(why else would you be on PowerSwitch?, are we not all angels here )

mobbsey wrote:

the_lyniezian wrote:Dn't let this discourage you from doing anything- just keep it relatively legal.

Why?

Saying that something is "legal" doesn't mean to say that it represents "justice"; e.g., why are we bitching at bankers if making profit is not only legal, but institutionally directed? Saying "keep it legal" is liberalism's apology for inaction in the face of raw political power. There is justice in "truth", but not necessarily in the law -- especially when the law isn't open to everyone in equal measure.

Firstly, as I said, I see no real reason why the legal channels have been universally exhausted. Secondly, such channels could work if there is broad public support, something that is not present when people do things that get them branded as troublemakers and turn a whole section of the public off.

What is, say, the 'Occupy' movement doing that could not be achieved through normal, if continuous, protest? Could it not be done with the appropriate permits? What of, say, health and safety considerations (which have been mentioned elsewhere)? Are such concerns not legitimate? And so on.

I could understand disobeying an unjust law if it directly affects you and you are desperate- say, squatters who have nowhere else to go.

Trying to undermine law for its own sake undermines the whole pronciple of law if you ask me- laws as a whole are there for good reason and underpin any civilised society. And laws have to be binding on everybody- you can't just pick and choose. Otherwise, what next? Will it be legal to murder people because they did something so bad that, in someone's eyes, they deserved it? To literally rob the rich to give to the poor?

If you want to change the course of our development then you must take charge of the agenda that directs it, and the possession of land -- as illustrated by the furore over Occupy's activities -- is at the root of human justice. Land provides the essential support for our existence, and therefore equitable access to the land (and the servies to support life that land grants) is an intrinsic part of how we create justice in society (a fact that both traditional Marxist leftists and liberal/right techno-libertarians often have complete ignorance of).

All fine sentiments and little I can directly disagree with. But according to what ways and means?

Has anyone else ever notice that, historically, the majority of bouts of "economic growth" are directly preceded by land grabs?

mobbsey wrote:

the_lyniezian wrote:(This wan't meant to turn this thread into a religious debate).

But this is a spiritual debate about the beliefs that guide our lives... it's all about the religion of economics and its worship of the holy trinity of wealth, power and growth. It's the first global religion in history to preach the desirability of deeply disruptive human-centred values, such as greed and covetousness, rather than externalising our guiding principles to non-human natural (nature) or supernatural entities that frame our desires within the ecological framework we inhabit.

Please do keep the values of your beliefs, because they're clearly a lot more wholesome than the dominant theory that guides the modern world!
(why else would you be on PowerSwitch?, are we not all angels here )

Fair point. I totally agree that part of the problem of the modern world is, fundmentally, the worship of Mammon as 'twere. As a society we have idolised wealth and power.

I said what I did because I didn't want the thread to be over-run by the usual Christian-vs.-non-Christian arguments- there is problalbly space for a thread on that. Then again, it could well be central to the whole business- when we take our focus off God, we are bound to end up focussing on, indeed worshipping, far more dangerous and less wholesome things. (It is also fair to say that obeying the law, in the main, is directly taken from Biblical arguments- though there are also Biblical limits). As long as it can stay on-topic, though.

It is also fair to say my views aren't always well-recieved by all here.

the_lyniezian wrote:Otherwise, what next? Will it be legal to murder people because they did something so bad that, in someone's eyes, they deserved it?

But that was the official justification for the extra-judicial killing of Osama bin Laden and others -- they were "evil doers". Since the first great European civilisations of Greece and Rome, even the upholders of the law, the state authorities, have routinely breached their own legal principles when its expedient to do so for political gain.

In practice the idea that the law is the only guarantor of civility is wrong because you still have the baseline of human morality which underpins it; across the world human morality and empathy has always been the most consistent guarantor of safety and security because it is more enduring than the law. For example if I see someone fall over in the street I don't help them because it's the law, I help them because it's the right thing to do. Often such morality is based in religion, and in fact most organised religions represent a culture-specific codified statement of human morals, emotions and social relationships. Basic human emotions hard-wired via our DNA also have a large role to play, and help to explain why so many of the world's religions have large commonalities within their doctrines.

So, if a law is wrong that doesn't imply that a free-for-all results if you defy that law. For example, I might camp on a mountain somewhere, thus breaking the law by trespassing because I believe that whole concept is flawed; but I'm not going to do violence to anyone who object because I am opposed to the use of violence against people and the natural world. But let's look at this issue in a broader context. If 'William the Bastard' had imposed the Norman Yoke today, it would be ruled illegal under international law; likewise the subsequent harrying of the North and other regions would have been declared a war crime and the perpetrators would have been imprisoned. Therefore, given that modern standards have moved on, why should we not redress that old injustice today by redistributing the land today?

More fundamentally, if we're going to move past the problems of peak energy and resource, then people have to get back to a more direct relationship to the land. Land reform in the UK, due to the historic concentration of ownership which extends up to the present day, is an essential part of that process.