'Thinking Outside the Box' in 2012

[mobbsey]

Well done; keep up the good work. Get rid of all the style changes and hyperlinks (which interrupt reading flow), print a few million and give a copy to everyone.

That's not how the Free Range work cycle functions -- it gets better!

As I said, we wouldn't normally publish sheets like this -- this represents our brainstorming of ideas which we then bring back to a larger group at our quarterly gatherings for a detailed discussion and identification of themes an priorities. We've published it this time because people chose to extensively 'leak' it, and we've had lots of requests for it since then (and who are we to stand against the flow of opinion?).

We're now in the process of codifying the ideas in the outline sheet as a series of more detailed sheets -- the 'D-Series' -- that take a particular topic and explore it in detail. At the moment we're looking at a set of 9:

D1. Direct Activism – Active movements for change
What is the purpose of change? Working and/or ajutating for change isn't simply about knowing of a problem, or complaining to your elected representatives about it. It's about physically obstructing, harassing and ultimately overcoming those activities we consider unacceptable whilst at the same time making the alternatives a practical reality.
D2. UK Land Rights Primer – A brief history of land in Britain
The series focusses most heavily on access to land, since land access is essential to our future security.
D3. Decisions and Discipline – The mechanics of organising for action
This looks at the importance of consensus over “majority” decision making as a method of organising.
D4. Affinity Groups – Organising a small group for action
How to set-up a small group to undertake action.
D5. Purpose and Preparation – Planning and organising an action
Designing an effective action to promote your cause.
D6. Residing on the Land – The legality of 'living' on the land
Again, as land-related matters will become increasingly important, and this unit looks at land occupation.
D7. Intercession and Opposition – More active approaches to change
This unit examines how the law might be broken -- and how to go about doing that in he most creative way possible.
D8. Getting Arrested – Handling arrest and what follows
Break the law, get arrested! – this details what to do.
D9. Civil Action – The repercussions of success
How to handle the legal responses of corporations, landowners or government.

Sheets D1 to D5 have been written; D6 to D9 are partially drafted. We expect them to be finished (hopefully) by our Easter get together; unfortunately everyone involved has had to "work" (as in, paid) recently whilst work is available, so things are progressing a little slowly. We like to keep things in-house until they're completed and everyone involved in their production is happy with the content -- although it seems D2 may have been leaked because someone though it was so good they should email it to all their friends

All Free Range publications have one or more workshops associated with them; for this series we're going to explore how willing people would be to organise training weekend on 'liberated' land. More details of this will emerge after the Spring get together (currently scheduled for end of March in South Wales), once we've got some volunteers to organise the gigs, but at present it looks like we'll celebrate some significant dates in social history around which we can organise specific educational events.... e.g., anyone fancy camping out on Kinder in late April?

[the_lyniezian]

At the same time, in the New Testament it does say that Christians should be concerned more for today than tomorrow, and let God take care of the rest- so I suppose one must balance it with that. (I think if we focus on today, though, it will impact upon the future anyway. The point is more, don't spend time excessively worrying about the future and stop trusting God, not so much to use it as an excuse to leave future generations short.)

This is a problem with Christianity. Most religions, Christianity being a prime example, aren't very good at adapting to change. At the time it was being invented, nobody understood anything about ecology or could have had any concept of the sort of problems the human race currently faces. In a situation like that it is very important that people think for themselves about what is happening and come to their own moral judgements about what they ought to do and say rather than simply turning to the Bible for answers. Why should you expect to find in the Bible answers to questions that the writers of the Bible had never had any reason to consider?

I am not entirely sure how you got from me musing on to what extent we should worry aout the future, to whether the Bible has any answers to modern-day problems- though it is worth bearing in mind I do not suggest we ought not to think about the consequences of our actions ("you reap what you sow" being a common Biblical maxim), rather to stop worrying so excessively about a future we cannot entirely be certain about.

But you charge that the Bible does nothing to answer our present concerns about ecology, society, and more. I disagree. Whilst it is certainly true that the ancient writers were not facing, say, the scale of environmental destruction or resource depletion as we are now, and can't be said to have economic or political systems, there is still the basic understanding that you don't completely ruin the land or destroy everything, there is an understanding that you help the oor and the less fortunate, and are not greedy for gain. All of these are basic, universal principles, and it is by avoiding them we are in the mess we are now in.

I'll try to flesh this out in a future post, with appropriate quotes and citations.

This is my biggest remaining gripe with organised religions, especially the Abrahamic ones: they discourage free thinking and are very bad at adapting to new situations. I think that the appropriate response to this is to offer support to the modernists and reformers within those religions rather than trying to generally undermine or attack religion(s).

One must tread a fine line. On the one hand, if you are dealing with something you believe to be divine revelation, then you understand that God knows far better about things than we do, and all our 'free thinking' and wisdom will not match up. On the other hand, we have to understand what in our doctrines and practices a. are genuinely of God, not based on human tradition, b. are directly relevant to us, or if not, how we are to best apply those principles. It does not mean we must abandon all reason or fail to understnad the way things are in the world today, ignoring all the evidence- and I think in practice, most believers do this to anywhere near the extent to which you might imagine.

[the_lyniezian]

One thing about the paper in the OP I do agree with is: one cannot trust governments and other institutions to do everything for us, or assume the normal (or, any) political processes are the only way of getting anything done.

The thing is, in my case, actually doing something constructive about it.

[the_lyniezian]

At the same time, in the New Testament it does say that Christians should be concerned more for today than tomorrow, and let God take care of the rest- so I suppose one must balance it with that. (I think if we focus on today, though, it will impact upon the future anyway. The point is more, don't spend time excessively worrying about the future and stop trusting God, not so much to use it as an excuse to leave future generations short.)

This is a problem with Christianity. Most religions, Christianity being a prime example, aren't very good at adapting to change. At the time it was being invented, nobody understood anything about ecology or could have had any concept of the sort of problems the human race currently faces. In a situation like that it is very important that people think for themselves about what is happening and come to their own moral judgements about what they ought to do and say rather than simply turning to the Bible for answers. Why should you expect to find in the Bible answers to questions that the writers of the Bible had never had any reason to consider?

I am not entirely sure how you got from me musing on to what extent we should worry aout the future, to whether the Bible has any answers to modern-day problems- though it is worth bearing in mind I do not suggest we ought not to think about the consequences of our actions ("you reap what you sow" being a common Biblical maxim), rather to stop worrying so excessively about a future we cannot entirely be certain about.

But you charge that the Bible does nothing to answer our present concerns about ecology, society, and more. I disagree. Whilst it is certainly true that the ancient writers were not facing, say, the scale of environmental destruction or resource depletion as we are now, and can't be said to have economic or political systems, there is still the basic understanding that you don't completely ruin the land or destroy everything, there is an understanding that you help the oor and the less fortunate, and are not greedy for gain. All of these are basic, universal principles, and it is by avoiding them we are in the mess we are now in.

I'll try to flesh this out in a future post, with appropriate quotes and citations. [EDIT: If I can be bothered.]

This is my biggest remaining gripe with organised religions, especially the Abrahamic ones: they discourage free thinking and are very bad at adapting to new situations. I think that the appropriate response to this is to offer support to the modernists and reformers within those religions rather than trying to generally undermine or attack religion(s).

One must tread a fine line. On the one hand, if you are dealing with something you believe to be divine revelation, then you understand that God knows far better about things than we do, and all our 'free thinking' and wisdom will not match up. On the other hand, we have to understand what in our doctrines and practices a. are genuinely of God, not based on human tradition, b. are directly relevant to us, or if not, how we are to best apply those principles. It does not mean we must abandon all reason or fail to understnad the way things are in the world today, ignoring all the evidence- and I think in practice, most believers do this to anywhere near the extent to which you might imagine.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

D1. Direct Activism – Active movements for change
What is the purpose of change? Working and/or ajutating for change isn't simply about knowing of a problem, or complaining to your elected representatives about it. It's about physically obstructing, harassing and ultimately overcoming those activities we consider unacceptable whilst at the same time making the alternatives a practical reality.

That got my back up straight away and I know it annoys an awful lot of otherwise very amiable folk. Just because you don't like something doesn't give you the right to stop someone else from doing it or harassing them if they ignore you.

I'm sure you'd be very angered if someone decided to harass your group because they didn't approve of your activities or they believed it to be contrary to the good of society/religion/soup monsters.

Toleration is the cornerstone of our society although it is being steadily eroded by folk who seek to impose their views of everyone else. You should convince people to change by the strengths of your arguments not by harassment.

You'll also find that supporting such behaviour is in breach of SOCPA 2005. I would be surprised if your group wasn't already on a watch list just in case.

[biffvernon]

Just because you don't like something doesn't give you the right to stop someone else from doing it or harassing them if they ignore you.

Depends on context. You may not like the sound of your neighbour mowing his lawn on a Saturday afternoon but you don't have the right to pop over the fence and pull the cable out. But if he chose 3am as his preferred mowing time...

Now if someone is burning coal to power the nation's electricity grid and you realize that this kind of action is liable to end life on earth... well, the Kingsnorth trial found in favour of the activists and the Radcliffe verdicts were overturned when the police and prosecution were found to have acted improperly.

I would defend our right to physically obstruct, harass and ultimately overcome those activities we consider unacceptable. Many believe that sometimes our whole nation must even go to war to do so.

[mobbsey]

Just because you don't like something doesn't give you the right to stop someone else from doing it or harassing them if they ignore you.

So if I go down the road and there's a couple of kids mouthing off to a harmless granny, I've no right to intervene?

Toleration is the cornerstone of our society although it is being steadily eroded by folk who seek to impose their views of everyone else.

Yes, that's the Christian principle which underlies our civic democratic values, but from the Sun's "Gotcha" to Queen Victoria's "We are not amused" that's not how the British state operates -- and its that official duplicity that allows injustice to persist. In fact, the modern British state was founded on that duplicitous principle; e.g. the God-fearing Puritans said "thou shalt not kill" but they still chopped the King's head off.

You should convince people to change by the strengths of your arguments not by harassment.

And why shouldn't those carrying out an activity, even if its been done for years, have to justify their continuance of that actions as well? The fact that because something has been done in the past means that it needs no further justification is an argument toward total stasis -- change would stop. It's a reality of our environment that change is inevitable, and it's standing against such inevitable change which leads to inequity and social/ecological damage.

You'll also find that supporting such behaviour is in breach of SOCPA 2005. I would be surprised if your group wasn't already on a watch list just in case.

So what? If you're the sort of person who is affeared that their actions might annoy someone in officialdom, then you have my deepest sympathy.

I've been arrested many times, but never found guilty or cautioned for any offence. I've had "unofficial" visits (charming people in suits seeking "clarification"), as well as more "official" visits, and once they even took my house apart (this was back in the 90s, well before the recent al Queda job creation scheme). That's never prevented or discouraged me because there are certain activities that are carried out or endorsed by the state which are wrong -- if not legally, then morally or ethically. If you sit back and accept these things then you are complicit in that process.

And yeah, the Free Range Network has received "interest" in the past. In fact, our surveillance pre-dates SOCPA. It's been "legal" to investigate any social movement that might engage in any kind of minor infringement of the law since 1996. E.g., for a while in the late 90s we had a person attend our gatherings who was obviously on an information gathering exercise, but we never tried to hide anything. The thing is, if you view state surveillance as a negative then you become secretive and mistrustful -- which is exactly what they want to happen because it cuts you off from the public. However if you view state surveillance as a positive, as an example that you are doing something right, and you don't change your outlook and tactics in response to that, then you can carry on openly to engage people in the activities that you undertake.

The basic thing here is that you don't create change by reinforcing the stasis of the existing process. It's only by challenging the existing order that you make it work differently.

Let's take the example of climate change. If we take the various projections of emissions since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, more than a third of all emissions have taken place since the world agreed that something needed to be done. So, what have 20 years of negotiations on carbon emissions achieved? -- it's allowed (or regularised, in the case of carbon trading) the release of 50% of the emissions of the previous 240 years in just 20 years.

You have to accept that when the desire of the "power elite" for stasis is threatening the existence of that state's population, then that population has to do something to remedy the situation. Democracy isn't a ballot box, or an elected representative, it's the freedom to disagree -- and if we cede all legitimacy to elected officials only then we're in danger of losing the very principles which led to the founding of that system. E.g. in the case of climate change, 20 years of "official" negotiation hasn't achieved any solution that's proportionate to the problem; therefore if they can't solve the problem within the time available, then its up to us to make it happen.

And as for resource depletion and peak oil...

[JavaScriptDonkey]

From outside though eco-warrior and eco-terrorist look frighteningly similar.

Is it not possible that you are in fact wrong? I know you believe you are right but that doesn't get us very far. Lots of people believe they are right.

I don't mean that climate science is wrong or that CO2 measurements are inaccurate or that the oceans aren't dying. I just mean that perhaps your crystal ball of what all that actually means is in fact no better than mine?

What makes you think you have the right to force your beliefs on me? You were not appointed sole custodian of the planet with final say over what is or is not allowed. It's my world too.

BTW, if my neighbour wants to cut his grass at 3am so be it. I may ask him to stop but I would never seek to physically disrupt him. It's his lawn and he has as much right to cut it at night as I have to cut mine during the day.

Unless of course he is deliberately trying to annoy or harass me which is completely different and very illegal. But I have very nice and considerate neighbours and I do my best to be considerate as well.

[RenewableCandy]

I think Mobbsey's point is that all the polite ways of trying to get things changed for the less-destructive alternatives have been tried, and found not to be effective. Disruptive is not the same as violent...I mean, Gandhi was pretty disruptive but very obviously non-violent. Some people at the time might have said he was "wrong" as in either, not representing what most people in India wanted, or else, representing what they wanted but that the situation would only turn out worse than it need have been.

In our case, though, being "disruptive" is a risk we (well I'm too chicken but you get the idea...) have to take simply because, as you agreed, the science (of both resource use and the atmosphere) is so conclusive.

[mobbsey]

From outside though eco-warrior and eco-terrorist look frighteningly similar.

I've never seen an eco-terrorist in order to make the comparison

It's all a matter of which side of the equation you're on, but in reality it has far more to do with whether things like the law, spirituality and our own sense of worth are things to be honoured by word or deed.

What makes you think you have the right to force your beliefs on me?

Sorry, I didn't realise that I was!

[JavaScriptDonkey]

From outside though eco-warrior and eco-terrorist look frighteningly similar.

I've never seen an eco-terrorist in order to make the comparison

It's all a matter of which side of the equation you're on, but in reality it has far more to do with whether things like the law, spirituality and our own sense of worth are things to be honoured by word or deed.

What makes you think you have the right to force your beliefs on me?

Sorry, I didn't realise that I was!

I didn't mean to suggest that you were. It was a rhetorical 'you' and 'me', a fault I cling to to avoid dealing with 'ones'.

[mobbsey]

I didn't mean to suggest that you were.

I know, but that's the point I wanted to make.

The difference between the "real" movement, and the one portrayed in the media or docusoaps likes 'Spooks', is that the best activists are those who done force anyone to do anything -- other than by the conscience or common sense of the person who experiences and understand the message being communicated. And the real revolutionaries are those who live the lifestyle, and validate those ideas by example, rather than just "claiming" the need for or progress towards change.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

The difference between the "real" movement, and the one portrayed in the media or docusoaps likes 'Spooks',

I love Spooks, it is SOOO funny. The kids ban me from watching it with them now as I'm constantly laughing at bits that I'm not supposed to.

...the best activists are those who done force anyone to do anything -- other than by the conscience or common sense of the person who experiences and understand the message being communicated. And the real revolutionaries are those who live the lifestyle, and validate those ideas by example, rather than just "claiming" the need for or progress towards change.

Sweet link

[Keela]

Those who publicise the need to "use less stuff" leave themselves wide open to the "hypocrite" label. Prince Charles must surely have realised that the label would be given to him. Yet he had the courage to speak out anyway.....

Not disagreeing that what he said was hypocritical, but then any of us who said the same could also be labelled hypocrites! Should we therefore not speak at all?

[mobbsey]

Those who publicise the need to "use less stuff" leave themselves wide open to the "hypocrite" label.

Only when they claim something and don't actually do it. What we're describing here is the clash between green consumerism and ecological lifestyle change. There are many campaign groups and celebrities who are equally tested by this contradiction between their "feel good" words and their actual actions.

Green consumerism doesn't actually change the global level of consumption significantly -- because it doesn't change the operation of the underlying system which creates the impact (e.g. the oxymoron, "green growth").

More radical lifestyle change does have that effect, and can achieve the kind of footprint reduction for individuals required globally to produce a sustainable human system. At the same time that's a threat to those who are wedded to the existing economic process, meaning that such "deviant" people are often portrayed as some sort of social anachronism (e.g. self sufficiency seeking some past rural idyll) or threat to social well-being (communes, even some co-housing projects, or more radical forms of social organisation which seek break the taboos of the nuclear family).

In terms of sustainability Prince Charles' problem is that he's a prince, and the expectation of higher consumption than the average which that entails creates a cognitive dissonance between his role and his aims. What he needs to do is create a more radical approach which challenges the expectation that he should, as a prince, carry out ostentatious consumption -- although in doing so he'll probably block any chances of being King because he'll alienate himself from the establishment.

Now if these people would stop whining about some greater moral imperative and start talking about the real, detailed reasons why society has no choice but to consume less, then they'd change the emphasis of what they're doing. Rather than remotely setting themselves up on a pedestal by preaching some form of personal renouncement of materialism, they could instead advocate the reasons why change is inevitable and then immerse themselves into a more inclusive process to help people across society. Also, by taking that tac, the individual disparities in material wealth become less of an immediate issue because, irrespective of present levels, everyone is going to have to "cut" what they presently consume -- and that's arguably a more significant problem to those who are dependent on high consuming lifestyles than it is for the poorer end of society living on council estates.

So, it's not the idea that's hypocritical, it's the motivations behind the approach used to justify and drive those aims.