And this is just the beginning.

[MacG]

I would love to know how you are going to create your network of communities without money and without "GovCorp".

Who suggested such a venture? Definitely not me! Although government-memes are very strong and evil and should be avoided, they are part of reality. It would be extremely stupid indeed to try to plan something without taking reality into consideration!

There is a world of difference between on one hand ignoring government and their fake money systems, and on the other hand having long-term desires to get rid of government-memes and implement honest money.

[beev]

The reason for this question is that I am feeling somewhat riled by the frequently repeated assertion that "we need to create a network of communities and develop links between them". This is simple and true in essence, and as I have stated, there are many people in the world who are already engaged in doing this, for whatever reasons.

More specifically, I am feeling riled because the same people who are making these assertions are trying to create a cult of hatred towards an evil, omnipotent thing they call "GovCorp". I do not wish to say that governments and corporations are entirely benevolent, but I do want people to be aware of a couple of things. One is that govs and corps are made up of real people like you and I. Though they may be far from perfect, they are not inherently evil and neither are the people who run them. They may be misguided, naive, greedy - they may be any or all of these things, but as has been stated elsewhere, these are elements of human nature and no one of us (yes, even us) is immune to being affected by these things.

In my experience, one who criticises is inadvertently drawing attention to his or her own shortcomings. I wish to draw attention to the fact that "GovCorp" is an essential part of the transition towards networked communities, so these people are attacking the very tool that will help them realise their goals.

To work towards the elimination of evil, one ought to be positive IMO, as opposed to negative and critical. I believe isenhand pointed out in another thread that criticism is not constructive and I wholeheartedly agree. There is definately value in identifying where improvements can be made, and especially in taking action to move towards the future that you envisage. Slagging and blaming helps no-one. I think that really we all know this, despite the fact that we often resort to mudslinging - and often don't even realise that we're doing it. I would encourage mindfulness in communications, as in all other things.

[MacG]

More specifically, I am feeling riled because the same people who are making these assertions are trying to create a cult of hatred towards an evil, omnipotent thing they call "GovCorp".

OK, please bear with me when I speak out of my heart, maybe in a rude way:

The root of evil is the concept that some humans can excert power over other humans. ANY system which incorporate that basic principle is evil in my book. You can add any amount of window dressing and fig leaves, but it is evil and I refuse to support it. I can accept the fact that I live in a world full of evil and there is little hope for me to change it, but I still hate it. I'm not proud over that. Or tired! The right to life, liberty and justly acquired property is fundamental to me. That's just the way it is. Pressure from within. I can be forced to deny it out of emergencies of various kinds, but in my heart I will never change. Oh, just to make things clear, I dont incorporate "land" in the concept of "justly acquired property". "Land" has to be owned and managed by a society of some kind. Only improvements can be owned by someone.

[beev]

More or less I agree. It's good to make improvements. One doesn't even necessarily need to own them. Refusing to support something you don't agree with is also cool, especially if you have an alternative that you do agree with and support.

[isenhand]

<<"we need to create a network of communities and develop links between them".>>

?Need? comes from knowing the goal, only then does the claim make sense (we need to do this to be able to archive that).

<<More specifically, I am feeling riled because the same people who are making these assertions are trying to create a cult of hatred towards an evil, omnipotent thing they call "GovCorp".>>

Absolutely not! Firstly, I would never refer to the government as evil, nor would I every want build up a cult of hate towards any organisation. I would not see any of that as constructive. My view of the government is that it is part of the system and I think the way the system is at the moment is in error and needs to be changed. One of the main driving forces of our system is the idea of growth and the generation of profit. That leads to a number of problems. I like the term ?GovCorp? because it incorporates two elements (the largest ones as well) of the system. ?GovCorp? as an entity doesn?t actually exist but is the interaction between governments and large companies which is a major part of the economy and the growth / profit seeking behaviour. Hating things does not help. I would go beyond that and look for a constructive solution and that, I think, leads to the idea of communities and network of communities and, as you say, others have also had the same idea, which is good.

<<One is that govs and corps are made up of real people like you and I.>>

Yes, I know. I used to work for the government.

<<Though they may be far from perfect, they are not inherently evil and neither are the people who run them.>>

True.

<<but as has been stated elsewhere, these are elements of human nature and no one of us (yes, even us) is immune to being affected by these things.

In my experience, one who criticises is inadvertently drawing attention to his or her own shortcomings.>>

Yes, actually I am very aware of being human!

Any system that wishes to replace the current system has to take into account the fact that it will be composed of humans. It is also composed of technology. Both parts are fundamentally different. That is part of why I would like to see society split in two. Technology on one side and people on the other. The technology side should be run by experts in the technology with a goal of the best possible standard of living for the longest period of time. The technology is then run according to physical laws and limits and grounded in reality. That would be what I would call balancing production with demand and technology with ecology. What some others might call ?spiritually enlightened?. For the other side I would advocate democracy as I think that is the best way of dealing with people, their problems and their disagreements, although I do like consensuses agreements to. The important thing on the people side, I think, is freedom of speech and freedom of expression so there should be the minimum level of restrictions.

I also think that this split will allow people more time to be human as they would need to work less. I would hope this would encourage a greater expression of being human, more art, culture, inventiveness and more time to ?spiritually connect? with the world.

As far as the communities and network of communities are concerned I would say that there needs to be a minimum level of agreement between each community in the network but beyond that I would expect to see a great deal of diversity, variety and freedom of expression in different communities.

I hope that that takes into consideration humans!

<<I wish to draw attention to the fact that "GovCorp" is an essential part of the transition towards networked communities, so these people are attacking the very tool that will help them realise their goals.>>

I would agree that it is essential but even so, it?s still right to criticise it. Even if you don?t agree with the current system you have to realise that the current system is the reality and you can?t go anywhere if you drop out of it.

<<To work towards the elimination of evil, one ought to be positive IMO, as opposed to negative and critical.>>

I wouldn?t say that I was working against evil as I would not see the current system as evil but I do agree that being positive is the way to go and I hope the exploration of the idea of communities and networks of communities or even building them is positive.

<<I would encourage mindfulness in communications, as in all other things.>>

Agreed. As posting is a bit of an impersonal medium of exchange it?s easier to miss read in a negative way what people write. I shall try to be a bit more clear.

[beev]

I like the term ?GovCorp? because it incorporates two elements (the largest ones as well) of the system. ?GovCorp? as an entity doesn?t actually exist

It looks to me as though you are trying to create an all-pervasive, nameless, faceless enemy in the same way that Bush et al have created the "War on Terror".

... but is the interaction between governments and large companies which is a major part of the economy and the growth / profit seeking behaviour.

It is not as if what you describe does not exist, as with the terror threat, yet your approach to it is what is in question.

Fair enough, I suppose. It is as if you are trying to fight fire with fire, an approach that is frequently ridiculed, but one that you have the right to persue nonetheless

[RevdTess]

It looks to me as though you are trying to create an all-pervasive, nameless, faceless enemy in the same way that Bush et al have created the "War on Terror".

Yeeeesssssss...

Tempting as it may be to invoke the antipathy many of us feel towards unresponsive governments and environmentally destructive corporations, I think beev has a point here. If we can make our point without invoking a Faceless Enemy I think it does our cause great good. It's the only way to convince the mainstream in any case.

[MacG]

It looks to me as though you are trying to create an all-pervasive, nameless, faceless enemy in the same way that Bush et al have created the "War on Terror".

Yeeeesssssss...

Tempting as it may be to invoke the antipathy many of us feel towards unresponsive governments and environmentally destructive corporations, I think beev has a point here. If we can make our point without invoking a Faceless Enemy I think it does our cause great good. It's the only way to convince the mainstream in any case.

But there ARE faceless enemies. In the concepts we perceive as completely natural and part of everyday life. Paying interest on loans for example. We perceive it as completely natural, but the underlying mathematics will lead to suffering and nothing else.

[RevdTess]

But there ARE faceless enemies. In the concepts we perceive as completely natural and part of everyday life. Paying interest on loans for example. We perceive it as completely natural, but the underlying mathematics will lead to suffering and nothing else.

The point though is how it's perceived when we invoke the nameless faceless enemy. If we can't name it, it's not going to convince anyone except those who are already prejudiced towards our point of view.

Now in the example above, you said "paying interest on loans". So you named it; so no problem! If on the other hand you simply claim some great banking conspiracy... then you've just limited your audience to people who already think that's true.

That's all we're saying. No biggy.

[MacG]

But there ARE faceless enemies. In the concepts we perceive as completely natural and part of everyday life. Paying interest on loans for example. We perceive it as completely natural, but the underlying mathematics will lead to suffering and nothing else.

The point though is how it's perceived when we invoke the nameless faceless enemy. If we can't name it, it's not going to convince anyone except those who are already prejudiced towards our point of view.

Now in the example above, you said "paying interest on loans". So you named it; so no problem! If on the other hand you simply claim some great banking conspiracy... then you've just limited your audience to people who already think that's true.

Cool. I'm with you.

Another example: "Government is necessary".

How come? Why is it necessary for humans to excert power over other humans? Including killing other humans who dont obey? Those who dont obey dont hurt anyone, but they have to be killed anyhow because they dont obey. Why? How come?

[RevdTess]

Another example: "Government is necessary".

How come? Why is it necessary for humans to excert power over other humans? Including killing other humans who dont obey? Those who dont obey dont hurt anyone, but they have to be killed anyhow because they dont obey.

Good question.

I think probably there has to be some form of 'power-over' in order to ensure the fair allocation of resources. The body that wields this power may well consist of delegates mandates to vote according to each community's will, but eventually they're going to be wielding some form of power over people's lives.

The question for me though is how far this needs to go. Personally I like the Zapatista approach in Chiapas. As I understand it, there's an organisation that provides security (ie Subcommandante Marcos' lot) but they place themselves under the rule of a civilian council consisting of community delegates (commandantes). This seems fair and rational - a limited amount of power-over to ensure fairness, but nothing authoritarian, and certainly no diktats from on high.

[skeptik]

Why is it necessary for humans to excert power over other humans? Including killing other humans who dont obey? Those who dont obey dont hurt anyone, but they have to be killed anyhow because they dont obey. Why? How come?

Because we are social animals. We are not cheetahs who can live on our own. In order to survive we need to fit into (no matter how loosely) a social group. All primate societies operate on the carrot and stick principle.
Thats just the way it is. And we are, at root, just clever apes with not a lot of hair..

"No man is an island", as the saying goes.

Say I want your stuff, because you have got stuff that I have not got. So... I come over and beat you up with my baseball bat to prevent you interfering, then take your stuff.

What is your reponse? Of course that is not something I personally have any desire to do, but that is the way the minds of a sizeable minority work.

They are variously labelled 'sociopath', 'psychopath', 'antisocial personality disorder' (or sometimes just 'evil bastard' if not diagnosed) They are not subject to the normal restraints of morality, a sense of right and wrong, guilt or conscience. This is due to a disfunctional emotional response and , as a consequence, an inability to empathise. Psychopaths are not considered to be 'mad'(psychotic) or 'mentally ill', and are often undiagnosed. They are just... different. Utterly selfish parasites or predators who get away with what they do by pretending to be normal...and they generally fool most of the people most of the time.

Basically they will do whatever they want to get whatever they want if they think they can get away with it. Without restraint or regret. They comprise maybe 1 to 4% of the population (and ~25% of the prison population) depending on how tightly you you draw your definition.

So..in a situation where there is as you suggest "No exertion of power over other humans", what are you going to do about it?

Hmm... this is possibly drifting off topic a bit

[snow hope]

MacG said, "How come? Why is it necessary for humans to excert power over other humans? Including killing other humans who dont obey? Those who dont obey dont hurt anyone, but they have to be killed anyhow because they dont obey. Why? How come?"

To have a society or civilisation, you have to have some people with more power than others, otherwise nothing would get organised, managed, rules put in place that most people wanted to live by etc.

I feel skeptic makes a lot of good points. Unfortunately we are not all nice, decent, honest people. Some of us (minority) are quite nasty, horrible, dishonest and evil people who if we did not exert control over would make life unbearable for many people.

Just the way homo sapiens are really - animals at the end of the day - most of us nice and cuddly, but a fair minority are not!

[isenhand]

<<It looks to me as though you are trying to create an all-pervasive, nameless, faceless enemy in the same way that Bush et al have created the "War on Terror".>>

OK, I think that was reading a bit more into it than intended but I see what you are getting at. To me, the whole government / companies etc. interaction is complex. ?GovCorp? is summary of that and wasn?t intended to be a faceless enemy.

<<I think probably there has to be some form of 'power-over' in order to ensure the fair allocation of resources.>>

<<To have a society or civilisation, you have to have some people with more power than others, otherwise nothing would get organised, managed, rules put in place that most people wanted to live by etc.>>

Neither of those are true. It is however, the way that most people organisations work so we are used to seeing it and of thinking in that way but it is not the only way to organise nor get anything done. Tasks can also be achieved by a networking and cooperating to achieve a goal. For that to work it is necessary that most (not all) of the members are focused on the goal. People will then organise themselves and achieve the goal without the need of someone with power over them and this sort of behaviour happens all the time. One example is the way people form groups of friends. There has been quite a bit of research into this sort of thing, mainly in AI and manufacturing but also in sociology.

<<Because we are social animals. We are not cheetahs who can live on our own. In order to survive we need to fit into (no matter how loosely) a social group.>>

That is true, and also why self organising as above works. We are social so we understand other people around us and we can communicate and cooperate. Of course, not everybody is so sociable so not everybody can work in a self organising way and skeptik pointed out one group of people who can?t.

<<All primate societies operate on the carrot and stick principle.>>

Not all. We can go beyond basic primate behaviour but I do thing carrot and stick works better with less intelligent primates than self organising but even chimps display some level of self organising behaviour.

[MacG]

Basically they will do whatever they want to get whatever they want if they think they can get away with it. Without restraint or regret. They comprise maybe 1 to 4% of the population (and ~25% of the prison population) depending on how tightly you you draw your definition.

So..in a situation where there is as you suggest "No exertion of power over other humans", what are you going to do about it?

Hmm... this is possibly drifting off topic a bit

Wery much on topic I think. The sad thing is that people with these personality disorders have a tendency to occupy leading positions just about everywhere, specially in governments and corporations. A government comprised of such people is not very good at protecting citizens, but very good at giving an impression of protecting us.

The only way to stop them once and for all is to abolish coercion alltogether.