i’m tired, so very tired.
not in the ‘i need more sleep’ fashion, but in the ‘i want to change the world, but i don’t know what to do’ tired. after over a decade of beating my head against the wall of societal injustice & intolerance, i’m ready to throw in the towel.
to go for status quo.
to stop caring.
to give up.
i’ve been reading some other blogs of decent minded individuals, and they have such wonderful ideas. ideas that should work, could work.
but then i’ll look at the comments and see another decent minded individuals response: ‘yes, well, your idea is quaint, but here is what will REALLY work’, and then put an idea forth that could work, should work.
but they are all crap.
why?
because people suck.
the greatest ideas throughout history have all been destroyed or perverted because of this one over-riding factor.
it’s why we can’t say ‘hey, why don’t we pick one of these great ideas and go with it’ instead we say ‘yes, but my idea is better’. FUCK YOU. any idea that has a hope of making the world better should be tried, and even if it fails, at least we tried.
i’m sick of pseudo-intellectuals pissing all over ideas because part of the idea falls into one of their narrowly defined definations of philosophical ideology. ‘oh no, that won’t work that’s just MARXISM!’ as if every word marx ever said has to be wrong.
any new idea at this point in human social evolution EVERY idea must take bits & pieces from other thinkers throughout history.
people seem to forget: every governmental form works ideally in it’s ideal state.
So therefore to make a more perfect government we should not look at the initial idea, the initial idea if decently thought out will work ideally in it’s ideal state. Therefore we must look at any potential ways that human ‘nature’ will tear down this governmental style. Our own American fore-fathers tried unsuccessfully to do this. But hey, we can learn much from their errors.
There has been much shoutings about small communities within communities. This essentially is a concept of forming small tribes, based upon common ideals. The keeping someone within the tribe or ejecting someone from the tribe is a communal decision.
Now some potential failing points of this idea.
First: gaining membership. It feels kinda foolish, though it is not.
Second: decisions: unanimous vote or majority vote?
Third: rules for ‘membership’ yes? no? maybe?
Ah well
A little jumpy today
-De
2 comments:
I'd like to try my hand at answering those questions if you don't mind (and if you do, then screw you hippie! ;) ).
The first and third are important and intertwined. Membership in a community is based on trust. If you don't trust someone, then it is obvious, to me, that they aren't really part of your community. You can only build a community of people with people you feel a community with. Granted, it is impossible to trust everyone, but if you trust someone and they trust someone else that you either don't know or don't trust yet, then perhaps they are part of your community by proxy.
In other words, trust can be built when you trust others in your community and they trust other people in their community thus all being of the same community.
Of course, if there are reasons not to trust someone, based on current and past actions then there needs to be a way for the community to ask or demand someone to leave said community.
Now the 2nd issue is one that is very important. I believe a direct democracy is the best way to deal with decisions. Direct means, one person one vote. Not like how the current "democratic" system works. The issue is how to deal with majority vs minority voting. It is important that, even though there is a majority in favor of an action, it is equally important that those in the minority have the ability to express why they voted the way they did and that they understand that though they may not have "won" per se their voice and their concerns are equally valued and perhaps a modified version that more can agree on is in order.
That really all depends on the community involved on how to resolve these issues, but I thought I would throw some ideas out there. :)
In any event, I hope it at least gives an idea on what can be done.
actually i was thinking of 2/3 majority vote. although some things would need a simple majority. i also think repeatedly not voting is grounds for expulsion. if you don't take part in the comunity then you are not part of it.
Post a Comment