Woods ... the only part of that debate that interests me is ... "if we need institutions" ... if ? ...
... are you suggesting governence without any institutitions .... we just need copies of these bills & rights posted on our bedroom walls, end of ? (Rhetorical questions BTW.) It's debating the right arrangements that interests me. All this "current" crisis stuff ... doesn't actually add much for me. Thanks for bringing your specific links to my attention, but you appreciate I get my news and current affairs mainly from channels other than MD (another rhetorical question). My agenda for 10 years or so studying this problem ... lousy collective decision-making ... (and 40 previous years of living with it) is that there is nothing new under the sun here ... other than a world shrinking under communications (physical as well as informational). I don't need a new crisis to call me to attention and action. These are just the current symptoms of a 4000+ year old human evolutionary problem ... IMHO. Hence my interest in a forum understanding the underlying dynamics (MoQ) rather than the latest attention grabbing problems ... plenty of other places we can debate those, but few places to discuss MoQ. So by all means bring any messages / subjects / campaigns here you like ...it's a very free forum ... but I'm focussing my limited time (here) on these specific issues ... (as they relate to the subjects you bring up, when I can see a connection to make, like this case) So, if not "no institutions", what kinda institutions ... local is a good concept to start from ... but it's just a word ... how small is local (the individual ?) how big is local and what governs where locales bump up against each other ... I'm guessing you like the concept of nations, and even the idea of the USA ... they're just institutions that have evolved ? (that was not rhetorical) .... what are the optimum levels of granularity for different kinds / levels of institutions, etc ... discuss. Ian On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Woods Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Ian: > Anyway ... the reason I didn't respond to your blackwater question, > was that implicit in your question about having a problem with > blackwater appearing "at home" was that somehow it hade been ok that > blackwater had been active "abroad". > > > woods: > Immoral abroad, just as home, but it is what it is doing > at home (U.S.) that I'm able to point out to the world and > show that something, with the letter of the law as the measuring > stick, is going amuk. It's a credible urgency. It > is a showing what is happening here and how immoral > the situation has become so the world, people in other countries, > and in this country can see what is clearly happening. > > > Ian: > I didn't know where to start, on that, and for me it's not the main > event, unlike ... > I did answer your debate (and gav's) about ... we gotta crisis, what > do we do ... several times. (The second amendement and/or blackwater > are irrelevant to any answer of mine.) > > > woods: > ok > > Ian: > In a nutshell, once you've decided on the call to action ... even > passive resistance, active non-participation, self-sufficent personal > sustainable life-style, whatever, I think we've all bought some > variation of that ... you need to answer the what next (?) question > .... how would you prefer to be governed. (Governance ... as I've said > a few times ... and David M too) and how to bring about that change. > (You have the right to use force, it may even be necessary, but it's > clearly not sufficient.) > > > woods: > Goverance: What we have in the U.S. constitution, Bill of Rights, and > Declaration of Independence are ok with me. People talking events through, > like we do everyday with our neighbors. If we need institutions, then more > heavily local, the way our constitution intended. > > Ian: > Be happy to debate that further .. intellectually ... any time ... but > it will take time, respect and concentration ... true involvement. > (There are only fleeting chances for that on MD.) > > > woods: > What I'm throwing out in the forum, such as with blackwater, are > little pieces of the puzzle, key events forming and these events > are working in unison. > I really don't know, it is a very, very good chance, that this country > will not be able to take another crisis without a tinder box going off > somewhere. A bigger more pronounced sign that gov't and people > have divided. It may be a small event, in a city somewhere and may > not even spread out to other parts of the country, but it will show > the underlying society's subconscious. These little pieces are > what I'm trying to fit together. They are making a much bigger picture. > If you've seen all of the posts I've been pulling together from various > sources almost daily about differ events happening almost daily, then you > would have seen a much larger picture of what's happening. > > > you see? > > woods > > > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Woods Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Ian: >> Nasty habit I have of answering other people's questions, but I have >> to check out momentarily ... so sorry, but ... >> "Does that mean you give up ?" >> Er no, you knew that, right ? You question was rhetorical. Like how >> hard can t be. It means you use your brains, not a hunting rifle when >> faced with powers far greater than your hunting rifle. ;-) >> Having the "right" to bear arms does not make it a sensible choice. >> >> >> >> woods: >> Really wasn't trying to be rhetoical. I've been shouting out >> information for weeks for my civic duty has bumped up a notch >> ever since this economic crisis sent misguidances by >> the gov't into how this is being handled. I've personally been >> researching about topics that for my whole life I found little or no >> interest but now me eyes have awakened to a whole other event in >> me life. >> One has a gun, they have it. It doesn't mean we get rid of the guns >> because we'd be dead in 6 seconds anyways. I feel I'm missing >> something from what's being said, other than a general call >> to use the brain. If that's all you and Arlo are saying, then >> ok... That's like saying to somebody with a flat tire, "Hey, >> you have a flat tire. You might want to fix that." Yeah, ok... and ? >> >> >> woods >> >> >> >> Moq_Discuss mailing list >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >> Archives: >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ >> > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
