Still baffled by the "yes we can have ..." Woods. Can't see any workable situation if we don't have ...
I'm not learning anything from the fact that you accept we can have those kind of things .... no brainer to me (I said they were NOT questions I was asking) .... I'm talking about which specific things, organised which specific ways ... and what specific actions and decisions it will take to get them that way. I'm not looking for answers you already have ... but debate on how we arrive at answers ... if you had the answers Woods, you'd be president of somewhere or other. The US may be an "idea" to you, but it is institutionalised in many tangible ... err ... institutions, with very specific arrangements and ways of working ... here and now, quite distinct from the bills and constitutions that initiated their creation. I'm also trying to drag this away from this USA centric myopia, and failing miserably. How do you think say "democracy" should be organized, courts of law, "houses" of various kinds. Assuming you and your gun (not you ersonally Wods) are not going to single-handedly "change the world" ... these are the kinds of institutions that we have to work with. Who "should" decide what ? Anyway, gotta go. Travelling agan. Ian On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Woods Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ian, > > Yes, we can have institutions, and local is individual, but > then family, community, state, federal. I don't know what your > learning, but go for it. > Those bills and rights are ideas. The U.S. is an idea. I'm putting > out the news, for a bigger picture is emerging. One that is > obviously more and more happening on its' on without the > interest of the most people. I guess I'm building a case for a > particular argument. With each post, the argument will develop. > We'll see what it is. I don't know what your trying to say. The only > indication you gave in your post is your interest is in: > > Ian: > "...what are the optimum levels of granularity for different kinds / levels > of > institutions, etc ... discuss." > > > > woods continues: > That's a good starting point. Now what do you mean? What do you see > in this line of thinking? What are you not saying, but you find of interest? > > > 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/
