NickFaust said:
Oh yes. That's what we need. A country of 300 million people broken down into affinity groups of 3 to 20, each pursuing their own agenda.
I'm not saying that's the best way to run a country (although Lao Tzu might), I was just, for the sake of discussion, offering a model of how people can get things done without leaders.
NickFaust said:
Oh yes. That's what we need. A country of 300 million people broken down into affinity groups of 3 to 20, each pursuing their own agenda.
I'm not saying that's the best way to run a country (although Lao Tzu might), I was just, for the sake of discussion, offering a model of how people can get things done without leaders.
Yes, well, I am betting that in each and every one of those affinity groups, a leader emerges.
NickFaust said:
Yes, well, I am betting that in each and every one of those affinity groups, a leader emerges.
Sure, there are tendencies in group dynamics to follow that course, but people can also take steps to avoid one person's, or a cabal's, dominance. People can rotate tasks, for example, so that no one person accumulates too much power or becomes indispensable. People who tend to keep quiet can be encouraged to speak up and voice their opinions and concerns, and people who talk too much can be encouraged to sit back and listen more. It's not the most efficient process, but look where efficiency has got us. We have specialized to the point of isolation.
How'd you like that bit from the Tao Te Ching? And this is pretty much the go-to site for tips on "formal consensus." (You must have some experience with Roberts Rules of Order, with your background in elected office. I think it is similar to that, though I don't really know much about how they differ.)
[Edit] Ok, one obvious difference is that Roberts Rules seeks a majority decision, whereas consensus facilitation, obviously, seeks unanimity.
NickFaust said:
Yes, well, I am betting that in each and every one of those affinity groups, a leader emerges.
Sure, there are tendencies in group dynamics to follow that course, but people can also take steps to avoid one person's, or a cabal's, dominance. People can rotate tasks, for example, so that no one person accumulates too much power or becomes indispensable. People who tend to keep quiet can be encouraged to speak up and voice their opinions and concerns, and people who talk too much can be encouraged to sit back and listen more. It's not the most efficient process, but look where efficiency has got us. We have specialized to the point of isolation.
How'd you like that bit from the Tao Te Ching? And this is pretty much the go-to site for tips on "formal consensus." (You must have some experience with Roberts Rules of Order, with your background in elected office. I think it is similar to that, though I don't really know much about how they differ.)
[Edit] Ok, one obvious difference is that Roberts Rules seeks a majority decision, whereas consensus facilitation, obviously, seeks unanimity.
I agree that small countries are best. I also agree that agrarian societies are best. Sadly those days in the US are long past and I don't see breaking up in to a loose grouping of city states as being a reasonable solution - despite the fantasies of this by some of the libertarian friends on this site.
Having been in many, many (many, many) meetings, I can tell you that my experience has been that a meeting needs someone to lead it (which is RROO does, it provides a structure for a leader to run a meeting.) The easiest meetings I have are meetings of leaders, because they all recognize the need for a leader and actively defer to that leader because the know that it facilitates the flow of the meeting.
I do not think that every group needs some strong charismatic leader.
NickFaust said:
The problem, in the US, and around the world generally, is a complete dearth of leaders. There are no more Ghandis, or Malcolm Xs or Martin Luther Kings. No one simply saying "this is what is right, and this is what I will pursue" and actually lead.
Do you have any theories on why this is, Nick?
I wish I did. It appears that we have become to fearful. It appears that we, having developed tools for really understanding the "will of the people," refuse to admit that "the people" can be a fool.
I do have a theory. I think it's related to the increasing speed of communication. It has become far too easy for consensus to appear; and the consensus is always "what are we doing already?".
Now that's interesting. I should probably start off by disclosing that I am coming from an anti-authoritarian "neither leader nor follower" kind of place, and it's your word choice that really caught my attention.
How can you have "consensus" without active participation in dialog by all stakeholders in any given context? What you're describing sounds more like coercion from the top, down. "Consensus" must be among equals, no?
It's not directly coercive; it's more like self-censorship.
"Everybody knows" that this is the way that things are, and "everybody knows" that you have to go along to get along, and "everybody knows" that innovation is welcomed so long as it's technical or (maybe) entrepreneurial.
A lot of it is just that we're beginning to see just how many people there are, and how big the existing infrastructures are, and how hard it would be even to begin to change them.
NickFaust said:
I agree that small countries are best. I also agree that agrarian societies are best. Sadly those days in the US are long past and I don't see breaking up in to a loose grouping of city states as being a reasonable solution - despite the fantasies of this by some of the libertarian friends on this site.
Here is a recent article making an evolutionary argument for smaller nation-states. It gets a little tedious in the middle, but it's short and I think it makes a valid conclusion.
SignalNoise said:
I actually don't know *much* about the details of the petro bill - outside of the debate over sharing of revenue. But I'm not surprised the bill is heavily flawed. What I mean by a "win" would be successfully passing the bill ("meeting the benchmark") - not necessarily getting an objectively good bill. My point about the petro bill was just about building political capital, via progress, in order to stem the violence in Iraq and attract the interest of other nations in helping with situation there. That's all - I wasn't making a statement about the content of the bill itself.
Here is another, more recent article about the Iraqi Oil Law.
NickFaust said:
I agree that small countries are best. I also agree that agrarian societies are best. Sadly those days in the US are long past and I don't see breaking up in to a loose grouping of city states as being a reasonable solution - despite the fantasies of this by some of the libertarian friends on this site.
Here is a recent article making an evolutionary argument for smaller nation-states. It gets a little tedious in the middle, but it's short and I think it makes a valid conclusion.
Two quotes from the article:
So, ask yourself: would you choose to kill an intelligent alien in a distant galaxy, if by doing so you could gain, say, a million dollars?
Now, ask yourself: would you kill your next-door neighbor, if by doing so you could gain a million dollars?
Next, ask yourself what you would do if your neighbour was being flooded out by a sea level rise, partly caused by the carbon dioxide emissions from your car.
And now, what if it was a Bangladeshi being flooded out?
NickFaust said:
I agree that small countries are best. I also agree that agrarian societies are best. Sadly those days in the US are long past and I don't see breaking up in to a loose grouping of city states as being a reasonable solution - despite the fantasies of this by some of the libertarian friends on this site.
Here is a recent article making an evolutionary argument for smaller nation-states. It gets a little tedious in the middle, but it's short and I think it makes a valid conclusion.
Okay, finally got a chance to read the article.
The only thing that I can say about it is that I always find it interesting when "Darwinians" think and speak as if humans and human society have reached the end of the evolutionary process. His comments, no matter how relevant, ignore the evolutionary pressure of 6.5 billion inhabitants.
For better or worse humans and human society will continue to evolve, as they do so their morality and insitutions will evolve as well.
I believe we are, as always, in the midst of this.
edit: and evolution rarely works backwards. Sorry libs.
Snottlebocket said:
Is there anyone who honestly thinks that after everything you did, pulling out of Iraq is as simple as just putting everybody on a plane home?
No. Of course not. There are no misguided, mistaken, or unthinkingly partisan people in this country at all.
That's why we're the greatest country in the world. After Kazakhstan, anyway.
Really, a UN peace force? I vaguely recall the UN having some pretty strong opinions about your little rampage at the start, and they were mocked and ignored.
But now that you want out it's time for the UN to step in?
That really would be the perfect ending for this gigantic fuck up. Unfortunately the Dutch (amongst others) are already stuck cleaning up your mess in Afghanistan, I seriously hope America doesn't get away with stiffing someone else with Iraq as well.
The Netherlands. Bitchy turndown maid to the U.S. I guess I'd be cranky if I had to clean up wearing clogs too.
_kungfoo_
Los Angeles, CA
April 2005
JUN 19, 2007 03:59 PM