On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:56 AM, GS Chandy <email@example.com> wrote:
> 6) 'Microdemocracy' is useful to promote 'democracy'. In my view, this idea of Kirby Urner's is entirely justified. My reasoning goes like this: if two people working together can learn to practice democratic behavior, then it may become possible for more people to practice democratic behavior - which may then lead to democracy in larger groups and perhaps even in whole nations. >
Yes, I'm interested in "village democracy" where a village might be the size of say a former military base in Washington State and/or Okinawa.
There's contact with the outside world, and some turnover in the makeup of the residents.
We've seen a lot of interest in "co-housing" and other such uses of real estate over the last several decades. I'm building on that trend, plus introducing more in the way of software.
Picture a software package based somewhat on the Wild West as a theme, with roles of sheriff, mayor, councilor, judge, deputy sheriff and so on. Out of the box, you have shared public meetings, web sites where the minutes get posted, lots of ideas for email CCs i.e. who should get what emails depending on the topic. Lots of templates, built-in wisdom about the needs of a small town.
However, the community itself is not some dusty bare survival town on the edge of civilization.
Using the Wild West as a theme does not imply lots of irresponsible gun play or bank and train robberies. We're talking about high tech lifestyles, an airstrip, lots of domed enclosures (planetarium etc.).
To have a focus on such small democracies with rotating positions and polling / voting systems, does not preclude an interest in so-called "big governments".
I think Paul doesn't understand that. In looking at a network of refugee camps linking together to form a quasi-state or virtual state (not necessarily recognized by the United Nations as such), I'm not turning my back on citizens of mega-states.
I just think innovation proceeds at a faster pace, and with greater frequency, at a smaller scale.
Paul also thinks the US is in a position to follow Sweden, but I think psychologically the US is not mature enough at this point. Remember the US and Sweden all but severed diplomatic relations during the Vietnam War. Sweden was highly critical of the US in this chapter.
This proves that the Feds have a very different mindset from the Swedes. One cannot expect the Feds to have anything close to the collective intelligence of Swedes, if history is any guide.
That explains, I think, my interest in letting companies offer health packages that take people out of North America for some procedures and treatments, if not physically then jurisdictionally.
Perhaps I could buy into a Swedish outfit that helped run a network of hospitals and hospital cruise ships. My contribution to the plan would be deducted from my pay check. I could do this without surrendering US citizenship.
I can well imagine global health care networks that offer care packages in various shapes and sizes. It might be nice if the Feds were a part of the solution, not part of the problem, but evidence suggests such competence is not there. We can't afford to just sit on our hands and wait for the Feds to become intelligent, contributing world citizens.