Healthy soil and sustainable growing

[<pbunch@cox.net>]

Mark:

As you have probably noticed our points of view differ significantly 
regarding the legitimate role of government. It appears to me that your 
belief structure is deeply rooted and unlikely to change. I am an old man 
(+60)  and also unlikely to change. I do believe that the strategy you 
suggest will not work for the benefit of most people. I respond because I 
think we cannot throw up our hands and just let the darkness overwhelm us. 
There will be suffering but we need to preserve as much civilization as we 
can and figure out how to make it work better in the future. The following is 
some of my thinking...

>I don't believe any rational person could possibly argue against social 
>interaction.  But... "government" has absolutely nothing to do with being 
>central to the formations of social bindings. <

You are correct in saying that “"government" has absolutely nothing to do 
with being central to the formations of social bindings.” Individuals bind 
with others for both self interest and mutual benefit. That however is not 
the point. What is the effective size of small task oriented groups? As I 
recall an army study indicated that 5 or 6 is optimal. Beyond that the group 
loses effectiveness. How many degrees of relationship (friends of friends of 
friends etc) can cooperate without the coordination of some form of 
government? 

What happens when people feel that another group has usurped some crucial 
piece of  land, quantity of water or other resource that they consider their 
own? Generally speaking if the usurpation threatens life or group identity, 
hostility arises. If both groups are equally convinced that their position is 
“right” the chance of finding a peaceful solution is doubtful. I think that 
the limitation of all government to the local level would be an unmitigated 
disaster and would spawn an era of constant violence.
 
>Also, "government" comes in many forms and is not equal: there is local, 
>state and federal; it can be easily argued that the last two are of little 
>importance, as they tend to usurp power.<

Higher levels of government do usurp power and with good reason. They must be 
capable of suppressing individual and local interests for the good of the 
larger group. Now if you think that somehow a population of individuals or 
small groups running around maximizing their “power” is the way to a bright 
future I have no compunctions regarding the use of larger, more coordinated 
powers to control you and your bands of locals. I have seen how groups 
organized for their own interests and beyond government control operate up 
close and personal and it is ugly.

>I am not, however, a believer that "government" should be dictating what is 
>and isn't useful: one need only look and see what the US govt is doing, it 
>being the wealthiest and most powerful, to understand that concentrations of 
>power is NOT a good thing (power corrupts, etc., etc...):<

Government however does need to lead  and we need to demand good leadership. 
Even small local groups have leaders. They are needed to coordinate efforts. 
Democracies while far from perfect, provide some degree of participation at 
the individual and local level. If people fail to use the mechanisms of power 
available to them effectively and demand good leadership I don't think that 
is the fault of “government.” Abandoning democracy for a loose aggregation of 
warring local entities appears to me to be a bad deal. BTW, not every thing 
the US federal government does is bad. The use of a sweeping generalization 
here does not contribute to finding the truth or solutions. They make 
mistakes; but not everything they do is wrong, there is corruption but there 
also is honest hard work, there is stupidity but also good governance.

>and specifically to this list, stuff  like NAIS, promotion/subsidization of 
>corporations supporting GMO and so forth. <

I will argue that the very libertarian and conservative talking heads that 
preach the supremacy of individual freedoms and rights are actually using the 
divide and conquer strategy to open up political space for the very 
activities of which you complain. The US is going to a Tea Party when they 
should be getting together to vote out and punish the scoundrels that 
manipulate them in order to enhance the power of corporations and other 
groups that do not support the greater interest of the citizenry.   

Phil Bunch
---- mdnagel@verizon.net wrote: 
> _______________________________________________
> Livingontheland mailing list
> Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland