Mike ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > I think where we differ is that I'm > extremely pessimististic about human > nature. It's not that I don't like the > idealistic picture, I just don't see > that it can work out that way. I agree that that is what differentiates our outlooks. Let me approach it this way. Do you think YOU could comfortably live in a world with little or no coercion? Could YOU refrain from coercion if everyone else did? I bet you answer is 'yes' (as my answer would be, as well). I bet that most of the people on this list would also answer in the affirmative. I think that most everyone you and I know could live in non-coercive peace and harmony if we had our own island or planet. If we can live without government with our friends, it shows that humans have that capacity in them. The question you and I both still face, of course, is how to deal with those who do want to control others. I think it's a surmountable problem, but you have grave doubts that a "critical mass" of non-coercive can be achieved. > Advances of what sort? In the way we > treat each other? Actually, I have seen some advances in a "kindler, gentler" society. In the main, though, the advances I've seen have been primarily in quality of life issues. > In that part of human nature that > seeks dominance over others? In that > part of human nature that resorts to > violence when negotiation fails to > satisfy? Some, not enough, of course. > I think there are some fundamental > behaviors that have not changed and > will not change. Yes, but these behaviors are not evenly distributed among humans. In fact, I think hard-core bullies are a very small percentage of humankind. For historical reasons, though, they've had the upper hand. Social evolution is rapidly making them obsolete. > Coercive and non-coercive interactions > have always been coexistent. I suspect > you're missing some underlying > conservation principles and incorrectly > interpreting the existing situation at > face value. Maybe. I'd like to see what those "conservation principles" might be, though. > How do you distinguish the two states > ( coercive, free ) unless they are > both in evidence? I doubt they can > even exist separately. Do they need to? I'm just interested in a world where the culture recognizes that coercion is wrong. Sure, it will still exist, but will not be the dominant paradigm. > Win what? You patch the floodwalls > in Iowa and Missouri and the flood > will be worse in Louisiana. > > That does not mean that you shouldn't > try but the prognosis is not for > anything but localized victories. I'm not sure I follow, but I'll certainly settle for localized victories is they occur in my local. After that, we'll see. S a n d y
