Nowhere have I claimed that there would be no rules or no structure. What I have claimed is that those providing services like security and dispute resolution should never be presumed to have the authority to initate force against people who have not themselves infringed anyone else's rights.
And who decides what is right? A contract between two parties is always prone to dispute, particularly if there is no legislation around an area, or if the legislation is weak and prone to interpretation. Any lawyer will tell you this, and any lawyer will also tell you what copious amounts of time and money that it takes to resolve such contract disputes, and in the mean time, cervices will come to a standstill.
My point about the charitable organizations is that where there is disagreement about the mission or how objectives are to be achieved there is the possibility of negotiation for common ground OR people agree to disagree and cooperate in separate structures which can coexist in parallel. There is no need for a one-size-fits all "solution" to social problems to be imposed upon people by governments.
Eh, I have worked for a charity organization and this is simply false. They have boards and voting and majority decisions just like any other entity. If you mean that new kind of charity you claim will evolve from this new pontoon society, then that will have to be your assumption, but I assure you, that in today's existing charities, your method of negotiation for common ground is used on smaller scale, your other option of atom splitting is avoided if humanely possible and democratic methods are used frequently.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 13/1/12 22:38 (UTC)And who decides what is right? A contract between two parties is always prone to dispute, particularly if there is no legislation around an area, or if the legislation is weak and prone to interpretation. Any lawyer will tell you this, and any lawyer will also tell you what copious amounts of time and money that it takes to resolve such contract disputes, and in the mean time, cervices will come to a standstill.
My point about the charitable organizations is that where there is disagreement about the mission or how objectives are to be achieved there is the possibility of negotiation for common ground OR people agree to disagree and cooperate in separate structures which can coexist in parallel. There is no need for a one-size-fits all "solution" to social problems to be imposed upon people by governments.
Eh, I have worked for a charity organization and this is simply false. They have boards and voting and majority decisions just like any other entity. If you mean that new kind of charity you claim will evolve from this new pontoon society, then that will have to be your assumption, but I assure you, that in today's existing charities, your method of negotiation for common ground is used on smaller scale, your other option of atom splitting is avoided if humanely possible and democratic methods are used frequently.