From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Sat Apr 19 2003 - 22:36:13 BST
Dear Sam,
We are indeed now 'in the position of waiting to see if the intervention
causes too much suffering', as you wrote 26 Mar 2003 15:16:50 -0000.
You asked:
'Should, eg, China be given as many votes as India, when they have
comparable population levels, even though one is a democracy and one an
authoritarian state?'
Starting from a position in which a lot of power resides with
unrepresentative national governments, it is unrealistic to expect that we
could jump to any system of global governance which is more representative
than the average national government. So such a system would start with an
equal vote per head of the population. In the inevitably indirect system of
global representation (given the impossibility of direct elections for
representatives on a global scale at present) governments would have to
represent their citizens.
My hope is that it may be possible to enshrine in some sort of constitution
of the system of global governance the goal of representativeness. The
gradual implementation of that goal would not only entail the gradual
joining of extra countries (handing over some of their sovereignty to the
global government in exchange for a vote proportionate to their number of
citizens). It would also entail the gradual raising of requirements for
representativeness of these governments if they want to keep the same amount
of votes. So China would gradually lose votes if it doesn't show improvement
in
the representativeness of its government.
You said that your understanding of 'grace' is 100% protestant and explained
that as 'salvation by faith (turning to God) not works'.
As a Quaker I deny the need for and possibility of a choice between
'salvation by faith' and 'salvation by works'. Both 'salvation' (freedom of
'sin' or experiencing unity in God) and 'faith' (trusting divine guidance)
are meaningless without 'works'. How can one know and show to be 'saved'
other than by one's works, the way one acts? How can one show and know
'faith' other than by works? It is not 'first works and then salvation' or
'first faith and then salvation', but all at once. Salvation is not once and
for all, but always partial (except for short moments of time), always a
goal that can be achieved more completely.
Both social and intellectual patterns of values need 'feeding' (or rather
maintaining), like biological patterns of value do. You wrote 26 March:
'So we agree on the framework, we just disagree on what counts as the social
equivalent of "junk food"? How do you feed your social patterns?'
Don't you agree that 'blind following of whoever imposes himself as leader'
is the social equivalent of 'junk food'??
Democracy would be my equivalent of eating according to accepted dietetic
standards.
Sociocracy (see www.sociocracy.biz) would be my equivalent of eating organic
food in a balanced way that not only incorporates most accepted dietetic
standards but also insights from alternative medicine.
Theocracy properly understood (as decision making ruled by individual and
collective search for divine guidance and continuing revelation) would be my
equivalent of a diet that maintains not only my health (without any need for
other medical care) but also contributes to the health of other people and
the health of the ecosystems I am part of.
Finally you asked 26 March:
'How do you distinguish between randomly new and new which is DQ?'
DQ leaves static quality (patterns) in its wake. Coincidence (random change)
doesn't.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 19 2003 - 22:37:23 BST