Re: cleaning how?

[http://dummy.us.eu.org/robert (Robert)]

 > From: "kathryn m" <http://www.kathaus.org/~cat>
 > Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 17:43:32 -0800
 >
 > hey Robert, 
 > sorry it has taken a while to respond.  i had to be at the
 > LH tuesday night and wednesday we had a house meeting.  and
 > thursday morning Jesse went to Kentucky with the downstairs
 > computer.  

OK, I'll buy those excuses. :-)

 > hope you are well.  i'll have to get to SJ someday soon.  it
 > probably won't be until afterthe bookfair.

Noelle and I were thinking of doing a BBQ thing some time in May.  (This
place seems to have come with a grill in the shed.  It actually works.)

 > BTW, do you plan
 > to be at the bookfair?

March 18?  I hadn't planned on it.  We'll see how things work out.

 > there is also the liberal anti-war
 > march that day too.

I saw that on a flyer at the Unitarian Church in Palo Alto we went to last
night.  (Don't worry -- we haven't "converted".  We went to see a few
films there (http://artsopolis.com/?app=venueDetail&id=237) .)

 > --kathryn
 > 
 > > I guess your proposition or whatever losing is a 
 > > loss within the voting system.  I suppose you have 
 > > to go outside the system once you're in that 
 > > position. 
 > 
 > the problem with that is no one, especially the state, will
 > recognize that as legitimate.  it's like once you vote, once
 > you agree with the rules, you can't just back out of the
 > rules.

In some ways, that's true.  There are counterexamples.  I guess the U.S.
Civil War is probably the biggest one.  There probably were other
counterexamples in the 50s and 60s during particular supreme court
decisions and civil actions and marches against them, but I can't think of
any off the top of my head.

 > and most people who believe in represenative
 > democracy agree with the rules of the game anyway, so it
 > never really comes up.

This is true.

 > what is annoying to me is people who get upset when the
 > state breaks their own rules.  of course they do, the have
 > all the power so what can we expect?  that monopoly on the
 > legitimate use of force does wonders for staying in power.

This is especially true with the one-uber-pseudo-nazi-lockstep-Republican
Party of these days.  What's really amazing is how little force all levels
of government has had to employ because so many people are generally
fearful.  These days, it's mostly fear of "the other" -- the majority
don't feel like they're personally targetted and, ultimately, acquiesce.
For some reason, in our society, self-preservation is a great motivator,
no matter how badly any one of us is living.

 > > Maybe it's also the size of the community.  If 
 > > it's too large, you no longer have a choice to 
 > > choose a different community if you don't like the 
 > > decisions made in that community.  I guess this 
 > > would be a good argument for a weak state 
 > > government and an even weaker federal government.  
 > > I guess this is the Thomas Jefferson view.
 > 
 > hmmm.... or a good argument for no government.  for small
 > scale groupings at the high end of organization.

I think this inductive leap was precisely the argument that Paul Goodman
always made.