But when I do it is because he's right. Or close.
Follow the link and read all of what Mr. North has to say on secession versus revolution. I think he is onto something.
I disagree with North's analysis on one point as I tend to think the American Revolution was more of a secession. The French Revolution certainly was not secession and ended in empire. One might say the same thing about the American Civil War, the Bolshevik Revolution, and others. North says:
He is definitely right about one thing: Until conservatives stop dreaming about capturing existing hierarchical systems of power, nothing is going to change.
Follow the link and read all of what Mr. North has to say on secession versus revolution. I think he is onto something.
I disagree with North's analysis on one point as I tend to think the American Revolution was more of a secession. The French Revolution certainly was not secession and ended in empire. One might say the same thing about the American Civil War, the Bolshevik Revolution, and others. North says:
The essence of revolution is centralized power. Engels knew this early, [link in original] and reminded us of it for years. There is nothing more centralizing than a revolution. Every revolution in history has moved towards the centralization of power, ...
We are at the edge of a non-revolution.Revolutions seek only to move the locus of power from one group or individual to another. Secession moves power out from a central source to multiple, more localized points. North believes open source technology moves us in this direction:
The open source revolution is going to decentralize more of the world. Decentralization is not going to lead to revolution. Decentralization is going to lead to secession. I mean secession in Gandhi's way. I mean the withdrawal of support. You don't take up arms against the state; you simply refuse to cooperate with the state. You make it more expensive for the state to tyrannize you.
He is definitely right about one thing: Until conservatives stop dreaming about capturing existing hierarchical systems of power, nothing is going to change.
Yes, we need a different paradigm. I have been advocating a return to 'family centric' welfare, along with individuals, churches and other NGO's taking back responsibility from Government for those specific areas of our lives into which they have intruded.
ReplyDeleteNorth used to say 'you cannot defeat something with nothing' and he is quite right. In the past we have attempted to use the levers of the state to achieve our goals, but those levers were never going to deliver the outcomes we are seeking.
Open source, distributed authority, localised action, strong families, and leave the Government to defence of the realm, enforcing just weights and measures, the administration of justice and perhaps the provision of some basic infrastructure including roads and sewers and rubbish collection. Then let's see what happens.
Family centric is the way to go. Family, church, community.
ReplyDeleteI haven't had time to follow much that is going on the past few weeks or what the Pope is saying. He seems, from bits and pieces I have heard, to be suggesting that governments do more for the poor. The government's track record in our War on Poverty is dismal.
As I recall, when Jesus had 5,000 to feed, He did not petition Pilate or Herod for help. He turned to His own followers and said, "You give them something to eat." Then He made it enough.