[pf] measuring involvement with one's community. Consequent support.

· I've just sent this to the GreenViews-NZ list; Positive Futures people
may wish to think about Peter Berger's points and proposals.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

· I want to make sure that Peter's main points are not lost, in considering
my cavils against a very minor assumption which I see as producing pressure
towards uniformity.

· So I'm reprinting those main points. Don't get sidetracked by my comments.

>At 08:59 5/9/2000 +1200, Peter Berger sent to GV-NZ:
>>THE CORE FOUNDATION ELEMENT
>>If we are involved we are supported.
>>
At 09:03 8/9/2000 +1200, Peter Berger wrote:
> ... there needs to be a weave of the social fabric 
> which verifies if you are involved or not.
>Something, which will enable us to meet a total stranger 
>and know that they are contributing; money has that role 
>at present. If we meet a total stranger and they produce 
>money, we have a verification that they have been involved 
>in the fabric of life somewhere, ... we can feel confident 
>to give them our own work in exchange for their money.
>
>So I do believe we need a process of involvement verification 
>which enables all of us to be backed up by a process which 
>proves our value to the community as a whole.
>If we don't use a system of involvement verification then 
>there will be those who will sit back and do nothing. With 
>a system (a weave of involvement) if a person does not 
>contribute, then they will not be able to receive, because 
>they won't have any proof that they have done anything.
>

At 12:04 7/9/2000 +1200, David MacClement wrote, to GV-NZ:
> · And separately, for the same reason (humans differ very 
>widely), some people will not wish to be supported, and 
>others will only look for support when they are in dire straits.
>  Their existence should be welcomed, and exchange with them 
>(cultural as well as material) should be valued, i.e. even if 
>they prefer to be "on the periphery" they should be seen 
>by all as part of the community. Diversity is /very/ important.


· Peter Berger makes three points (_underlined_) in two proposals.
  First he discusses the community valuation of the
_contribution_to_the_community_ by each person.
 * I agree that _support_by_the_community_ should be related to this value.

· The point of my letter was to ask: does everyone need such valuation?
Most people would, but not all require such support; some people prefer to
ask for very little, and rarely. So they would support themselves, if not
totally then very largely, having little and rare involvement with (and a
low valuation by) the community. But they should be seen by all as part of
the community; Peter comments on "free-riders": “there will be those who
will sit back and do nothing.” The solitaries I describe are not such
free-riders to be disparaged, even when they have an equally low valuation.

· Secondly, P.B. proposes that:
 _time_involvement_be_the_measure_of_value_ to the community.
 * I don't wholly agree, though it's better than using money, in many ways.

· People should consider Peter's points and proposals, and not get
sidetracked by my comments which are clearly peripheral (applying to few).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
sent to Positive Futures discussion list by David.
(David MacClement) davd@ihug.co.nz 
http://www.emucities.com.au/member/davd/index.html#top
******************************************************

___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A  The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics