Re: [pf] Community government - violence.

At 09:38 2/11/2001 -0600, Diane F wrote:
> ... I tend to view bureaucracy as sometimes being a convenience that
keeps things running.
>While reading the newspaper this week, ... Please read this excerpt from
the city council meeting:
>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>"After reviewing several options, the engineering firm is recommending a
plan to expand treatment capacity at the existing wastewater plant on South
Jenkins from 12 million gallons per day to 17 mgd, and to build a
north-side treatment plant capable of treating 4.5 mgd. 
>"Construction of a second plant would alleviate demand on the southern
collection system, which is at full capacity, and reduce the need for
system improvements, Mitchell said.
>"With a ridge dividing two natural drainage basins ...
>"Mitchell said the north-side plant presented engineers with the option of
discharging into the Canadian River or constructing wetlands and
discharging into Little River — an augment of Norman’s drinking water supply.
>"But the Department of Environmental Quality, although supportive of the
wetlands plan, told engineers ..."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
>Diane here again:  How many of you skimmed over what you read in the
preceding six or eight grafs?  How may of you that read closely understood
what you read and the consequences of the various projects?
>

· I read it through; but then I have had an interest in sewerage since our
village was converted from septic tanks in the early-80s to a piped
sewerage system, and I went along to the "information" meeting with
leaflets (I made) to hand out pointing out the advantages (and need for
maintenance) of septic tanks; then expressed my opposition to the City
Council's "proposal".

· One of the properties on the main road here in Greenhithe even had its
own "wetland" treatment system - it only lasted a couple of years.


>  How many of you would be willing to sit through the necessary meetings
to pull off such a system for the 100,000 people living in your community?
>
· I have been impressed by the huge amount of work our local City
Councillors have done, in all the extra hearings required to get Local
Authority work compliant with New Zealand's Resource Managament Act (1991);
I too did my bit with many hours deciding-on and writing out my submission.

· That whole exercise, on top of the usual roads, sewerage, beaches,
business development, and other usual activities of Council & staff, have
convinced me that, at least in North Shore City (one of the half-dozen
cities in Auckland), representative democracy is working as well as it ever
has done.


>To my mind, disposal of human wastes is a critical issue in today's
society. It must be done properly, or people will get sick and the the
environment trashed.  I imagine most people here agree with that,
regardless of whether they suppost composting toilets or mega-sewer plants
or something inbetween.
>
>Yet, how many of us are willing to devote the time needed to give this
issue the attention it deserves?  
>
>And there's the water issue ... and garbage disposal ... and food
production and distribution ... and transportation systems ... and energy
needs ... and pollution controls associated with all of the above ... and
education ... and medical needs ...
>
>Those are pretty much the essentials I see in my life, and I am not sure
how I could ever squeeze it all in every week, even assuming I didn't have
a job.  Could I understand all the necessary information?  Could these
issues wait while I and my neighbors become educated, consider all the
viewpoints, discuss ways to finance/build, etc.?  Does the quality of these
programs rise and fall on the basis of the composition of the participants?
 Do they sometimes fade away if a particular leader leaves?
>
· That _is_ the situation. Like all human activities, there will be faults,
even mistakes - no biggie, in the long run.
  The one thing that I get annoyed about is the construction of these big
impressive buildings, monuments to a certain hard-driving person in a
powerful position - usually a real waste.


>So I applaud groups that come together to form their alternatives to these
entrenched bureaucracies' provisions of these services.
>
· I've done a bit of that; as president of the Greenhithe Ratepayers' &
Residents' Association, I got us to support parts of a care-plan for the
Upper Waitemata Harbour, and criticised others. And we made proposals for
reducing the traffic hazard in the village.


>  I do wonder, though, if a bureaucracy can serve a needed purpose.
>
· This whole discussion, including about sanctions (below), can be seen as
_some_ people choosing to come together to deal with necessary decisions
and monitoring the consequent actions, then going back to their "normal"
activities again. Not far from how things could be done in anarchy; don't
forget that anarchy is _far_ more about people being _equal_, and therefore
co-operating, (persuading each other), than about attacking the state.


>So, then I think, is it possible to have a bureaucracy without the threat
of violence implied? ... Is it possible to for bureaucracies to administer
programs essential for life without the implied or actual threat of
violence for those who do not cooperate?  And, if you choose to reply, I
would be interested in your definition of violence.  For instance, some of
you have stated that destruction of property is not violence.
>
· I doubt that the _existence_ of the threat of being physically grabbed,
hauled in front of a judge, and if convicted forced to go to jail for 5
years, is the real problem.

· We had people in Greenhithe (including me) who didn't want to connect up
to the sewerage system. But by not insisting on _everyone_ doing the
_simple_ thing _immediately_, it was made to work without even lawsuits :-

(i) It was spread over 1.5 to 3 years; people have time to think about it
and grudgingly agree with it. (I, for example, realised that my pet septic
tanks were only as good as their owners; I had grown up with one, and knew
the care needed - the newcomers to Greenhithe, taking over even our house,
would be totally uninterested in doing the needed adjustments to water use,
pump out every ~3 years, and so on. So I finally agree to go along with the
scheme, for the greater good.)

(ii) The Council were supposed to check whether all connected their houses
up to the piping system. I would guess that nobody bothered to check, after
3 years, i.e. there are probably a handful of hold-outs who still use a
septic tank, and provided nobody dobs-them-in, not-a-problem. Some leeway
is needed

(ii) People were given a choice of several aspects of the process: it
wasn't that there's _one_, _simple_ thing you _had_ to do. Having a choice
of method, even when the overall result is fixed, lets people feel that
it's _their_ choice, rather than being imposed on them. Manipulative, I
know, but I used to use the same technique on my kids; only in mid-teenage
did they cotton-on to what I was doing. I can't see that it's wrong - just
not the best.

· I guess I'm saying that simple attitudes are misleading. Even the simple
view that "anarchy is best - all else must be got rid of", and "violence
must not be tolerated, even when it's the threat of a lawsuit & being
thrown in jail".

· People are _not_ simple, so why should anyone think that what they _do_
_should_ be simple?


· Finally: violence.

- Is the halal method of killing a beef animal violent (AFAIK cutting its
jugular vein with an extremely sharp knife while it's standing calmly, and
letting it bleed to a faint and then death)?

- To get a campaign-sign peg out of the ground, I _have_ to use violence;
it won't move otherwise. Is violence *per se*, wrong?

- I have argued very effectively with certain members of my family (in my
previous persona), reducing them routinely to tears and submission to my
will. Was that violence?

- I brought up my two boys, to age ~5, using a slap on their hand when they
disobeyed. They are among the most peace-loving people I know, now. Was
what I did violence?

- One way for previously intimidated schoolboys to deal with a bully is to
get enough other similar boys together, gather around the bully, and _very_
seriously tell him that they won't stand for any more bullying. I would
call that the threat of violence.


· Once again, it's not simple.
 (And I'm one who doesn't label carefully-selected and controlled mayhem
like smashing that McDonalds window, as violence.)

David.
David MacClement [davd @ ihug.co.nz] (remove spaces)
http://davd.tripod.com/GrRR-011102_titles.html#top
http://www.geocities.com/davd.geo/index.html#top
***********************************************

==^================================================================
This email was sent to: csf@moscow.com

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://igc.topica.com/u/?aVxifP.aVEN4x
Or send an email to: positive-futures-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com
<A HREF=" http://igc.topica.com/u/?aVxifP.aVEN4x ">
AOL users click here.</A>

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================