Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Digest Number 2517
Julie Stauffer
<<In our opinion, adults deserve respect...>>
In my opinion, all people deserve respect regardless of age. And I wouldn't
consider somebody questioning my judgment as being disrespectful.
Julie
In my opinion, all people deserve respect regardless of age. And I wouldn't
consider somebody questioning my judgment as being disrespectful.
Julie
Mike Ebbers
--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., "Julie Stauffer" <jnjstau@g...> wrote:
it is fine, desireable, and utopian (heavenly?) to want everyone to
get treated respectfully. But human beings are self-centered enough
by nature that it will not happen that way. Recognizing that, human
beings throughout history have formed societies of some sort (am I
missing any exceptions, except hermits and perhaps hobos?).
These societies tend to create or evolve expected behaviors and
hierarchies. "Back to the Future II" showed an idea of what our
society could be like in 30 years if we continue on track from 1985.
I took that movie as portraying everyone looking out for him/her self
and the strongest/most selfish being on top.
To counter that self-centeredness, I believe that many societies came
up with a respect-for-age hierarchy. Though by no means perfect, it
at least gave the leadership to the more experienced people: the
adults. Within adulthood, it gave leadership to the experienced
elderly. Along parallel lines, societies used to award respect to
those in authority (mayors, judges, police officers, professionals in
their field such as doctors, lawyers, used car salesmen (well, you
get the idea), governors, and presidents.
If we now raise children to ignore those hierarchies, but we do not
come up with better ones to replace them, we are leaving our society
open to anarchy (I suppose that means no one respects anyone else in
case of a tie or disagreement). Again, if we all got along perfectly
we would not need this. But we don't.
I have an opinion on why the hierarchies of age/experience and
leadership have worked in the past, but I will leave those to another
post if anyone is interested (or ask me offline).
Mike
finding some great practices in unschooling but looking for the
underlying foundation to be able to practice it consistently
> in reply to: <<In our opinion, adults deserve respect...>>I think the above two comments are skirting around a key point. Sure,
> In my opinion, all people deserve respect regardless of age. And I
>wouldn't consider somebody questioning my judgment as being
>disrespectful.
it is fine, desireable, and utopian (heavenly?) to want everyone to
get treated respectfully. But human beings are self-centered enough
by nature that it will not happen that way. Recognizing that, human
beings throughout history have formed societies of some sort (am I
missing any exceptions, except hermits and perhaps hobos?).
These societies tend to create or evolve expected behaviors and
hierarchies. "Back to the Future II" showed an idea of what our
society could be like in 30 years if we continue on track from 1985.
I took that movie as portraying everyone looking out for him/her self
and the strongest/most selfish being on top.
To counter that self-centeredness, I believe that many societies came
up with a respect-for-age hierarchy. Though by no means perfect, it
at least gave the leadership to the more experienced people: the
adults. Within adulthood, it gave leadership to the experienced
elderly. Along parallel lines, societies used to award respect to
those in authority (mayors, judges, police officers, professionals in
their field such as doctors, lawyers, used car salesmen (well, you
get the idea), governors, and presidents.
If we now raise children to ignore those hierarchies, but we do not
come up with better ones to replace them, we are leaving our society
open to anarchy (I suppose that means no one respects anyone else in
case of a tie or disagreement). Again, if we all got along perfectly
we would not need this. But we don't.
I have an opinion on why the hierarchies of age/experience and
leadership have worked in the past, but I will leave those to another
post if anyone is interested (or ask me offline).
Mike
finding some great practices in unschooling but looking for the
underlying foundation to be able to practice it consistently
Todd M.
At 01:04 AM 10/23/02 +0000, you wrote:
We're raising our kids to believe (as we do) that Anarchy (not to be
confused with chaos) IS a better system of government. Unfortunately, there
are just WAY too many people on the planet to make it work. If somehow we
could get the "big government" out, and a *very* small one in, and let
states be autonomous unto themselves (see "Constitution<g>), and run each
state by consensus/anarchy, more people would be happier (IMO). Anarchy is
about everyone in that *community* being heard (i.e. MORE respect than
democracy), not less. Like I said though, I don't see this being
implemented until there's a *drastic* reduction in population, via some
sort of major, earth-changing catastrophe :(
Todd
------
You're just jealous because the voices are talking to ME! <g>
http://rambleman.tripod.com/index.html
>If we now raise children to ignore those hierarchies, but we do not==
>come up with better ones to replace them, we are leaving our society
>open to anarchy (I suppose that means no one respects anyone else in
>case of a tie or disagreement).
We're raising our kids to believe (as we do) that Anarchy (not to be
confused with chaos) IS a better system of government. Unfortunately, there
are just WAY too many people on the planet to make it work. If somehow we
could get the "big government" out, and a *very* small one in, and let
states be autonomous unto themselves (see "Constitution<g>), and run each
state by consensus/anarchy, more people would be happier (IMO). Anarchy is
about everyone in that *community* being heard (i.e. MORE respect than
democracy), not less. Like I said though, I don't see this being
implemented until there's a *drastic* reduction in population, via some
sort of major, earth-changing catastrophe :(
Todd
------
You're just jealous because the voices are talking to ME! <g>
http://rambleman.tripod.com/index.html
Mike Ebbers
--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., "Todd M." <Ozarkren@r...> wrote:
Unfortunately, there are just WAY too many people on the planet to
make it work. If somehow we could get the "big government" out, and a
*very* small one in, and let states be autonomous unto themselves
(see "Constitution<g>), and run each state by consensus/anarchy, more
people would be happier (IMO). Anarchy is about everyone in that
*community* being heard (i.e. MORE respect than democracy), not less.
Like I said though, I don't see this being implemented until there's
a *drastic* reduction in population, via some sort of major, earth-
changing catastrophe :(
OK, that explains it for me. I suppose you are using definitions 1a
and 1c of anarchy, rather than the 1b and 2 that I was using:
ANARCHY
1a. having no ruler
1b. a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence
of governmental authority
1c. a utopian society made up of individuals who have no government
and who enjoy complete freedom
2. absence of order
I would agree with you that this would be excellent if it were
possible, and agree also that a small federal government with
autonomous states is both desireable and constitutionally correct.
I would disagree about the population being the hindrance, because I
don't think the world is (yet) filled up and because it should be
able to work (if correctly implemented) with any number of people
divided up into autonomous states. However, obviously with just 5
people (or so) on the whole earth, things would run a lot smoother
because no one would be envious of another's resources, and maybe
that is what you meant.
Mike
> We're raising our kids to believe (as we do) that Anarchy (not tobe confused with chaos) IS a better system of government.
Unfortunately, there are just WAY too many people on the planet to
make it work. If somehow we could get the "big government" out, and a
*very* small one in, and let states be autonomous unto themselves
(see "Constitution<g>), and run each state by consensus/anarchy, more
people would be happier (IMO). Anarchy is about everyone in that
*community* being heard (i.e. MORE respect than democracy), not less.
Like I said though, I don't see this being implemented until there's
a *drastic* reduction in population, via some sort of major, earth-
changing catastrophe :(
OK, that explains it for me. I suppose you are using definitions 1a
and 1c of anarchy, rather than the 1b and 2 that I was using:
ANARCHY
1a. having no ruler
1b. a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence
of governmental authority
1c. a utopian society made up of individuals who have no government
and who enjoy complete freedom
2. absence of order
I would agree with you that this would be excellent if it were
possible, and agree also that a small federal government with
autonomous states is both desireable and constitutionally correct.
I would disagree about the population being the hindrance, because I
don't think the world is (yet) filled up and because it should be
able to work (if correctly implemented) with any number of people
divided up into autonomous states. However, obviously with just 5
people (or so) on the whole earth, things would run a lot smoother
because no one would be envious of another's resources, and maybe
that is what you meant.
Mike
Todd M.
At 05:44 PM 10/23/02 +0000, you wrote:
Yeah sure, that sounds good. <g>
Todd
"A day without sunshine is, like, Night"
http://rambleman.tripod.com/index.html
>However, obviously with just 5 people (or so) on the whole earth, things==
>would run a lot smoother because no one would be envious of another's
>resources, and maybe
>that is what you meant.
>
>Mike
Yeah sure, that sounds good. <g>
Todd
"A day without sunshine is, like, Night"
http://rambleman.tripod.com/index.html