Comments on Individual Liberty

Here are some comments for you:

1. The vision for a sustainable and desirable America is too proscriptive. The U.S. was founded on freedom. The idea that a person of drive can get ahead is what creates our higher standard of living. To create a world such as "Our Vision" would hold down the spirit of people striving to accomplish self-directed goals. These goals are so innate that they cause war, unjust distribution of wealth, and excessive comsumption. Because people can freely live out their dreams in the U.S. we have peace and wealth. Choices for control include communism which dictates that everyone gets the same (and there is no reason to work) or moderate control such as in many European countries. Good luck trying to dictate national values!

Our concern is that there are two types of freedom: freedom to do as one chooses, and freedom from the impacts of choices made by others. As the world grows more crowded, we live closer to others and compete more for the same resources, and are therefore increasingly likely to be affected by their choices. If there is too much of the first type of freedom, there may be too little of the second. From this point of view, the abundance of resources in America contributes to our freedom. A country far from ecological thresholds can enjoy more freedoms than one struggling for survival (see comments below on this last point)

2. The vision sees American's becoming more spiritual of nature. However, Christian will view this as New Age which is seen as demonic. Christians view people as specifically created in God's image with the command to oversee nature. If the vision calls for people to view nature as equal to man, then the values afforded to people such as economic safety nets, special infastructure systems (running water, paved streets, sewers) would have less meaning or they would need to be created for animals and plants as well. This value does not seem like one that would promote our species.

I am not a theologian, but did not see any conflict between the vision's emphasis on non-material values and Christian beliefs. Perhaps the problem lies in my inadequate ability to describe the vision. Certainly many Christians see man as stewards of nature, with an obligation to protect God's creation. Our vision states that man is part of nature, meaning we depend on air, water, fertile soils, and the ozone layer just as other plants and animals do. This 'infrastructure system' provided by nature needs to be preserved. Many mammal and bird species help raise young that are not their own in a form of social safety net, yet do not help raise young of species that are not their own. In any event, our eventual goal is create a shared vision. While there were certainly many Christians present in the group, in the future we should seek the participation of representatives of many different religious groups.

3. American's like their space. Families raising children will want fences backyards for children to play in and larger homes that accomodate more people. Families also need larger vehicles than single people and their transportation needs are greater (several schools attended by several different children each day: preschool, elementary, high school - sport practices, camps, lessons, childcare, etc).

Our vision describes a future in which alternative forms of transportation are available.

One size does not fit all.

Cheryl

COMMENTS REPEATED IN OTHER SECTIONS

_____

I enjoyed reading about the dream world that your group envisions for our future. I would like to live in it for a year or so to see if it truly will give us what you are hoping for. You might want to set up a "representative city" for people to live in to experience the ideas so as to get backing and coverage of what you are doing. The number of "Laws" which will be required in order to accomplish your goals will be quite high, so there had better be an even greater number of existing laws which actually get repealed for the betterment of society. We do not need more government, we need less but better government.

There are many goods, services and resources that cannot be exclusively owned, and therefore cannot be sold or provided to individuals for profit. Markets therefore will not provide or preserve them. Many of these resources may be essential to human survival (e.g. the ozone layer, global climate stability). Non-market institutions must provide or protect them, and at this point there are few alternatives besides government.

In addition , it seems that the closer we are to the carrrying capacity of a system, the more laws are needed for humans to sustainably inhabit that system. As an example, spaceships and sailing ships operate under dictactorships (though this was more true in the past, when people at sea could not easily be rescued.) The more sustainable we make our system, and larger the buffer zone from critical ecological thresholds we maintain, the less 'government' we need. As you point out, new laws will be required to attain our envisioned society, but I think I can speak for the ESDA network when I say we believe that implementing those laws now will allow far more freedom in 2100 than would otherwise be the case.