ABC July selection: The Green Book

[Liberaregno]

hello i also read this first part of the green book and i thought it was more of a comedy than anything that could be considered a solution.

i mean he had some pretty good points on the problems of modern democracy but i bet even i could argue better of the downfalls of that kind of system. anyway the biggest problem i think was that when i read his great solution, well, i have never read anything like that. in the end it said 'now this is the ultimate solution for the democracy problem' but in fact i hadn't understood anything. fortunately, when i read the solution again i kind of understood a little bit about what was the point but he didn't really make himself very clear. i mean he never really explained us why his theory is so superior and how exactly would the different sections like people's committees and basic whatevers work.

i think the press system really sucked the most in this thing. well you can't really call it government press but if the people's committees or whatever are considered the government then the press as far as i got it was completely controlled by the government so that it would give equal view of the society. yeah right...

i think the book or at least the first part of it was pretty big letdown for me at least because he didn't really tell much about his own theories or analyse why they would work so much better and in fact how would they work. anyway, i'm still going to read the next parts of the book also. in my opinion we could read those other parts in this anarchist book club thing if other people are interested but at least for me it's not very important. the book wasn't really interesting and i'm still going to read the next parts so it doesn't really matter to me.

Michelaccio, what was with the law thing again? i don't really remember anything remarkable of that, why didn't you like his ideas?

[Liberaregno]

i didn't see anything wrong with that thing when i read the book but when you quoted it here from the first two lines i could tell why you disliked his ideas.

but you read it differently compared to my style. now i also see your point but i see this thing from different angle. i might be wrong but what i think he is trying to say is that all those laws made by parliaments are man-made (as in artificial) and not valid because the minority has put them.

but if the laws are based on the traditions and the culture (which change as the time pass) of a given society decided over by the citizens then the law is valid because it's not man-made but kind of integrated into the heads of the people.

in fact when i think of it even more what i think he's saying is that there should only be laws which are created by the given society (don't kill or steal) not the lawmakers (for example copyright) and so that there cannot be one constitution to tell the people what to do because the customs of the people also change. that's why law should be decided by the people (atm i can't remember which instrument was supposed to take care of the law) in their heads not by a piece of paper.

that's why i think it's not that crazy for him to support the religious (although fixed, well also based on the current interpretation) laws because they are directly derived from the culture and therefore are not as man-made as the constitutions are.

that's what i thought anyway.

[Liberaregno]

you have a point there. i think the whole religion thing is a controversy against his democracy of the masses, because if the law is derived from the religion and not the will of the people, then religion becomes "instrument of governing" and in fact there comes a dictatorship because everybody won't agree with the current state religion.

anyway i think he had a valid point when he was criticising the constitutions but as you said i think he derailed when he tried to create something too good and working.

btw yesterday night me and my brother tried to understand how the governing system would work and i understood a little bit and the main aspect that everybody is divided to basic popular congresses (just how the heck do they divide the people there) each having an own secretariat and then all the secretariats meet and they try to find a consensus or something like that based on the wishes of the basic popular congresses, that is at least in theory everybody.

anyway we didn't still quite get how it would work and i think it's impossible to get it at least from reading the first part because i guess he thinks everything is too clear for everybody as his system is for himself and that's why nobody really understands it.

[righteousnesous]

On the issue of whether religious laws/rules are natural or not:

I haven't been reading the Green Book, but based on the quote above and the debate between you, I'd say that the fundamentals of mainstream religious "rules" ARE natural, and moreover, ethically correct and valuable.

I say this because the rules advanced by (at least) the world's 5 great religions are identical, in the fundamentals. And I'm quite sure that none of us in the region would disagree with the basic precepts that are common to all mainstream religion. Of course, I'm talking here about rules for right conduct and thought, not rules relating to religious practices or traditions. All major religions agree with the general fundamentals of justice, moderation, modesty, peace, tolerance, love, etc.

In this sense therefore, religious rules CAN be thought of as being natural. Put in another way, religious teachings are universal in relevance, reflecting what is common to all of humanity, rather than being the product of what was beneficial to a few powerful blokes, at a certain point in time.

Thus, in this aspect at least, I think MQ was spot on. No law is higher or more valid than that which every human knows instinctively to be correct. And to my mind, these universal laws are common to all major religions, regardless of cultural or historical difference.

[Anarchic Tribes]

Righto, good to see ya

It took me 5 minutes to read the first 3 lines of this book (perhaps an exaggeration, but I've had a beer, just go with it) and another 5 minutes to read the rest of the book. So I guess I didn't actually read it.
Reason for this:
The first few lines kind of said "blah blah democracy blah bullshit blah blah politics blah" and I sat here thinking 'politics politics', some good points made but essentially missing the big one. Now glad I didn't bother with the rest what with the true solutions and alarm bells stuff.
To comment on this discussion I would just say this:

I understand your points, but if MQ's intentions were to put forward an argument along your lines, I have to wonder why he didn't just make a case for natural law on its own merits, then, without bringing religion into it.

I agree with Michelaccio's point here on Righto's post.
And that is the basic problem with getting rid of religion.
But that's another issue entirely. We could start another anti-religion thread like the one CW got going. I miss that guy. It is quiet around here isn't it. Where is everyone? Not busy reading that book?