Al Klein wrote:
> On 24 Dec 2006 03:13:12 -0800, usenet_trash@yahoo.de wrote:
> >That is really bad. If municipalities and counties would have more
> >autonomy, then the fundies would assemble in those areas with fundy
> >majority without disturbing all the others. There they can have their
> >little theocracies. Same with followers of other ideas who could
> >experiment only in their own county without forcing their view on others.
>
> That works well for non-Fundamentalist sects. The basis of
> Fundamentalism is that the Fundamentalists have to force everyone to
> live according to their (the Fundamentalists') beliefs, so whether
> they confine themselves to a single house or the whole world, they'll
> still try to force their beliefs on everyone else.
They can only force their beliefs in those areas where they have the
majority. If the autonomous political areas are small, then each will
get a different character and will attract people who like this or that
flavour. This is a self-energizing effect. A liberal county will become
more liberal, a conservative one will become more conservative, a
libertarian county will become more libertarian, etc. That way the
endless debates would stop because everybody gets the preferred
flavour.
> Just look at how
> they're trying to force tribalists (the Iraqis) to live according to
> the beliefs of the Christian Fundamentalists. That's half a world
> away. They didn't live in Iraq - they just forced their way in. They
> do the same thing with any "pocket" of non-Fundamentalism. Just as
> nature abhors a vacuum, Fundamentalism abhors religious tolerance,
> unless it's tolerance for Fundamentalism - which is their definition
> of "tolerance".
If peaceful coexistence and noninterference is commonly accepted, then
it is possible. For that purpose the autonomous political entities have
to be as small as counties to get more choices. The central govt should
transfer all power to the smaller entities and act solely as
representative for foreign representatives.
|