From WikiWorld

Jump to: navigation, search


PhillipBannigan proposed AnewGo, with the four following tenents as its foundation.

  1. ConsensusByDefault

'Note: As of 2003-05-21: ConsensusByDefault is moving into AnewGoHistory and is no longer in effect. 'Note: As of 2003-05-22: ConsensusByDefault is the enforcement mechanism of AnewGo. Therefore it cannot be revoked until such a time as a new enforcement mechanism replaces it. It can, however, be replaced with a more formalized method for ''proposing' new AnewGoActs. However, the format and functionality of this web site means that ConsensusByDefault still remains in effect in the communications, dialogue, and debate. 'Second, as no Consensus has been reached on what is to replace ConsensusByDefault, AnewGo cannot simply stop recognizing this as in effect until a new system that those participating in AnewGo can agree on. (Which is again, another exercise of ConsensusByDefault. ;-)

  1. NewLaw

'Note: As of 2003-05-20, NewLaw is no longer considered in effect. 1 For, 3 Against. '*Problem: The basis of AnewGo is in question. ie. the ability to create New Laws. Therefore as of 2003-05-20 AnewGoLaw cannot be passed as the agreement has ended. Concensus does not exist. '*Incorrect. AnewGo's purpose is not in question by the participating majority. I believe this is because those that have joined AnewGo and are participating in it, are treating it as an apolitical matter, a real exercise in creating a digital organization modeling a functional digital community. The individual wondering what the purpose of AnewGo is, should consult the his own stated purpose of AnewGo. That is the very state he crafted and stated here (moved to the top of this page to better point it out). '*Question. What gives us the right to craft laws? '*Ourselves. We are a community. As a community, we can decide what behavior will be acceptable, and what will not, of those that participate in our community. Those that do not abide by the bounds of behaviour we specify, will be kicked out of the community. This is the basis of community, and the true source of where Law draws its power. To be a member of our community, one must act as such. Otherwise, we will kick you out and make you an OutLaw. ---StarPilot '*True. But how did we become a community?

We showed up. We participate. Communities form where multiple people communicate. ---StarPilot
  1. ExtraLaw
  2. ImportLaw

'Note: As of 2003-05-20, ImportLaw is considered unresolved (making it no longer in effect). 2 For, 2 Against. Tie vote. Majority is required for an Act to be considered in force. No Majority at this time. Next vote changes that.

Anewgo was claimed to be a legitimate response to the IraqWar. PhillipBannigan felt that action of 3 nations blatantly breaking the spirit of International Law while claiming to uphold that Law.

  • Note: Such a position overlooks the fact that the Consensus of the world was that such action was legitimate, as no other nations felt strongly against said action to take action on behalf of Iraq. World ConsensusByDefault.
  • Response to Note. How is that idea of consensus measured? What were all the people doing on the street? The "consensus" seems to be under a lot of strain at the moment. The tables have turned, the group representing the "consensus" are now argueing for "more time" to produce edvidence to support their case.

'Consensus is measured by those that are active on the matter, and which side they are active for. Who was willing to actively oppose the matter? The only nation that was willing to contest the matter was Iraq. None of its allies were willing to aid it. None of its trading partners. The matter was not important enough to France, Jordon, Syria, Germany, Russia, Cuba... you name it. No nation other then Iraq was willing to bleed over the matter, defending Iraq's position or interest. France is willing to bleed over defending its interest in Africa (Ivory Coast and other places currently). Russia is willing to bleed (and make others bleed) over many different places, some inside and others outside of the former USSR borders. Cuba has helped liberate several nations in Africa. So it cannot be said Iraq's friends and allies are opposed to using force as a means to bring a conflict of opinion to a resolution. Not even the majority of the military viable aged citizens of Iraq were willing to defend Iraq. That is how we can establish that the ConsensusByDefault of the world was that the Coalition was right, or that they did not care enough one way or the other to get involved in the matter. It would have been trivial for all the non-democractic powers (such as Syria, Cuba, etc) to send troops and support Iraq. They did not. It would have been a minor matter for France to have sent in their own troops to defend their trading partner, or to make it known via a short conference with the leadership of the Coalition that they were willing to bleed over their friends, the Iraqi. Again, this did not. Why? Because they did not care about the issue or survival of the Iraqi. If you are not willing to bleed over a matter and the other man/side is, your words are meaningless on that matter. You yourself were not willing to bleed over the matter. You were not willing to fight for Suddam. Therefore, your consensus is that you agree with the Coalition, either explicitly or implicitly, as you are a party that allowed the majority to have their way in the matter. You, PhillipBannigan, are a citizen of Australia. You are a participating member of that community. That community was an active member of the Coaliton. Your support of your nation helped it kill Iraqi soldiers, helped it inadverdently kill Iraqi civilians, helped it participate in the invasian of Iraq, in the over-throw of the ruling Iraqi Baathist Regime, the looting, all of it. You support your nation, and your nation took an active hand in changing that area, in deciding who was worthy of living, and who wasn't, of deciding that their nation, their very way of existance, was no longer acceptable, and have eliminated that exact way of life, and that community. While the next formal community that forms there will share many points of view as the old one it replaces, some things will be different. 'On the matter of time: It's been shown time and again, they had biological and chemical WOMD. It has been known, and Iraq has admitted to it, since 1991. At this point in this matter, logic no longer applies, as very few that care about the matter are still open minded and objective. Regardless of what you believe, what was done, is done, and cannot be undone. And remember, WOMD was merely one of the most listed reasons for why there had to be a military contest over the region, and the right of the Iraqi regime and its formal community to exist. its treatment of people, the risk of harm to our allies and friends, the risk to world oil supplies, national interests, the direct and indirect support of state terrorism are all other reasons given over why that had to be done. What everyone with an opinion on the matter can agree to, national interests, was the primary motiviation (otherwise, it would have stayed a battle of words and verbal bile). What priorities were actually in that 'National Interests' is the true point of disagreement. Was it for oil? A base for the non-ME powers to keep and use and not depend on the being super nice to the powers of Saudi Arabia (for example)? We will most likely not find out the true reasoning behind our leaders thinking for decades.

'*That does not sound like an endorsement at all. Only an admission of it's total corruption, which will spell the political fate of those concerned. '*To point at the corruption of others is no justification for corruption.

''''''' How is that corruption? Acting in ones self interest is natural. It's part of being a feeling, reasoning self-aware being. The only way I see that it could be corruption is that our national leaders acted in the matter in a way that profits them individually, while causing harm to their constituents (their nation and their people). So how do you see it as corruption? Please explain this view/opinion of yours. ---StarPilot

'''''''* To act in self interest only, by definition excludes the interest of others. Decit is corruption. To exclude others from life is corruption. To not understand humanity is one, but to hold to historical structures, purely for self interest, is underdeveloped and obviously dangerous.

''''''''''''' So, you are extremely corrupt and deceitful, are you? That's just what you said. Oh, and so am I. And every other human being that is alive, will live, or has ever lived. That is just what you said, Phillip. Perhaps you need to go think about this some more. And not undertanding is corruption? :roll eyes: Man, get off your hobby horse and go live among the people for a decade, and then come back and preach to us what you have learned. ''''''''''''' Listen and learn: Self-Interest is how communities form. It is how cooperation among individuals is created, which leads directly to long-term cooperatives, which is also called COMMUNITIES. It was your ancestors acting in self interest that has lead directly to YOU, and your life. Acting in your own self interest is how people figure out that its best for all to let each other live (the golden rule of all societies), and they will let you live. To be kind to others, and they may be kind to you. It is how our societies regulate our own and others behavior. Without Self-Interest, there is no community. That means there would be no you and me, no modern world of humanity. Self-Interest is the tool to survival, for both the individual, and for the community. ''''''''''''' You need to learn that corruption is the counter to those entrusted by the community to act in the community's best interest, and thereby profit as the community. When your leaders act in their own self interest against the community they are a part of, that is corruption. ''''''''''''' Deceit is the purposeful lieing to others. That is something all successful politicians do. Being political means manipulating, lieing to, and deceiving others. All successful politicians are deceitful. Only those that rule by strength need not be deceitful. Those that rule by the consent of the ruled must be deceitful, at least from time to time. Only in small communities where everyone knows each other (and therefore can respect each other) do you find successful leaders who have the luxury of not needing to be deceitful. This is due to the fact that those they are working on the behalf of, know them and respect them, and therefore have no need to be 'handled', as their leaders have earned their trust through demonstrations of how they handle matters, publically and privately. ---StarPilot '''''''''''''* Not good enough. We are aiming up not down. This mechanism has got us here, and is not a trustworthy part of the solution. ''''''''''''''''''' Too bad. So sad. So, you are opposed to human nature, which is why politicians lie to their constituents? Or are you opposed to letting people decide how they want to live, and therefore stamping all over each other? What is it that you are against? You are against all the ways that have allowed your ancestors to be successful and build up a marvelous, wonderous, technological global society where more people are living better then all previous people that have ever lived? What is it that you do not think is good enough? It is obviously good enough for over 11 billion people... you know, the number of people alive today, plus all those who have come before us. ---StarPilot

Well, if you put it that way, then yes, I am opposed to human nature. Or rather, I think human nature is more malleable than that and that lying as much as we do is not totally intrinsic and incorrectible. And, yes, I am against the way that 11 billion people have lived. We can do better. 500 years ago most people hadn't been democratic, etc, and now some nations have done better. So, just because something is the way it's always been doesn't mean it is unchangable.
-- BayleShanks
So, only 'we' few know the correct way for people to live? Isn't that fascinating==== Who is the top tyrant then? You do realize that the vast majority of the world that has ever lived, and current is alive, believes there is nothing wrong with lieing or ripping you off so they can get ahead. That's the truth. How do you plan to change that? Give them all the power to decide for themselves, and they will just be stealing from each other. That is always the guaranteed killer of any democracy. The greed and tyranny of the masses. ---StarPilot ====
In that case, if 'we' don't decide it, and as you stated the vast majority doesn't WE, then who does? Who has the right? --KenSchry

AnewGo began on March 3, 2003. Look at OldAnewGoFrontPage.

In some places on this site, I see a "vote" signed by AnewGo. What does this mean? If there is a person using the handle AnewGo, then please could you switch to a different one to avoid confusion? -- BayleShanks

Thanks. Phillip, you have the right perhaps, but it's still mighty confusing. Would you consider just signing PhillipBannigan? Or choosing a different short handle? -- BayleShanks

It could certainly be confusing to those not in the know. However, as PhillipBannigan considers all of the AnewGo an Art Project of his, I am confident his continued use of the identity AnewGo here is important to his continued work on his art. ---StarPilot

It's cool. I have made the change ;) --- PhillipBannigan


Personal tools