The Story So far: Center Stage Topic ArchiveWould you risk violence for your own basic human right?Interesting question. Yes in many scenarios I could imagine.I am far more open to using violence in defending other peoples human rights than my own. But in the right situations violence is merely one tool at our disposal. No different than a hammer or lever or chainsaw.Most violence is just not that great a tool for the fine craftsmanship our world needs to become what we want- although sometimes, like a dash of paprika, it is what a moment calls for.A far better tool than violence is merely to use facilitation of perfect egalitarianism. If you trust giving all people a right to speak will lead to a good outcome, then egalitarianism is a rock solid tactic.The greatest powers in the universe will always be those beings who facilitate the hive of all conscious beings while making a reasonable effort to treat all conscious beings as equal in value- in so far as the conversation participation rights go.This leads to a fundamental weak spot in egalitarianism: The problem that lots of people want to talk a lot- while lots of people do not want to listen to everyone randomly speak. This is a challenge, but not unsolvable.The solution to the egalitarian filibuster tactic is the magic of open space technology. No one is forced to stay in any one conversation, ever. You may leave any time you want. There will be a handful of alternative options available at any one moment
This leads to a fundamental weak spot in egalitarianism: The problem that lots of people want to talk a lot- while lots of people do not want to listen to everyone randomly speak. This is a challenge, but not unsolvable. (hivelink)