readers comment on P Isaacs & NGG’s


Richard Moore

Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998
To: •••@••.•••
From: •••@••.••• (John Lowry)
Subject: Re: P. Isaacs: useful action for difficult times

 >It is my suggestion that the "movement" immediately establish provisional
>local governments. These governments would have no "official" legitimacy but
>they would function with resource utilization and environmental concerns as
>their top priorities. NGGs - Non-Governmental Governments :-)
>They would be easy to establish all over the blessed place and they would work
>to build their legitmacy in the resource and environmental fields. They will
>quickly gain credibility as the economically captive "official" governments
>start to outright fail because of resource and environmental crises.
  >Paul Isaacs

I believe this has been going on for several years under the theme, "think
global, act local," which has prompted all sorts of populist involvment in
local institutions and governments.  The time may be right to realize what
this was preparation for....

John Lowry

Date:   Thu, 30 Jul 1998
From:   Eric Fawcett <•••@••.•••>
To:     •••@••.•••
Subject: Re: Paul Isaacs: useful action for difficult times

Paul has a great idea. Citizens for Local Democracy in Ontario would
provide a group that has debated vigorously the role of regional
government, in particular in the Greater Toronto Area, and thereby is
eminently qualified to form an NGG: Non-Governmental Government.

I suggest he tries the idea out on the c4ld listserver.

Date:   Fri, 31 Jul 1998
From:   Derek Tattersall <•••@••.•••>
To:     •••@••.•••
Subject: Re: rkm replies to P Isaac, re "useful action for difficult times"

On Thu, 30 Jul 1998, Richard K. Moore wrote:

 > ... what assumptions was the Scientific American article based on?  Does it
> assume that prime land in the Third World continue to be pre-empted by
> agribusiness operators to grow coffee and beef for export?  Does it assume
> that agricultural policy decisions continue to be made on the basis of
> maximum profit, in preference to feeding people?
> The statement...
>         "Global food requirements have gone far beyond the
>          production capabilities of any conceivable form of
>          organic agriculture"
> presented as a _scientific conclusion, implying that "all conceivable
> forms" of organic agriculture policy have been surveyed.  I suspect they
> limit themselves to the current regime of economic decision making, as
> defined by large agribusiness operators.  I'd like to see the figures based
 > on a broader range of scenarios, including changes in land-use policies.

Bingo, Richard! :-)

>From "Earth First"ers, right across the political spectrum, there's been
a lot of jawing about over-population, with arguments similar to the one
above.  But there's compelling evidence that the problem is one of
DISTRIBUTION.  Hey, agribusiness means making a profit off of food.
Capitalism thrives on scarcity.  That's why there are warehouses full of
food around the world; why crops are plowed back into the ground every
day, etc -- to affect prices.  Huge areas in the third world have feilds
growing cash-crops, worked by starving peasants, which would feed those
same peasants 5 times over if the profit of multinationals was not the
order of the day.  It's so obvious it's absurd.
The above article is just another malthusian apologetic.

The best way to bring about "Non Governmental Government", is getting
people to govern themselves at a local level;  getting
people at the local level to start thinking about where their food is
coming from, how it is grown, and what the alternatives are.  The biggest
blow to agribusiness or any non-sustainable business is to hit them where
they hurt the most - at the cash register.  And best way to circumvent a
police-state future is to get rid of the state by ending the legitimacy
of professional politicians.
Do we really need lawyers in fancy white houses to govern us?
We hear about the "dumbing down" of our schools, the media; and we hear
about the rampant consumerism of NA society; -- basically, we sound more
and more like needy, clutching little children, who as long as we have all
the latest toys, will stay in our little playpens and not annoy our