<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2657.73">
<TITLE>RE: Open Source Values</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Jason Clinton wrote:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> The text we used is called _Power_and_Choice_ by W. Phillips</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Shively and can be had for under $20 off the internet.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Thank you. I'll check it out and perhaps add it to my wish list.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> "Any act of politics may be viewed from either of two</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> perspectives, either as a cooperative search for an answer</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> to common problems or as an act by which some members of a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> group impose their will on other members of the group. It </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> is important to remember that generally both viewpoints are</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> valid."</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>A good point, and the point I was trying to make. I think of OSS as the common search without the coercion.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Jason Clinton wrote:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Based on all the benefits that organized forms of government</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> have brought to the human race over the past 30,000 years,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> I would have to conclude that coercion or at least the threat</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> of coercion has had a net-positive effect.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>But you just said...</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Several centuries ago, most people were almost unaware of the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> state in which they lived; they noticed it only if the king's</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> soldiers marched through their fields. At that time, many</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> large geographic areas could hardly be said to have been</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> organized as states at all. </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>So you can hardly credit the nation state for 30,000 years of progress, when it only arrived on the scene in the last 300.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>As technology provided for longer healthier lives and provide an impetus to create large cities with significant population densities... government became more significant. But government does not imply that all such city states were centralized and coercive. Colonial America is a nice example. Here's a book on my reading wish list which you might want to take a look at:</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Conceived in Liberty</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2><A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0945466269/" TARGET="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0945466269/</A></FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>It is a history of colonial American from the 1600-1800's which shows that our societies political heritage has been quite the opposite of the coercive centralized political state.</FONT></P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> Quite frankly, your comments make me conclude you're either</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> an extremist libertarian or an anarchist -- neither of which</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> are healthy political persuasions.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>People called Jefferson an anarchist. I don't think I'm either. You have to put it all in context. There are ideals and practicalities. I think government should be as decentralized as is feasible. I just happen to think we're a long way from what's feasible.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>--</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Garrett Goebel</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>IS Development Specialist</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>ScriptPro Direct: 913.403.5261</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>5828 Reeds Road Main: 913.384.1008</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Mission, KS 66202 Fax: 913.384.2180</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>www.scriptpro.com garrett at scriptpro dot com</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>