Andy is of course right when he writes of ‘rights’; they quite simply do not exist. However the notion of obligations, first to one’s self, and then to one’s social and ecological environment, is a very real thing. Bookchin (1921-2006) pointed us in the right direction with Social Ecology, and later developed it to fit within the terms of political discourse by calling it Libertarian Municipalism. Holmgren and Mollison picked up the gauntlet in the late seventies with the birth of Permaculture, and then Holmgren alone adapted it to its present meaning: sustainable-culture (see, Permaculture: Principles and Pathways Beyond Sustainability). As the late Murray Bookchin once said (in an interview at a conference on the subject of community economic development): “What we find today is a totally immoral economy and society which has managed to unearth the secrets of matter and the secrets of life at the most fundamental level. This is a society that, in no sense, is capable of utilizing this knowledge in any way that will produce a social good. Obviously there are leavings from a banquet that fall from the table but my knowledge and my whole experience with capitalism and with hierarchical society generally is that almost every advance is as best a promise and at worst utterly devastating for the world” (Radicalising Democracy, 1985). Who needs ‘rights’, when what we should really be fighting for are obligations?

Somebody made a start.

http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/1494/1/
Ecuador constitution could give rights to nature.

Also I remember reading in a book about how dogs and pigs could sue people in court in england, a few centuries back. Not sure how they could afford counsel though. Must have represented themselves!

And the Great Ape Project has some interesting ideas too:
http://www.greatapeproject.org/

But for myself, I think it is a lot easier to forget about rights, because if you have them, you have to define them, whereas if we don’t, then others don’t have the right to do bad shit to each other. Of course there is still going to be argument, but at least one layer of waffle has been removed.

I know in a world without rights, I should have no ‘right’ to stop you doing something I disagree with, but really it would be a more accurate world-view, where I would need to enlist the support of my neighbours to help or allow me to stop you, based on their perception of your action as a potential threat to them too. That’s the basis of ‘rights’ we have anyway. They are only any use when you can enforce them, and you can only do that if you have the support of others or someone with power over others.

Look how easily people will give them up when the elite fills their heads with scary stories about ‘terrorists’ and the more realistic (if somewhat twisted) environmental stuff.

Good discussion.

“And to answer your first question about cottage industries eventually morphing into corporate feudalists: I would say that in virtually every case of a company becoming abusive and unjust, if you dig a bit you will find the political intervention or special favor that allowed it to happen. If people are allowed to voluntarily find less abusive ways of organizing themselves, then they generally will.”

I don’t think I agree, unfortunately. From ancient feudal systems to modern business, we see at least some members of human kind tending to over reach and desire ‘more’ – more power, more money, more control. The following statement you made digs into this, I think:

“Are we voluntarily returning to simplicity, or are we going to have “policies” to force us into simplicity? We can’t have both.”

No, we can’t have both. It is, indeed, either, or. If we had a situation where everyone, or at the least, most people, were conscious of where we are in history and of what needs to be done to address it, then there’d be a broad scale movement in the right direction – and that movement would by nature, without activism and without revolution, undermine and dismantle the power structures that are enforcing the inappropriate and ridiculous legislation we see today that effectively promotes unsustainability, and that often makes sustainability illegal.

But, again, the question is, how do you get the majority of the world’s people to move in this direction, of their own accord? The only way I see this happening is a wide-ranging effort at holistic education that shows, clearly, all the converging problems we face whilst simultaneously showing the solutions that address them all. This requires getting people’s attention away from their televisions, and away from the media/advertising programming that has most of us transfixed.

Is such a situation realistic? It could happen, but will it?

If we think it won’t happen, which is, to be honest, quite possible, and even likely, then it seems the only way to move in the right direction is through policy changes – economic, political, etc., that incentivise and/or enforce correct behaviour. This is unfortunate, and something I wish wouldn’t have to happen, but I do think realistic given the overwhelming evidence of our historical human behaviours.

Take DDT for example. In the U.S. DDT was banned many years ago. That was a politically enforced action that took DDT out of the agricultural systems in the U.S. If that policy change had not occurred, how many people would still be using DDT? The only way to ensure it was not used would be to educate absolutely everyone on the dangers of DDT, so that they voluntarily decide not to manufacture or use it. How many chemical companies would, of their own volition, however, close up shop and allow themselves to go out of business, because they’ve become mindful of the end result of their production? As we see constantly, most industries in such a situation tend to downplay any dangers, or smokescreen the whole issue, and endeavour to justify their work in some way, and continue to make money out of the situation in whatever way they can. We see it with GMOs, climate change, and pretty much every other destructive but profitable activity we conjure up.

So, if they don’t voluntarily refrain from the activities they’ve learned are harmful to people and place, then how do you get them to stop? Do you believe the policy decision that forced chemical companies to stop DDT production should not have been enacted? If the policy reflects the wish of the majority, then I think such a policy should be implemented. In this I do see a place for regulation – as although we might dream of a world where everyone voluntarily does the right thing, such a world, in reality, just does not exist. In this I would venture to say I think your ideal of a totally free capitalism is unrealistic.

“Politics is the very worst method of organizing society because it brings to the top the worst sociopaths, liars, and thieves we have.”

I don’t disagree. That’s where I think the concept of participatory democracy comes into play. At the moment our political systems are such that we have a chance, once every four years in most countries, to vote in ‘who we want’. But, the reality is that: a) most of the time we don’t want any of them, but choose the lesser of two or three or four evils, and b) candidates can make all kinds of promises, but then have no legal obligation to fulfill them. The system is based on millions of people getting on with their lives, with no political involvement, leaving all political aspects to the politicians. It can’t, and doesn’t work.

Imagine instead, a lucid, educated populace organising themselves into groups that are like the cells of a body, or a plant. Imagine, say, the ten houses in your street forming a committee to discuss the needs and development of your street. From the people living in those ten houses you would all elect the person who you believe would best represent you all – someone you all respect for their ethics, practical wisdom and egalitarian attitude.

If other groups of houses in your local community did likewise, then your suburb (if urban) or locality (if rural) would then have localized representatives all representing the needs and wants of these sub-communities.

Now, taking this further: What if, say, ten of these representatives (each representing ten households) were to get together and elect from amongst themselves the best person to represent THEM, then you’d have one representative for a group of one hundred, all answering to the representatives of the groups of ten.

You can see where I’m going…. You then get ten of the representatives of one hundred together, and they elect a representative from amongst themselves, so you then have one representative for 1,000 households…. And so on, and so on.

The end result is a bottom up democracy where everyone is represented by people deserving of respect. If any of these representatives dishonours him/herself or fails to convey and work for the wishes of the people, then they’re simply replaced. Such a situation cultivates social advancement of the best kind – people striving to earn a reputation for being just. And, just as importantly, it creates a stable system. Representatives of cells might get swapped out from time to time, due to retirement, or perhaps someone losing credibility, but as a whole, the system remains largely intact forever – rather than the present situation where we have a complete change of government, and a potential complete change of direction, every four years, which discourages long term planning. (In this sense, monarchies are better than present centralised governments, as at least, if you’re lucky enough to get a ‘good’ King/Queen, they’re thinking over their lifetime.)

And, such representatives would be seen as servants of those they’re representing, not ‘leaders’ or ‘rulers’ of them.
Then, when policy decisions are made at the highest levels, they happen because from the ground up they’re reflecting the wishes of the people, or most of them. Such a scenario, combined with the right kind of education – practical and holistic – could transform society in very positive ways.

At the moment we have the situation where most people sit in their swivel chairs, complaining about their governments and their decisions, but that’s pretty much the full extent of their ‘political involvement’. People vote Democrat, then when things turn to custard they email each other to vote Republican next time. Back and forth we go…. There’s no continuity of action, no wise long term planning and implementation. People are largely powerless to do much more, as they don’t really have any decent kind of representation, and their only recourse, if they are really determined to make change, is to take to the streets en masse and hope that their protest will be met with objective consideration, and not taser and bean bag guns, or real guns.

In regards to your thoughts on private property rights protecting the environment. I would like to ask how you would plan to divide the world up? How can you fairly distribute land and resources?

And, again, what’s to stop me from abusing my own property – or eradicating the species on it? (In the scenario I decribe above, if I was destroying my own land, then the other nine households would pass their concerns on to their representative, and on up it would go, until policy changes would be enacted that represent the will of the majority, and which would legislate that I must change my behaviour or suffer some kind of penalties.)

And, must there not be land and water that is part of the commons? Do we divide up stretches of river? Can I canoe past your property, or will I be shot at?

What about water – do we privatise that?

http://permaculture.org.au/2009/12/14/who-owns-water/

Who owns it? Don’t we all?

Carbon Trading schemes are an attempt to privatise the atmosphere:

http://permaculture.org.au/2009/12/13/carbon-trading/

These are full of injustices.

And finally, how do we give rights to the microorganisms? How do we give rights to the bugs, beavers, bear and buffalo?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-521537373096312859

Having experienced the destructiveness of western culture, the Kogi went into isolation high up in the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta. Twenty years ago, they took the risk to send a message to us, for they are keen observers of nature, and noticed something they considered a reason for great concern: their glaciers were melting, and they could see how the ecosystem around them started to fall apart. From this, they concluded that similar processes must be occurring all over the world. The warning they sent – in this movie – is well worth watching.

thanks for that text, it makes an interesting read. Two comments:

(a) On “elevating savages”: The evidence that western culture is destructive way beyond any other that ever occurred on this planet so far is overwhelming. Seen in this light, I never understood what gives western culture people the right to claim that “those weren’t saints either” (a claim that never was made in that way to start with). Of course they weren’t – but they *still* do far better in terms of ecosystem management than we do. (Actually, my personal theory is that there is a correlation between the appropriateness of a culture’s ideas about the environment and the time span for how long that culture has been in contact with the soil that sustains it.)

(b) Permaculture does draw from and incorporate tribal wisdom. What are the implications for the “economic theory” of permaculture? I would say there are two core principles. (I) The “User Pays” principle. In nature, the majority of species turns out to have a positive long term effect on fertility – yet they all “use resources”. How does this work? It works, because every individual returns something which in terms of fertility is more valuable than what it took. Note that the “natural” concept of “ownership” is: egalitarian access to resources is provided to all who adhere to the “user pays principle”. (II) Trusteeship. Resources (“Capital”) held is being held in trust and comes with an obligation to use it wisely in a way that heals the earth.

This, then, is an economic model that on the one hand can straightforwardly link to tribal concepts of humans in the natural context, without conflict, and also can be cast into a definitive shape with respect to western culture’s legal system. The key concept is that capital always comes with an obligation to use it wisely.

It does seem that we spend a lot of time and publications on solving all the problems that involve everyone following some system or other. It doesn’t seem to occur to us very often that this planet has a system, which we have to follow, or we die. Permaculture is our baby steps at doing that. Maybe one day we’ll get to the level of those Tairona! And before anyone accuses me of elevating savages, have a look at what some others have said:

—————–

Extracted from The Haudenosaunee Message to the Western World

The Haudenosaunee, or the Six Nations Iriquois Confederacy, has existed on this land [now Mid-Atlantic states of US] since the beginning of human memory. Our culture is among the most ancient continuously existing cultures in the world.

Our essential message to the world is a basic call to consciousness. The destruction of the Native cultures and people is the same process which has destroyed and is destroying life on this planet. The technologies and social systems (my emphasis) which have destroyed the animal and the plant life are also destroying the Native people. And the process is Western civilization…

The processes of colonialism and imperialism which have affected the Haudenosaunee are but a microcosm of the processes affecting the world. The system of reservations employed against our people is a microcosm of the system of exploitation used against the whole world. Since the time of Marco Polo, the West has been refining a process that has mystified the peoples of the Earth.

The majority of the world does not find its roots in Western culture or traditions. The majority of the world finds its roots in the Natural World, and it is the Natural World, and the traditions of the Natural World, which must prevail if we are to develop truly free and egalitarian societies.

It is necessary, at this time, that we begin a process of critical analysis of the West’s historical processes, to seek out the actual nature of the roots of the exploitative and oppressive conditions which are forced upon humanity. At the same time, as we gain understanding of those processes, we must reinterpret that history to the people of the world.

It is the people of the West, ultimately, who are the most oppressed and exploited. They are burdened by the weight of centuries of racism, sexism, and ignorance which has rendered their people insensitive to the true nature of their lives.

We must all consciously and continuously challenge every model, every program, and every process that the West tries to force upon us. Paulo Friere wrote in his book, the Pedagogy of the Oppressed, that it is the nature of the oppressed to imitate the oppressor, and by such actions try to gain relief from the oppressive condition. We must learn to resist that response to oppression.

The people who are living on this planet need to break with the narrow concept of human liberation, and begin to see liberation as something which needs to be extended to the whole of the Natural World. What is needed is the liberation of all the things that support Life – the air, the waters, the trees.

We feel that the Native peoples of the Western hemisphere can continue to contribute to the survival potential of the human species. The majority of our peoples still live in accordance with the traditions which find their roots in the Earth. But the Native peoples have need of a forum in which our voice can be heard. And we need alliances with the other peoples of the world to assist in our struggle to regain and maintain our ancestral lands and to protect the Way of Life we follow.

The traditional Native peoples hold the key to the reversal of the processes in Western Civilization, which threaten unimaginable future suffering and destruction.

——————

And yet people like these, instead of being respected and listened to, are relegated to a sub-clause (usually a bracketed one) in the treaties and global policy documents our wise leaders sign on our behalf. They are not really thought to be relevant in all the really clever stuff, the serious stuff that should be left to ‘respectable’ people. More often they are victims of programs dreamed up by those people.

Even in the “Green Movement” they are little more than mascots, to be paraded out in support of our experts in conferences, or to play some drums at our parties. Even then we don’t listen to their messages, and come up with more of the same instead.

We continue to look to our own culture for solutions. We can’t come to terms with the fact that it is not the amazing pinnacle of creation we thought it was, and doesn’t have any solutions. We think we can bring our baggage with us–even need to. There’s hope for us in permaculture because that tells us to look at ecosystems and mimic them, so it should be a small intellectual step to see which people would make the best advisers on the human part of such systems. That seems to be too much for us to take though. We’re used to bossing everyone else around.

Sorry, Craig, it’s a really interesting article and I hope this is still as on-topic as I think it is. Any kind of capitalism, is not very permacultural, even though some of its advocates tried really hard via Darwin and others to make it look like it was mimicking natural systems, in order to justify the seriously nasty consequences.

And Anarchy, by its very nature, couldn’t really have a prefix or suffix added, not and make sense as well.

The Tairona – to name one example – did not have a concept of private land ownership before Columbus. While there is strong evidence that they did make major land management mistakes some millenia ago, the concepts for working with nature they evolved over many centuries seem far superior in comparison to anything our western culture ever developed.

So, should the last living Tairona – the Kogi – adopt a system for working with Nature that is shaped by libertarian ideas, even where this conflicts their traditional wisdom, “in order to get their pollution problems under control”?

Within any culture that rejects full private property rights there will be pollution, as we have now. A libertarian (full property rights, full liability) culture will not be able to dump pollution on anyone anywhere without their consent. Whether the polluted area is owned by an individual or some form of communal group, the act is still aggression.

that is not the answer to the question I posed.

Will every culture have to adopt the concept of everything being private property?

I hope you’re still checking this thread at this late date…

I read the link about the Tytler cycle and found it very worthwhile. I’ve encountered the baseic idea before but not by that name. I agree very much that societies are on some sort of loop like this.

Trying to define exactly where you and I agree and disagree is interesting because we can look at this same graphic and I will say “look! Liberty leads to abundance!” and you seem to say “Sure I agree, but look! Complacency leads to dependence!”

And I agree that ethical, philosophical, ideological change must happen on the individual level for any success at change to be permanent (or to happen at all.)

Here is the question I have for you: From that Climate Ark quote “We must trust in our ability to define and implement sufficient policies to pull back from the brink of destruction; starting with rigorous policies to reduce human population, end use of coal and other fossil fuels, preserve and restore ancient terrestrial ecosystems, and return to the land for a life of rich voluntary simplicity.”

I see a contradiction. Are we voluntarily returning to simplicity, or are we going to have “policies” to force us into simplicity? We can’t have both. I am 100% in favor of voluntary simplicity, more self-sufficency, decentralisation of ‘power’, and earth-care. I am 100% opposed to these things being forced on us. First because it’s morally wrong, and second because it just won’t work. How can we as a people be too stupid to stop fouling our own nest [you can read that as 'AGW' and I can read that as 'soil degredation.' ], but smart enough to democratically elect rulers who will force us to make the “proper” decisions?

Politics is the very worst method of organizing society because it brings to the top the worst sociopaths, liars, and thieves we have. People are far more likely to become monsters if they have a badge and a uniform. Laissez faire capitalism is not perfect, but it does provide the flexibility and liberty for people to pursue and advocate for what they think is right. It gives us the best chance for people to get “wisdom attached to their cleverness, and educated ethics behind all their decisions.” For concrete examples of a man trying to do the right thing and being stymied by government I would suggest Joel Salatin’s “Everything I Want to Do is Illegal” book, or the original short essay: http://www.mindfully.org/Farm/2003/Everything-Is-Illegal1esp03.htm

And to answer your first question about cottage industries eventually morphing into corporate feudalists: I would say that in virtually every case of a company becoming abusive and unjust, if you dig a bit you will find the political intervention or special favor that allowed it to happen. If people are allowed to voluntarily find less abusive ways of organizing themselves, then they generally will.

Thomas: Yes, all property should be private.