[Keith]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

P.S. *chuckles* I didn't read Keith's post until after I wrote this. I'll leave it, though.

Great minds... (and mine ).

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Certainly, a win/win solution is surely desired, and I am sure that conscious people (your definition is a poor one, but I'll instead go by Steve's description ) would seek that in any case. It is thus the extreme scenarios I wish to contend, which would result in a "no deal", as you call it, you would have disagreements which an adjucator incapable of handing down a fiat judgement could not do anything about.

Governments sometimes don't achieve a win-win either. In fact, generally they don't even aim for a win-win. They generally resolve things decisively - especially when that's not the best option.

Any approach will fail sometimes. I believe mediation (as described) would succeed in achieving more successful outcomes for more people - and leaving people happier about it - than arbitration (which is almost guaranteed to leave one of the two parties unhappy).

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Furthermore, your solution to the City A versus City B problem is still a direct or representative democracy, not an anarchy, which is, like many atypical constructs of theory, decidedly elusive.

In what way is it a democracy? The individuals involved aren't representing anyone - they're just seeing a problem that needs to be solved and getting together to solve it.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

As you say, perfection is not possible. Neither is a government a perfect solution; but it is a solution. At least the government could be resented as a faceless entity.

Though Government may be one possible solution to some issues, I would suggest that it is a far greater problem to a greater number of issues. (I don't really want to drill down too deeply into this, but the Government acting from self-interest against the wishes of the people is kind of a biggie).

I'm reminded of Steve's How to get from a 7 to a 10. Government is the 7, and we have to drop back and approach the issue in a new way to reach a 10. And like in Steve's article, I suspect we'll then realise that the "7" was really a "3".

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I should note that I do agree with you, Keith, all the way up to the point where you say government is thus abolished. Which is why that's the only thing I'm disagreeing with you about.

Personally, I expect that a Conscious society will eliminate the need for government as we know it. We can split hairs over specific possibilities and whether they genuinely constitute an Anarchy. But really, the important bit (to me at least) is that a society consisting predominantly of Conscious people should fall into an "Adult-to-Adult" model of interaction rather than a "Parent-to-Child" one. I can speculate about what form it takes, but the far more important thing is that it happens.