Thursday, May 15, 2008

Recommended Reading 14 - The Village Law

Sarah Overstreet of the News-Leader commanded the ire of Governor Matt Blunt's chief of staff, Trish Vincent, today; but what the hooey?

(That's not to say Vincent doesn't make some valid points)

But (sorry, Stu) Sarah's also got a great column in today's paper.

Your village, your way is recommended reading 14.

5 comments:

tom said...

Personally I like the village law except it should be tied to a certain amount of acreage. being able to buy a piece of property that isn't government regulated in any manner where I would have just as much say as my neighbor would be ideal. They have something similar to this out in CA, my in-laws have some shares in it and it works quite well.
The community has set up their own government within the "village" and every measure is voted on, so far I haven't heard too many complaints and it seems to work quite well. I guess the government addicted seem to think if governments not involved then mass hysteria will erupt. Don't kid yourself many of our most polluted areas were done by government or at the behest of government for there contracts. People can and will do what is right by each other if given the opportunity. Sarah seems to believe without government involvement this property would just resort back to times before we knew of modern conveniences. The toilet didn't exist 100 years ago so the out house was much more preferable then dropping logs wherever one felt like it.

Jacke M. said...

Your opinions are always welcome here, Tom.

My sister-in-law's Mother spends the winters in a little retirement village in Florida quite like the one you describe.

Just as in everything there are two sides to every story and too often we're (all of us, some more than others) too quick to dismiss the other side before we find out what the true motives are for people's passionately held beliefs and inclinations.

As for your last line, my nephew calls it "dropping the kids off at the pool." ;) Of course that would require a stream, a creek, a river or a lake if you were talking about going back to the time before indoor plumbin' was added.

Some people seemed to take offense at Sarah's column. It reminds me of the people where I grew up in Arkansas. Some of them would get offended over the term hillbilly. I always thought those people needed to lighten up and get a sense of humor and I still do. Not that you were one of them... I just don't know when to stop typin,' as usual.

I hope people will keep spreading their different opinions around and that we can all develop an open enough mind to listen to all of them.

tom said...

One of the many ideas behind such a concept is self government and individual volunteerism. Each member if it is set up this way, through ownership has a voting share and has the concept of government to it's truest form.

If as a land share owner you decide not to cast your voting preference you must live with the results, however in our current system there is a level of government that tells everyone what they must do.
The concept of this takes it's roots from the earliest settlements in the states. The reason many people fear this is because people are worried that someone might get to do something which they feel my hinder their belief system. If that is the case then you don't need to live in an area billed as a self governance area. Too many people want to dictate how their neighbor lives and therefore it scares them to think people could live without government mandates being placed on them by some elected supreme authority.

Just look at Springfield and how most ordinances and regulations are designed to dictate to business owners and homeowners how they must keep up the property and what can be done with the property.

This might come from a few people who didn't want to blend in with the neighborhood, however I would bet most of it comes from one complaint or the other instead of approaching the neighbor to find out if the differences could be solved without the use of government.

I would really like to be able to see this village law become the norm instead of the frightened. It would truly show the masses that self government can be accomplished and would bring private cities into the mainstream.

Jacke M. said...

Good points, Tom. Well reasoned.

I'm a minimalist in more ways than one.

Larry and I were just talking on the way home from church tonight and I was thinking about the question that Councilwoman Cindy Rushefsky reiterated more than once during budget discussions:

"Is it a core city service?"

I was telling Larry, more isn't always better. I find myself in the position that most people who serve in a church find themselves, choosing where to draw a line, deciding when you are doing all you can do well.

Just as a church has a limited amount of people who are willing to serve, it appears government has a limited amount of people willing to serve in a volunteer capacity.

Anyway, what I was telling Larry, in the case of church adding more and more programs and services, that might not necessarily be the best, just as the city is going to look into the definition of a "core" city service, some churches might do well to look at "core" church programs (services) because if you end up with a bunch of people serving in different capacities simply because no one else will do it, I question how well the program will run, how much of a service it will actually provide?

I don't want to offer to do more than I feel "called" to do because if I'm only doing it because no one else will do it then I'll end up over-stretched and none of the programs in which I serve will get the attention they need, so, the church will end up with a bunch of mediocre programs run poorly, instead of, maybe, less programs run well. Less programs run well might actually offer more of a service to people than more programs run poorly.

More just isn't always better.

More laws, more restrictions, more regulations...are the people available to see that those laws, restrictions and regulations are enforced? The short answer is, arguably, no.

The city is cutting 15 police officers and 5 fire fighters through attrition. They continue to annex property while the city services intended to manage and provide services to those properties are cut and reduced or, at the least, do not keep pace with the additions to the city.

More is not always better.

tom said...

Do you think we have become so accustomed to government services that the thought of doing without them scares people ? I wasn't around when this nation had a self reliant population(I'm much too young), however as soon as the depression hit everyone(or most)saw government as a means to provide a safety net of sorts. Granted the primary means of distributing services was more accustomed to what government was good at, however had the churches been preparing for this type of disaster I see the result would be much different. Everyone should have at least a years worth of consumables just in case, but few are prepared in that manner.
Once that safety net became the norm then people found more reasons to enlarge the net to capture more people in the system. Governments main purpose is to expand so those elected in some capacity can show they are "helping" their constituents.
Government through manipulation has slowly become our parents and even people who think they are for small government find themselves defending the use of government for "their" pet project and will defend this position until their dying day. Government is rarely the solution, however in many instances it is the problem. Government was instituted to defend our nation and to create laws which serve the purpose of the 50 sovereign nations within her border. That was the purpose of the federal government.
The state government which is much more closely aligned to the people should have been left to handle those laws which needed to be passed within the borders of that state.

The village law simply creates a sovereign territory within the confines of a state boundary because it is owned by an individual or many individuals that want the process of self government to rule the property of which they OWN.

This is the problem with property tax as the state has decided it owns the property and leases said property back to the rightful owner.