Freedom Friends Tuath

[cathleeninnh]

I think as administrator you should have all kinds of leeway on this stuff. I hope we don't have a list of duties. Do what works and change when you need to. Discuss with anyone you want without revealing private info. Let it evolve. KISS.

Are you afraid of being infiltrated? We aren't demanding that members do business with members. Any fraud will be dealt with. This should be such a nonentity that it wouldn't matter if we just chucked everything into the trash. If we end up with oodles and oodles of disagreement, we won't be building trust and the relationship is meaningless. We will never pool assets like communes and expose ourselves.

Cathleen

[cathleeninnh]

It goes without speaking that a tattoo is required.

Cathleen

[Kat Kanning]

Then do you cut it off when someone is exiled from the group?

[cathleeninnh]

That's my role. It pays to be on the board. I get to decide the "form" of restitution.

Cathleen

[Kat Kanning]

 

[Lloyd Danforth]

It goes without speaking that a tattoo is required.

Cathleen

RFID chip

[Michael Fisher]

It is my belief that decisions of the Board must be unanimous, in keeping with the basic tenet of voluntary association. Also, it should be stated that Board decisions only affect the workings of the Board and Administrator. They do not affect in any way, the membership. Anything affecting the membership must be unanimously agreed to by the membership.

This may seem difficult to enact anything new, but that is the whole point. We must constantly strive to achieve unanimity, which will keep everything totally voluntary.

I agree ENTIRELY with these two changes.

[Michael Fisher]

Let's add a checkbox to the membership contract to show the member's consent for their membership status to be known, but that's the only information we should ever give out, IMO.

[ken]

Sounds like petty tyranny to have the decisions of two binding upon hundreds.

It is funny that you mention that, at the meeting we actually joked that we went so far outside to box that we achieved freedom through tyranny! Seriously though, my thoughts on this is that in our government today we have a constitution that is theoretically supposed to limit the government, however the government just ignores the constitution for the more part. To think that a piece of paper with ink on it can limit any thing is fundamentally flawed, so the idea of putting restrictions on the board of the tuath is in itself pointless.

Trying to place restrictions on a government with borders has its advantages in that government growth can be slowed, however over time the government will always push to achieve things that they are specifically denied by its founding document. This problem does can not happen within the structure of a tuath because they are voluntary and have no borders.

If we board members go crazy one day and proclaim that everyone must wear green on Tuesdays and if they refuse then they will be fined 5 silver per count, then everyone will just leave the tuath and start new and better (or worse) tuaths. This is the force that will drive the board to keep the tuath as free and attractive as possible.

I for one hope that our tuath gets so large and diverse that many groups splinter off of it to create new tuaths to better fit them and their ideal way of life. You can base a tuath off of any idea not just zap, heck you could even try to make a communist utopian tuath, which would of course fail but the point is that you could try it. My thoughts are that tuaths will evolve naturally and the best tuath design will become dominate and will almost certainly mirror freedom and liberty.

[Michael Fisher]

Board

The board, consisting of 3 members, collectively owns the tuath as well as all contracts, records, and property of the tuath. ?Two board members constitute a majority, and majority decisions are binding on the board and the tuath.

Sounds like petty tyranny to have the decisions of two binding upon hundreds. ?

LOL!!! ?

The tuath does nothing, so the board only has power over the tuath's structure as well as the administrator... who also does almost nothing.

As Alan said, we should add a section to the bylaws...

Also, it should be stated that Board decisions only affect the workings of the Board and Administrator. They do not affect in any way, the membership. Anything affecting the membership must be unanimously agreed to by the membership.

The board members are also members that will have to agree to the membership contract and abide by ZAP, so they obviously have no coercive power over the membership. ?The board cannot be limited because its three members collectively OWN the tuath as an organization.

It will be helpful, however, for the board to explain in the bylaws that it will generally not make decisions that affect the membership unless the tuath needs to add or remove chapters to grow.

When we were talking about what the tuath would be doing the other day, we decided it only needed a volunteer administrator to handle the member contracts and arbitration records. ?Then we decided to add the board just incase an administrator needs to be added or removed.

I think all board decisions should be unanimous except those which remove a board member, and an extremely good reason must be given to the membership, or I'll leave and start a new tuath. ?

KB. ?One can make an argument that using economic noncooperation is coercion. ? But I would not call it agression and therfore not A violation of ZAP, as I understand it from these posts (this is my first exposure to ZAP as contructed here, though I grew up in a church that preached nonagression and pacifism.) No violence, just noncooperation.

You cannot argue that the tuath's arbitration process is coercion in any way because all aspects of it are voluntary. ?Even paying restitution is voluntary, but if you don't, your reputation will be hurt.

If bad judgements are handed down for some reason, we can change the tuath or start a new one very easily. ?There are almost no barriers to entry for a tuath other than getting people to sign up.

[Michael Fisher]

Sounds like petty tyranny to have the decisions of two binding upon hundreds.

It is funny that you mention that, at the meeting we actually joked that we went so far outside to box that we achieved freedom through tyranny! Seriously though, my thoughts on this is that in our government today we have a constitution that is theoretically supposed to limit the government, however the government just ignores the constitution for the more part. To think that a piece of paper with ink on it can limit any thing is fundamentally flawed, so the idea of putting restrictions on the board of the tuath is in itself pointless.

Trying to place restrictions on a government with borders has its advantages in that government growth can be slowed, however over time the government will always push to achieve things that they are specifically denied by its founding document. This problem does can not happen within the structure of a tuath because they are voluntary and have no borders.

If we board members go crazy one day and proclaim that everyone must wear green on Tuesdays and if they refuse then they will be fined 5 silver per count, then everyone will just leave the tuath and start new and better (or worse) tuaths. This is the force that will drive the board to keep the tuath as free and attractive as possible.

I for one hope that our tuath gets so large and diverse that many groups splinter off of it to create new tuaths to better fit them and their ideal way of life. You can base a tuath off of any idea not just zap, heck you could even try to make a communist utopian tuath, which would of course fail but the point is that you could try it. My thoughts are that tuaths will evolve naturally and the best tuath design will become dominate and will almost certainly mirror freedom and liberty.

Exactly.  I agree with every word of this.

[Lex]

The non-geographic aspect of a tuath makes it very easy for someone in California to join our tuath, gain our trust, screw one of us over and get banished, then this person can move on to the next tuath. Banishing this person will have little affect on them if most of us are in NH and they are in California?

I think it works locally but when you have people on different sides of the continent joining it makes banishment a much less effective punishment.

[Michael Fisher]

The non-geographic aspect of a tuath makes it very easy for someone in California to join our tuath, gain our trust, screw one of us over and get banished, then this person can move on to the next tuath. Banishing this person will have little affect on them if most of us are in NH and they are in California?

I think it works locally but when you have people on different sides of the continent joining it makes banishment a much less effective punishment.

Good point. 

[Lex]

Let's add a checkbox to the membership contract to show the member's consent for their membership status to be known, but that's the only information we should ever give out, IMO.

How would people resolve conflicts without revealing which person is in which tuath?

What if someone is applying for a job that discriminates people based on the tuath they belong and someone lies about the tuath they are in?

I think the tuath administrators have an obligation to release this information on request to preserve the integrity of the tuath and its members. A third party may require a release document signed by the tuath member but there has got to be some kind of authentication protocol for there to be any benefit to being in a tuath.

[Michael Fisher]

Very good points.  I only said "absolutely confidential" because I'm concerned about contact information being handled loosely.

Perhaps the contact information is all we need to keep confidential.

Or we could have the checkbox be a request for confidentiality.  Then they'd need to sign a release each time they want their membership proven.

Also, the arbitrator selection process will uncover members who choose to be arbitrators.