[humanmarkup-comment] RE: conflict transition

[paul <beadmaster@ontologystream.com>]

Barbara,

In response to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/interculturalinsights/message/3837


The battle against certain parts of globalization is waged by many groups
who do not know that they have allies.  Pure capitalism and globalization
have made ultimately an indefensible error in the reduction of social value
to money.  The fact is that reductionism of this type is against nature and
as social systems evolve then nature will prevail and the pure capitalism
will be set aside.  We all know this to be the future.  The proof that
reductionism is an error is found in all experimental sciences, including
physics.

Clearly the status of the families who own land now, and who would lose this
ownership without compensation is critical.

No amount of financial compensation is appropriate since the value is
cultural and a question of heritage.

Thus the culture itself has to step in to own the land in all cases where

***

a large local hotel owner asked the city to condemn this
leasehold land to transfer it to 'public use' - as is done when a public
asset is being created such as a highway that will serve the 'public good'

***

This means the State of Hawaii's must act on behalf of the state's interest.

Do you know one of your two Senators?

The issue might also be communicated to other US Senators as a means to
inform your two Senators of the global issue of the change of status and the
destruction of native culture.

In fact, the past rulings by city government over the "ownership" of land;
might be reversed by appealing to the Senate, and ultimately to the US
Supreme Court.  What right does the city have to take ownership away from
traditional families and to thus change the existing cultural practices
forever?  The city unit may have acted as if they have a right that in fact
they do not have.  This may occur in many cities, but the practice may be
reversed.

The issue is closely related to the notion of ownership and the destruction
of the right of equal vote by the use of money as free speech.  So the
battle front is large and the outcomes uncertain.

If the hotel lease owner knows that the city's decision to condemn may be
set aside at a later date, with damages; then the practice of condemning the
ownership by traditional families may be blocked - simply out of the
awareness of an increased and unacceptable financial risk.

In fact, the proper approach to the bankers (where the problem has
originated) might scare them into thinking about what they have already done
and how what they have done might be set aside by courts based on principles
that are being developed in common from "our side".