Decisions By Consensus

Consensus Decision-Making

(From ACT UP : Civil Disobedience Training Manual)

What is consensus? 

Consensus is a process for group decision-making. It is a method by which an entire group of people can come to an agreement. The input and ideas of all participants are gathered and synthesized to arrive at a final decision acceptable to all. Through consensus, we are not only working to achieve better solutions, but also to promote the growth of community and trust.

Consensus vs. voting 

Voting is a means by which we choose one alternative from several. Consensus, on the other hand, is a process of synthesizing many diverse elements together. Voting is a win or lose model, in which people are more often concerned with the numbers it takes to “win” than with the issue itself. Voting does not take into account individual feelings or needs. In essence, it is a quantitative, rather than qualitative, method of decision-making. With consensus people can and should work through differences and reach a mutually satisfactory position. It is possible for one person’s insights or strongly held beliefs to sway the whole group. No ideas are lost, each member’s input is valued as part of the solution. A group committed to consensus may utilize other forms of decision-making (individual, compromise, majority rule) when appropriate; however, a group that has adopted a consensus model will use that process for any item that brings up a lot of emotions, is something that concerns people’s ethics, politics, morals or other areas where there is much investment.

What does consensus mean? Consensus does not mean that everyone thinks that the decision made is necessarily the best one possible, or even that they are sure it will work. What it does mean is that in coming to that decision, no one felt that her/his position on the matter was misunderstood or that it wasn’t given a proper hearing. Hopefully, everyone will think it is the best decision; this often happens because, when it works, collective intelligence does come up with better solutions than could individuals. Consensus takes more time and member skills, but uses lots of resources before a decision is made, creates commitment to the decision and often facilitates creative decision. It gives everyone some experience with new processes of interaction and conflict resolution, which is basic but important skillbuilding. For consensus to be a positive experience, it is best if the group has (1) common values, (2) some skill in group process and conflict resolution, or a commitment to let these be facilitated, (3) commitment and responsibility to the group by its members and (4) sufficient time for everyone to participate in the process. Forming the consensus proposals During discussion a proposal for resolution is put forward. It is amended and modified through more discussion, or withdrawn if it seems to be a dead end. During this discussion period it is important to articulate differences clearly. It is the responsibility of those who are having trouble with a proposal to put forth alternative suggestions. The fundamental right of consensus is for all people to be able to express themselves in their own words and of their own will. The fundamental responsibility of consensus is to assure others of their right to speak and be heard. Coercion and tradeoffs are replaced with creative alternatives, and compromise with synthesis.

When a proposal seems to be well understood by everyone, and there are no new changes asked for, the facilitator(s) can ask if there are any objections or reservations to it. If there are no objections, there can be a call for consensus. If there are still no objections, then after a moment of silence you have your decision. Once consensus does appear to have been reached, it really helps to have someone repeat the decision to the group so everyone is clear on what has been decided. Difficulties in reaching consensus If a decision has been reached, or is on the verge of being reached that you cannot support, there are several ways to express your objections: Non-support (“I don’t see the need for this, but I’ll go along.”) Reservations (“I think this may be a mistake but I can live with it.”) Standing aside (“I personally can’t do this, but I won’t stop others from doing it.”) Blocking (“I cannot support this or allow the group to support this. It is immoral.” If a decision violates someone’s fundamental moral values he/she is obligated to block consensus.) Withdrawing from the group. Obviously, if many people express non-support or reservations or stand aside or leave the group, it may not be a viable decision even if no one directly blocks it. This is what is known as a “lukewarm” consensus and it is just as desirable as a lukewarm bath. If consensus is blocked and no new consensus can be reached, the group stays with whatever the previous decision was on the subject, or does nothing if that is applicable. Major philosophical or moral questions that will come up with each affinity group will have to be worked through as soon as the group forms. Roles in a consensus meeting There are several roles which, if filled, can help consensus decision-making run smoothly. The facilitator(s) aids the group in defining decisions that need to be made, helps them through the stages of reaching an agreement, keeps the meeting moving, focuses discussion to the point at hand; makes sure everyone has the opportunity to participate, and formulates and tests to see if consensus has been reached. Facilitators help to direct the process of the meeting, not its content. They never make decisions for the group. If a facilitator feels too emotionally involved in an issue or discussion and cannot remain neutral in behavior, if not in attitude, then s/he should ask someone to take over the task of facilitation for that agenda item. A vibes-watcher is someone besides the facilitator who watches and comments on individual and group feelings and patterns of participation. Vibes-watchers need to be specially tuned in to the group dynamics. A recorder can take notes on the meeting, especially of decisions made and means of implementation and a time-keeper keeps things going on schedule so that each agenda item can be covered in the time allotted for it. (If discussion runs over the time for an item, the group may or may not decide to contract for more time to finish up.) Even though individuals take on these roles, all participants in a meeting should be aware of and involved in the issues, process, and feelings of the group, and should share their individual expertise in helping the group run smoothly and reach a decision. This is especially true when it comes to finding compromise agreements to seemingly contradictory positions.

there's more in link above...

Somalia Better Off Without Government? (yes)

Scholarly article

Proof Government is Not Needed for Protection

Video link

Hey Government Agent... Are You Going To Throw This Guy In Jail? Are You Going To Throw Me In Jail For Promoting Peaceful Ideas?

We don't think that your way of organizing society works at all. We think what you think destroys freedom and prosperity. You think people like me should be thrown in jail because we don't like what you think.

We are different from you in that we don't have any desire to aggress upon you, even though YOU DO want to aggress against us. We are peaceful, you are violence prone (using the police to arrest us and throw us into a cage simply for disagreeing with you).

We have no desire to commit violence of any kind towards government or anyone else, nor to encourage anyone to use violence against government. You, however, have a SWAT team ready to bust someone's door down for innocently breaking some obscure law that they knew nothing about.

You have no qualms whatsoever in ordering your paramilitary forces with their full black-ops gear and AR-15's aiming at a peaceful and unarmed person who is simply trying to start a business (see my previous posts). Any you have no problem ordering your mercenaries to attack us for simply having ideas about living peacefully in this world without violence. Simply for having ideas which obviously stand ready to replace your warped and violent ideas.

Our ideas will replace your ideas, and they will without any violence at all. More and more people are waking up and realizing that people like you promote violence and chaos even though you may have good intentions. You probably don't even realize that your well-intentioned ideas cause more suffering than good. Keep reading this blog and maybe you will see how destructive the institution of government really is.

Let me be clear. A violent revolution against government oppression is the worst thing that could happen. I have absolutely no interest in any kind of violent uprising against government. Why? Because if that happens and is "successful", another violent government will simply take its place. When enough people realize that no group of people have any legitimate right to rule over or have authority over any other people, then those in "authority" will have no-one to rule over.

Simple as that. You will be ignored out of existence. Not a single gunshot, not even a punch or a shove. Not even a harsh word! Just a society of people peacefully interacting with each other and cooperatively finding solutions to problems that may arise.

Mr. government agent, I invite you to explore how a world can exist with people being responsible to themselves, not bowing to government authority, and thriving and prospering.

Sounds pretty good, doesn't it? Now we don't sound so dangerous do we? We don't want you to lose your job, there will be plenty of opportunities for those in positions of illegitimate authority (government) to find a way to be prosperous.

Gary Chartier

The Machinery of Freedom - David Friedman

http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf

We Are All Anarchists

Edward Stringhman

The Definition of Government (You May Not Like It)

Hans-Hermann Hoppe

The state is an agency that is characterized by 2 unique characteristics:

1) The state is an agency that exercises a territorial monopoly of ultimate decision making.

In every case of conflict, the state is the institution that decides who is right and who is wrong.

And there is no appeal beyond the state, nobody is above the state.

The state is the ultimate arbitor in every case of conflict that involves the state itself.

If the state or the state agents are involved in a conflict with other people, the state or agents of the state decide who is right or who is wrong in those types of conflicts also.

2) The state is a territorial monopolist of taxation. It can unilaterally determine what people must pay to the state for performing this function of being the ultimate judge in every case of conflict.

(16:40 in the video)

Case Closed! Airtight Arguments Against the Evil That is Government

Walter Block gives an hour lecture (it goes quite fast, he's an engaging speaker) on some of the knee-jerk arguments against the idea of not having a government around. He also rebuts an argument he got from Milton Friedman during an in-person conversation he had with him.

You can download the mp3 here -- the in-browser player took a long time to load when I tried it.