Talk:Communitarianism: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:44, 11 January 2006

merger

I merged communitarianism (ideology) into the philosophy section. Feel free to comment. Sam [Spade] 18:20, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I started Wikipedia:WikiProject_Community. Feel free to flog it as you see fit. Quinobi 10:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Communitarian Agonism?

I don't quickly know what to make of the recently and anonymously added link to Communitarian Agonism. Despite its name, it is not clearly or obviously related to the topic of Communitarianism. Can someone take some time to get a good look at it and see if they can (at the very least) add a sentence or two of useful commentary next to the link, explaining its nature and/or relevance or (more likely) find a more appropriate article from which to link it? -- Jmabel 23:33, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

This page is confusing in the way it simultaneously talks about both forms of communitarianism. I think the page on conservatism should be a model for this page. It is very well-organized.

Juan, Oct 15, 2004

I think I agree with you; if someone can point out the signifcance of the article, good, but I couldn't find any. Unless any is found, I think it should be removed. (unsigned; as explained below, it's Juan, who meant to agree with Jmabel, not with himself.)

The above two comments both came from the same account, User:Juan Ponderas. Agreeing anonymously with one's own statement does not strengthen it. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:35, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

LOL, Jmabel, I was agreeing with your statement. Sorry for the imprecision. I meant the article in the link- 'Communitarian Agonism' Oh, and there's always a possibility that jmabel and I are two accounts by the same person... Juan, Oct 25, 2004

OK, if you're me: what's my mother's maiden name? (Even though I'm not you, I'm going to put a comment by your comment to make it clearer what you were referring to. If I do not fulfil what you intended, please revert me.) -- Jmabel | Talk 06:42, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the link, since no one seems to be defending it. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:46, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

I, a totally anonymous user who is definately not Juan Ponderas, agree that the link should be removed. And I think it's obvious that the question as to his mother's maiden name is a clever coverup to hide their true identity. You can stop playing your game. The edit makes sense, Thankyou. Now I'll get back to something more substantive, like filling in the remaining holes in the article.- Anonymous, Oct 26, 2004

Who, for anyone not following closely, is Juan Ponderas. And I am Jmabel | Talk. Are you confused yet? 22:15, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry folks. I felt I had to reset the "Communitarian Agonism" thing, as I failed to get convinced by your objections to. You should say some more about "how it's not being relevant to communitarianism." You're suggesting that anti-colonial communitarianism is conservative--I don't agree with you. Mohhe, Apr 14, 200

Contemporaries Section

I added a brief section on this. Two areas in which I see fault are that it A) Only includes the US, and B) Doesn't look farther than politicians, wheras it should inlude writers, activists, ect... Niether of these are strong areas for me. I need someone else to expand on this... -Juan Ponderas

Can someone help me figure out where Amitai Etzioni's brand of Responsive Communitarianism fits into this picture? It doesn't seem to align with the two given definitions, so I've listed it as a possible third.Drernie 18:20, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You got me. I've never heard of that. Couldn't really understand their platform; it was so vague as to apply to, like, anything. Juan Ponderas 21:10, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pat Buchanan? I'd be interested in knowing what you were thinking when you labeled him as economically liberal... Here's his record[1]. Some of my favorite positions are these: "People conserve land, not federal or international agencies." "Columbine shootings due to Hollywood, not guns. " "Opposes Kyoto Treaty because it regulates US most." "Against national health system & federal takeover." Wikipedia labels him as a conservative, and he is. Removing...

Yes, Pat Buchanan is quite the economic nationalist being anti-internationalist, just the opposite of an economical liberal. He's against free trade, globalization, NAFTA and for tarrifs and other protectionist policies. - Dejitarob 06:20, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't Mary Ann Glendon be in this section? Her notion of "rights talk" also really deserves some discussion in here. I dunno how to do it though :) (anon 11 Aug 2005)

You do it just the same way you made a comment here. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:02, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Civil Society?

I'm considering removing the unwritten sub-section on Civil Society. I can't think of much to say about it other than -) this is what it is and communitarians embrace it. That much is already said. Or could anyone expand on it?

That would be fine by me. Unwritten sections aren't much use unless some one plans to write them in the near future. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:18, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Communitarianism versus Authoritarianism

I added this section following a realization I had since writing this article originally. Then, I had assumed that the fourth quadrant on the Nolan Chart was communitarian, and, if authoritarianism was their, it was an extremist version. Now, it seems to be rather that the Nolan Chart, by only labeling by government action, includes both in the same space. So I felt it necesary to distinguish them. Juan Ponderas 22:44, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Like the rephrasing, jmabel. What do you not entirely agree about? Juan Ponderas 00:42, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Short answer: offhand, two issues: (1) overplays the importance of the Nolan chart. (2) underplays the dangers of a tyrannical majority. Think of the pogroms in Czarist Russia, or the lynchings in the U.S. South. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:41, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

I see you modified my sentence "Communitarianism is specifically majoritarian; authoritarianism is not" by striking "specifically". I believe change this is wrong: an authoritarian government can represent majority sentiment. I believe this was the case with Napoleon (and with Napoleon III); it may well have been the case with Mussolini. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:47, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't mean to overplay the importance of the Nolan Chart, though it is the most widely known; how should I fix this? I'm certainly not partial to it, having faults with it I believed I fixed in my chart, but it is better than most others- not all charts are created equal. If you believe mention should be made of totalitarian democracy, should it be made in this section? Ideology is not circumstantial; you either believe in majority rule or you don't. There is not an in-between. Those regimes would have ruled without popular support; there philosophy justifies it to them. Does popular support make their regimes democratic? In cirsumstance, yes, but in philosophy, no.Juan Ponderas 03:22, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Anti-Communitarian League

Someone recently (and anonymously) added a link to the Anti-Communitarian League. It is of some imaginable relevance, but it's a bit out there in tin-foil-hat territory. Could someone besides me have a look? Am I the only one who thinks this is a bit into the lunatic fringe? I won't delete it singlehandedly, but I'd be very happy if we can get some sort of consensus to delete it. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:39, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

No, go ahead, I agree with you. 'imperialist communist conspiracy?' Juan Ponderas 03:28, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I will defend the link. I found it amusing and informative. So what if their crazy. Some subjects, such as this, are so obscure that few are concerned with them. In such situations the % of people involved who are wacko's is high. Besides, I think it provides a bit of context. Understanding the opposition can sometimes teach you about the subject :) Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 01:18, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Would it be violating NPOV if we had the link with a warning that the site is operated by a highly amusing fringe group who doesn't have a clue what communitarianism is? Then maybe. I don't think it counts as opposition when it's opposing something that communitarianism is not, and I'm not sure if lack of better sites is enough reason to allow a site that wouldn't be allowed at other articles. As it is, I think we need a review as to the relevance of some of the links transported from disinfopedia. Amusing, yes, and I hate to be seen as square, but not informative- actually the opposite, misinformative. Juan Ponderas 04:37, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hows that? Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 12:52, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it is worth arguing about its inclusion (I think it's inappropriate, not a "high quality site", but I have more important things to worry about than this), but "Disputed link" is a matter only of concern to editors, not readers. Instead, I've given a clue to its nature by quoting a prominent phrase from its home page. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:51, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Reorganization

I've done two things. First, I've rearranged the sections of the article. Second, I've made some changes to matters concerning political models. As jmabel advised, I took some of the emphasis off the Nolan Chart. Mainly, by referencing to it less in other sections and making brief mention of other models in the section on the political spectrum. I did, however, replace the image I had made with the actual Nolan Chart image used throughout wikipedia. Juan Ponderas 01:47, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've made some more changes. The section 'Contemporaries...' and the last paragraph of 'Political Spectrum' (concerning political parties) have been merged to form 'Communitarianism Today'. On the way, I deleted the contradicting remarks concerning similarities to the populists. It had said in different places that they were 'arguably similar' and 'often bear no resemblance to modern communitarians'. Either they are or they aren't... Juan Ponderas 04:47, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Responding to jmabel's comment in history; I probably did a bad job describing populists, but what I wanted to do was give the definition used in the populist article. Juan Ponderas 23:10, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Origins

I can't comment much on Aristotle's politics until I do some more research, but from what articles I've read there are rational reasons to believe his views may have provided a source for communitarian philosophy. This topic should be elaborated on, or the sentence concerning it removed, and clarified whether it applies to either or both forms of communitarianism. In the meanwhile, I think the recently added comment "for no logical reason" should be removed. Juan Ponderas 02:09, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

POV

Arturodekko's recent edit looks to me to be pure POV, and counterproductive. I haven't been much involved in this article, and others have, so I'm just raising the flag and recommending a revert. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:50, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

I second that. I wrote him a comment in his user talk so he can do something. Jacoplane 15:29, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely. Juan Ponderas 15:34, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Following some reverts of information I deleted, I've tried to make a temporary compromise. I deleted mention of traces to Aristotle until reason can be found to believe that they exist, at which point a mini-section can be written on the subject. As far as responsive communitarianism, I rewrote it for NPOV purposes. Juan Ponderas 17:48, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Political vs. Economic

Wouldn't it be a lot more easier to talk of political versus economic communitarianism; i.e., the way we usually talk of liberalism? Note, major communitarian theoriticians, such as Taylor and Walzer, actually do have precise political views, views that have very little to do with the economic impelementations by politicians of the "third way" or by Bushist politicians. US economic "communitarianism" has actually very little to do with Canadian or, for that matter, Lebanese, political communitarianism.

Could you elaborate? I've never heard of the term 'economic communitarianism'. Juan Ponderas

Again, I think the invocation of Lebanon here is a total red herring. Communitarianism—a philosophy that says that community needs sometimes trump individual choices—has nothing in particular to do with communalism—division of society into rival communities defined by religion, ethnicity, etc., and, as far as I can tell, the latter is the context in the links etc. that keep being added about Lebanon. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:16, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Well, communalism is often Communitarian. I don;t know what to say about Lebanon tho.. Sam Spade 06:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sam, can you elaborate on that? They seem to me not to have any inherent relationship. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:28, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

I don't necessarilly think they do either, I was just mentioning that communalism (like a family or a tribe) involves communitarianism (in its broadest sense), community needs sometimes trumping individual choices. Sam Spade 07:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sure. But does that have any bearing on the article? -- Jmabel | Talk 22:08, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

A few issues

A few questions, and some ideas for future work.

In the first line, does 'liberalism' refer to classical or contemporary American liberalism? Or both?
"For example, both would generally be more supportive of war than would more socially liberal philosophies, but each would support it under different cicumstances and for different reasons. Communitarians would go to war under a doctrine of just war, claiming humanitarian reasons or to spread democracy, whereas for authoritarians would tend to go to war for imperialistic or nationalistic reasons, or in an effort to enforce their ideology." I think this is a bad argument, or at least unsupported. US imperialism in the late 19th century could be cited as a counterexample. It should probably be removed until it can be better supported. And yes, I'm aware that I originally wrote it.
Is the 'See also' section meant to apply to both forms of communitarianism?
A cleanup of the links, perhaps embedding some within the article.
Expansion of sections on contributors to communitarian philosophy (in the second sense).
Ties of communitarianism to Aristotle.

Juan Ponderas 16:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Communitarian Law

Niki Raapana, you may have a point behind the section Communitarian Law (and the ACL in general), but you'll have to convince us on the talk page before expecting controversial material to be kept. Wikipedia works by consensus, and, at worse, a vote. I once won a consensus on a change that was universally rejected at the beginning, but I've also had material deleted that I couldn't substantiate.

"Communitarian Law" does seem to return a fair amount of hits on Google, and I'll be happy to investigate the subject to consider if something can be written about it. It remains to be seen whether it fits with the sense of communitarianism currently described by the Ideological Communitarianism, which your descriptions of communitarianism on the ACL website do not seem to do (although you cite Idealog, which I find interesting). The philosophy and the ideology both have widely varying political implications, and its possible that a third exists. But I've had libertarians tell me communitarianism is communism; this would not qualify, and it seems like that is what the ACL is essentially doing; radicalizing an opposing ideology. Juan Ponderas

Juan and the group, The sense of communitarianism currently described on this page is what the communitarians hope to achieve. The ideology itself is purposefully vague and the writers often contradict each other. It's supposed to be so academically advanced that we don't look beyond the platitudes and visions, and waste all our time trying to figure out what exactly it all means.

We proved communitarianism is the synthesis in the Hegelian dialectic. We proved this whole theory was created to destroy the political economy of the former American colonies. Call us whatever names you choose, but that doesn't change the facts presented in our undisputed thesis. It's interesting to me when people find it interesting that I link to the communitarian propagandists; the whole point of the ACL is to expose it and bring the theory down to the lowly American "community level."

What Friedrich List explained in 1841 about British laissez faire capitalism holds true for convoluted British-Fabian political communitarianism in 2005: "It is this theory, sir, which furnishes to the opponents of the American System the intellectual means of their opposition.... Boasting of their imaginary superiority in science and knowledge, these disciples of Smith and Say are treating every defender of common sense like an empiric whose mental power and literary acquirements are not strong enough to conceive the sublime doctrine of their masters.(Freeman 1992)"

I am not as naive as libertarians; the dialectic needs a thesis and an antithesis. Libertarians are merely the indefensible thesis to Marx's antithesis, created in the 1960s by internationalists. I see the role libertarians are designed to play in the final conflict. (They are the pre-determined losers.) But it's within the specific communitarian laws and rulings that we gain a real sense of what political communitarianism actually represents. Consider this: U.S. law was created around the concept of private property rights for the average citizen, the "little guy" if you will, while the ideology of Smith, Hegel, Marx and Etzioni are all devoted to taking away the simple right that is the glue for every other U.S. constitutional law. U.S. law ensures the rights of the lowliest individual, it protects the individual from the group, the majority, and the fascist corporates.

Communitarians "balance" national law against their lovely collective "community" theory. Not only are the new laws in place at the international level already... but they are most assuredly taking precedence right here on the home front with increasing regularity. Mike Allen of the Washington Post told us years ago that there were 11 communitarian "thinkers" in the Bush White House. These men have had an amazing influence on U.S. law and public policy. (Maybe that list and a corresponding list of their "accomplishments" could be added to Wiki?)

At the ACL we look beyond the nice sounding academic rhetoric and vague ideology and focus on the way their new laws change our old laws. Their goal was, is, and continues to be the establishment of a supra-national communitarian global government. I don't care how "wacko" or "finge" that sounds. It's just a fact, and we've produced thousands of their documents to prove it. The Canadian Communitarians call us "angry opposition."

We refuse to allow a small group of elite academics to waltz off with our Bill of Rights. We're appalled that our people have never been asked if they want to change U.S. law into international communitarian law (as per constitutional amendment procedures). We can live with the "angry" description if that's how you ultimately choose to define the ACL. (Btw, 89% of ACL poll responders say no... maybe that's why they never asked us to vote on the changes to our political system.) User: Niki Raapana

Despite the sig, the above was written by an anonymous user, User:66.230.110.80. The user link is to a user who appears to have made no edits and may not exist. The only edit to the user page in question, turning the link blue, is also anonymous. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:55, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be anonymous. I registered and logged in. I haven't figured out how to get my username to come up. Nevertheless, I'm very interested in helping Wikipedia become a truely objective online encylopedia. I don't understand the resistance to including verifiable opposition research to communitarianism. Even the Radical Middle Newsletter (Mark Satin) quotes the ACL at the top of their 40 Writer's Try to Describe the Radical Middle. The Communitarian Network links to to the ACL. SourceWatch links to our well-linked exhaustive research on Etzioni. I've also been studying Wikipedia's Third Way page.. and again I notice there are no links to the opposition to this communitarian ideological political platform. How is it considered objective when it only tells one side of the story....theirs? Niki Raapana, anticommunitarian@hotmail.com

Niki, I think we're defining 'communitarianism' rather differently. This article describes three real usages of the term, and I don't know whether you are opposing one of these or something else entirely.

The first usage is the philosophical movement described in the article, which is associated with the writers mentioned. This movement seems to be purely on a philosophical level rather than being concerned with actual political issues. When it does, many communitarians in this sense tend to be leftist-socialist.
The second is to describe economic liberalism paired with social conservativism. Seemingly, this usage came into place because a term was needed to describe the quadrant opposite of libertarianism on political spectrums such as the Nolan Chart, and it seems a contemporary designation. When Idealogue said most Americans in their survey were communitarians, they meant in this sense, with no relation to the philosophical ideas of the first movement or the politics of the third. In addition, this group is socially conservative, something that distinguishes them from the first. The opposition to this group is the libertarians.
The third is not really a group, but the term has been adopted by scolars and activists such as Amitai Etzioni, who calls his term "responsive communitarianism". I'm not sure if they are related to the philosophy described in the first sense. As far as their connection to the second, they may fit in that quadrant, but the second usage of the term is a general designation (ie liberalism, conservatism) rather than a philosophy with clear principles (ie Marxism, Fascism). Therefore, their beliefs may or may not be shared with those who identify themselves as communitarians based on the second usage, such as myself (I had never heard of Etzioni, had no association with the philosophy, and am certainly not a globalist; in contrast, I support decentralizing power to the community level, as well as keeping the Bill of Rights).

So, I'm not sure which group you are describing in your analysis of communitarianism. You put your section on 'communitarian law' in the section on the second sense, though, which cannot be correct; it is a general designation used to describe those like me who fall into the political categorization of economic liberalism and social conservative, and currently has no associated, inclusive movement such as the one you describe.

Hah, a pretty amusing incident actually happened between Jmabel and I when I first started writing here and forgot to leave my signature. He criticized me for what apeared to be myself agreeing with myself anonymously. Anyway, you can leave your name and timestamp with four tildes (~), or only your name with three. Juan Ponderas 22:59, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Juan. As for the first usage, the philisophical one, philisophical communitarianism is the synthesis in the Hegelian dialectic. Hegel establshed the dialectical theory of "no-reason." Wiki links to Hegel as an "earlier theorist", so maybe we already agree on this point? If not, can someone please explain what Hegel is doing linked to a page on communitarianism? The ACL calls philisophical communitarianism the biggest fraud in the history of western philosophy. I know this sounds radical...it IS radical... but it has yet to be debunked by one communitarian philosopher.

The second usage is where the dialectic takes on a vague political shape, so vauge that no one can define it. This seemingly modern usage tricks uneducated, average Americans into thinking they're political communitarians, all because some political theorist set up a mathematical chart that placed them there. The second usage is where the fraud actually begins to take shape. Ken Janda's asertion that average Americans are communitarians is as unsubstantiated by factual evidence as the communitarian's claim that "most" Americans will give up some rights to be "safer." The communitarian political ideologies of market-socialism and "power to the community level" do not translate into anything other than international corporate free trade and self-appointed citizen councils who write local laws that over-rule the Bill of Rights for the local citizens (who are never allowed to participate in the new "public-private partnerships," nor to vote on any of it.)

The third usage is the one the ACL focuses on, because the Responsive Communitarians have such a powerful voice in American politics. Presidents Bill Clinton, George Bush, and others as far back as Jimmy Carter have all been influenced by Amitai Etzioni. Etzioni's brand of communitarianism is the one that has the biggest impact on changing American law, which is predominantly what the ACL opposes. Etzioni introduced our "new" requirements for citizenship, forced "community" development, community policing, community mental health centers, and much more. The Washington Post identified ten other communitarian "thinkers" besides Etzioni in the Bush White House. What "brand" of communitarian advice should we assume that they give our leaders?

The most important usage is the law. Communitarian law is written into many legal contracts that over-rule the Bill of Rights. There is no actual proof that communitarianism decentralizes power to the community level and keeps the Bill of Rights. They are fundamentally incompatible ideas. The communitarians in the most powerful positions advise American lawmakers to change American laws that interfere with their platform. For example, the Communitarian Network graded all the state DMVs in 2004 and flunked the states that didn't comply with the international standards for our new National ID database. As a result the State of Alaska changed their application requirements to fit Etzioni's advice. We think this makes his brand of communitarianism the only brand that really matters in the long run. In 1999 several communitarian "legal" pilot tests were included inside our Neighborhood Plan. Their vision for a safer, healthier community included new regulations for rental tenants. The planners called the 4th Amendment an "identified barrier."

So where should we place communitarian law on this page? Being anti-communitarian, I vote to put it right at the top. But that's only because I wish more of my country men knew what it is.

In the meantime.... can we put the link to the ACL back on the bottom where it was before? You know a lot of sites copied this page at different times... so some online encylopedias have our link and then some don't. Others go beyond Wiki and add a link to our Etzioni page (which is thorough). As I explained, I don't care if you call the ACL by some little disclaimer/negative terms, do what you must to keep to the reigning academic standards. (And on the Third Way page too?) 209.112.197.169 19:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the article should have a section on "Criticism of Communitarianism". And between "Communitarian organizations" and "Articles on communitarianism" in the external links should be "Opposition to communitarianism". -- Jmabel | Talk 03:51, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I changed the terminology to note that communitarianism, when capitalized, usually denotes the movement of Etzioni. When not capitalized, it means in a more general sense. This follows the conventions of other ideologies; for example, Liberal refers to the party, whereas liberal means the belief system.

The general sense described and the movement by Etzioni seem to have alot in common, but I don't think they have anything in common with the philosophical sense, other then a general emphasis on the community. I agree with having a section on criticism, but I think it would have to be specific to either the philosophy or the political movement. We already have links concerning either topic mixed together; they would be better separated. I'm starting to think each should each have their own article again, as is done with multi-meaning philosophies such as libertarianism and objectivism. If something is common between the two, it's not apparent; we have no common sections describing both.

As far as the philosophy goes, I can't address your arguments against it; I'm not knowlegible on that topic. The second usage I wouldn't call fraud. You claim that the Americans described bi Udealog are not communitarians because they do not support ideas that may be associated with Etzioni's Responsive Communitarian movement. That seems like saying someone isn't a conservative because he does not support the agenda of the Conservative Party, or not a believer in democracy because he isn't a Democrat.

The Communitarianism of Etzioni should be given more coverage, and the ACL and your criticisms could certainly be included in that context. What is the significance, however, of the term "communitarian law"? I haven't found anything on it other than at the ACL, where it just seems like a term coined to describe the collective agenda of the Communitarians. By that token, I could start referring to libertarian law or liberal law. Juan Ponderas

Thank you both for your time and effort in this topic area. It is a difficult one. I won't take up any more of your time with my arguments against the communitarian philosophy. My arguments against the prevailing communitarian political philosophy/ideology/theology are already public.

It's still hard to believe communitarian law is so obscure. Not only is it practiced internationally and at the American community level, it's taught at most elite law schools in the U.S. Many congressional Acts passed in the 90s and early 2000s were based on communitarian resolutions passed by the UN. (implemented inside DV programs, ABCD mapping, Crime Act, PCSD, Patriot Act, Smart Growth, etc.) The new law is also coming into the U.S. via UN Local Agenda 21, http://www.cgrer.uiowa.edu/iowa_environment/iowa_un/overview.html, Professor MaryAnn Glendon called the UN Earth Charter a "communitarian document." It's very, very real, I'm amazed I need to assure you of that, although I just went through our communitarian law page and found many ACL exit links go to dead/missing pages now. I don't exactly think that means they're trying to hide it now for some reason, but the same thing *is* happening on our Agenda 21 page. things do seem to disappear on the internet. All this proves is it would be very helpful if another site put a page together based on hardcopy books and published papers that includes not only Etzioni's brand of local communitarian law but all the international papers and resolutions and treaties that also use the term (which is why I hoped it would be included on Wiki.. we must try to inspire archives!) Here's a few working links from our page to communitarian law books:

1.) Vol. 10 No. 6 (June 2000) pp. 383-385. TO PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE: A COMMUNITARIAN LEGAL READER by David E. Carney (Editor). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 1999. 324 pp. Cloth $65.00. ISBN: 0-7391-0032-7, http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/carney.htm

2.) The Communitarian Network Bibliography: Law and Communitarian Thinking, http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/biblio.html#law

3.) Law and Community: the Case of Torts, http://www.booksmatter.com/b0742522008.htm

4.) The European Union uses the term communitarian law in all its documents, http://europa.eu.int/constitution/futurum/forum_convention/documents/contrib/acad/0039_c12_en.pdf

Funny how communitarian law suffers from the same problem as the political philosophy, ie below: "In the course of the past decades communitarian law has developed as a field of law whose theoretical explanation seems to present considerable difficulties." http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:xFfE5n-nrwMJ:www.iir.cz/upload/Mezinarodni%2520vztahy/Archiv/2002/AnotaceMV012002eng.pdf+communitarian+law&hl=en

[begin quote] International Relations, 1/2002

5.) Harald Christian Scheu - The Concept of Communitarian Law in the Jurisdiction of the ::::::::European Court of Justice and in Legal Theory

In the course of the past decades communitarian law has developed as a field of law whose

theoretical explanation seems to present considerable difficulties. The traditional models ::::::::of

monism and dualism cannot sufficiently explain the position of communitarian law between

international and municipal law. In addition the concepts of the so-called traditionalism ::::::::and

autonomics deal with only a part of the problem. The theoretical difficulties concentrate on

the term "supranationality", which on one hand may provide for mediation between the

political actors, from the legal point of view however is a weak compromise.

The article attempts to provide an overview of the relevant statements given by the European

Court of Justice (ECJ) concerning the systematic of communitarian law. In the jurisdiction ::::::::of

the Court there occur terms like "autonomy", "sovereign rights" and "constitutional ::::::::charter".

Page 2

Behind the application of such terms we may see the development of the concept which spans

the period between the sixties and the nineties.

In the next part of the article we attempt to critically analyse the jurisdiction of the ECJ ::::::::in the light of concepts drawn from legal theory. [endquote]

Etzioni's communitarianism is both Hegelian and "supranational" and his brand is also the political ideology for the DLC-Third Way, George Bush, the Greens, Homeland Security, and most Seattle Libertarians. Niki Raapana (66.230.115.205 06:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)}[reply]

Well, I added the opposition links section with a link to the ACL.

As far as communitarian law, it was only mentioned in one of your sources, the essay at the bottom. It's usage there seemed to have no clear relationship to any of the above philosophies or movements. Do you have any reasons to associate it's usage there to the movement of Etzioni (or any other concept)? Juan Ponderas 19:42, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I've updated and added many new communitarian law links that mention it more at ACL: Communitarian Law, Introduction to International Communitarian Juridical System http://nord.twu.net/acl/commlaw.html.

I have many good reasons to associate the international usage of communitarian law to Etzioni and his George Washington University's Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies. I've read much of what Etzioni has "written," even though his assistant Erin Riska admitted he wrote hardly any of it (and she later retracted that to mean it only had to be heavily edited). The good doctor has been writing about the "need" for a new communitarian legal order since 1957. His brand is the entire basis for legal programs tested by Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS http://nord.twu.net/acl/commpolicing.html) established by Clinton in 1994. Communitarian laws were inserted inside Seattle's 38 Local Agenda 21 Plans in 1999. Balancing community rights is based in communitarian legal principles. In the EU the new system IS the "community" and the national laws of every member country are subserviant to the "Code de rédaction interinstitutionnel." Etzioni advises both US state and federal government agencies to make legal changes to constitutional systems and procedures. He is a strong advocate for limiting U.S. privacy rights and he is a primary player in the unfolding unauthorized national ID database system. (COPS tested the data-gathering operations in Seattle in 2000, it's called COMPASS, Community Mapping, Planning and Analysis for Safety Strategies http://nord.twu.net/compass.html). Here's another one of my reasons: the Communitarian Law newsletter/subscriber list at GWU: http://www.lsoft.com/scripts/wl.exe?SL1=COMMLAW&H=HERMES.GWU.EDU (it has 1,965 members).[[Niki Raapana 209.112.218.71 13:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)]][reply]

Can we return to this discussion sometime soon? Communitarian Law has been established as an existing legal theory; it should be included in Wikipedia's section on communitarianism. An "alternative view does exist." Here's an excerpt from an article posted by Duke Law: "a. Communitarianism Defined. The contractarian ideology has clearly dominated the discourse in the worlds of law, economics, and management during the past fifteen or twenty years. Indeed, after observing this phenomenon, Chancellor Allen of the Delaware Chancery Court observed that "[o]ne of the marks of a truly dominant intellectual paradigm is the difficulty people have in even imagining any alternative view."181 That said, an alternative view does exist. Recognized by the press,182 often associated with the work of Amitai Etzioni,183 and increasingly represented in both the law and economics literature184 and the management literature,185 the communitarian paradigm has emerged as the alternative to contractarian thinking. Its origins lie in the worlds of both theory and practice." <a target=_blank href=http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/lcp/articles/lcp62dSummer1999p9.htm>THE PURPOSES AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE CORPORATION IN CONTEMPORARY SOCIETY: CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AT A CROSSROADS</a> by MICHAEL BRADLEY, CINDY A. SCHIPANI, ANANT K. SUNDARAM, AND JAMES P. WALSH Niki Raapana December 17, 2005

It's been awhile... could you explain exactly what communitarian law is? Is it an actual, slef-described movement? Is it a view of what communitarianism actually proposes? If the latter, it must be able to be cited to a credible source, ie a peer-reviewed journal. Also, keep in mind that there are other communitarian movements; I have a note later in this page about the 1970's movement in Latin America? Juan Ponderas

Communitarian law is a school of law, not a "movement." Communitarian law is covered in many published academic papers and it's taught at many law schools. The most familiar use of communitarian law governs international and domestic public-private partnerships, and corporate agreements. It's also the foundation for laws relating to behavior modification and intervention policies, both at home and abroad. Domestic Communitarian Law balances individual property rights against the rights of the community; it covers everything from community devlopment to domestic spying to the authority to establish a national ID database. International Communitarian Law "balances" national law against the international definition of sovereignty, it over-rules national laws that conflict with the higher authority than a nation (Kyoto, WTO, NAFTA, EU, UN, LA-21, etc.). It is also referred to as "community aquis" and other new terms such as "divided sovereignty."

For Example:

National Judiciary after the Accession of the Slovak Republic to the European Union by Ján Mazák: "After joining the European Union, a new level of relations has arisen in the Slovak Republic between the Slovak judiciary and the European Court of Justice. Under the Art. 7 sect.2 of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic legally binding acts of the European Communities and of the European Union shall have precedence over laws of the Slovak Republic. The Slovak Courts recognize all principles related to the interpretation and application of the EU law, notably the preferential application of the Communitarian law and its immediate application." http://www.springer.at/periodicals/article_latest_issue.jsp?articleID=xxxxxxxxxx52xxxxxx394109&periodicalID=0948-4396

Vol. 10 No. 6 (June 2000) pp. 383-385. TO PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE: A COMMUNITARIAN LEGAL READER by David E. Carney (Editor). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 1999. 324 pp. Cloth $65.00. ISBN: 0-7391-0032-7 Reviewed by Cynthia G. Hawkins-Leon, New England School of Law, Boston, MA. E-mail: cghleon@faculty.nesl.edu, http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/carney.htm

And again, here's Etzioni's Communitarian Law elist: http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0412&L=commlaw&F=&S=&P=70, and here's the Communitarian Law archives: http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=commlaw

I've contacted several law professors who use the term and am trying to find one who will define it for Wikipedia. There are people much more qualified than myself who could contribute wisely to this discussion. A good source might be someone like: "Kent Greenfield, Professor, Boston College School of Law. Professor Greenfield is one of the leading thinkers on progressive legal reforms in the field of corporate law. He is a graduate of the University of Chicago Law School and clerked for Judge Campbell of the First Circuit and Justice Souter of the U.S. Supreme Court. Professor Greenfield has been widely cited for his innovative work on the "communitarian" or "stakeholder" school of corporate law. He has served as a consultant to litigators on issues of corporate accountability, and was instrumental in developing the theory of the case brought against Unocal Corporation for alleged human rights violations committed by the company in Burma. He is also the founder and president of the Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR), an association of over thirty law schools and other academic institutions organized to fight for academic freedom and against discrimination, which brought suit against the government to contest the Solomon Amendment." User:Niki Raapana

Here's a Chinese communitarian case law study: Law & society Volume 37 Page 549 - September 2003 doi:10.1111/1540-5893.3703003 Volume 37 Issue 3

Confessions and Criminal Case Disposition in China Hong Lu, Terance D. Miethe

This research examines confessions and criminal case disposition in China. It describes how wider economic reforms in China and subsequent changes in its legal system may have affected the nature and consequence of criminal confessions. Bivariate and multivariate analyses of a sample of 1,009 criminal court cases reveal that the majority of offenders confessed to their crime and that confession is associated with less severe punishments (e.g., lower risks for imprisonment, shorter sentences). Changes in the nature of confession and its impact on criminal court practices are also examined before and after legal reforms in the mid-1990s. These context-specific findings are then discussed in terms of their implications for understanding the interrelationships between legal structure, legal culture, and case disposition in communitarian-based societies." http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/1540-5893.3703003/abs/;jsessionid=b_NkQXeUYoUc User:Niki Raapana

OK, from the links I get the impression that the term is in use in legal circles. What I'm not sure of is whether they are using the term in a general sense to describe community orientated approaches or whether the communitarianism they refer to is an actual school of thought with a unified philosophy.

Can you cite anyone in this school that is a self-described communitarian? I hope you're successful in getting a definition from one of the people you've contacted. Juan Ponderas 19:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The communitarian law I refer to is an actual school of thought based in the Hegelian dialectic. It conflicts with legitimate constitutional and national law, especially in the United States. The ones using the term in legal circles are under zero obligation to explain the law to commoners who can never understand it. Can I cite anyone from this school that's a self-described communitarian? Yes, I can, and his name is Amitai Etzioni. He founded the Communitarian Network, he's written 24 books explaining the need to overturn the U.S. Constitution and replace it with community balancing. He writes the Communitarian Law Newsletter and sends it out from George Washington University in DC where he teaches communitarianism, which is an "actual school of thought." I've watched how the Wiki page on communitarianism has been edited from the beginning. Tell me you know more about what communitarianism is after reading it's bare bones description here. Juan, I'm sorry, but you appear to me to be a fairly educated guy. Don't you think it rather odd that you and I are the only two people in the entire world debating the inclusion of the phiosophical foundation for international laws in the United States? They wrote their descriptors so well that the rest of us are supposed to barely notice or assume it's just this lovely, benign and rather ecentric little philosophy that we don't need to concern ourselves about. How utterly insane that I have to argue alone for Wiki's inclusion of the philosophy for the emerging global law. Comm law belongs in the exact same philosphical and political categorgy from which the law derives. What part of the philosophy and the connection bewteen communitarianism and communitarian law is so hard to see? The communitarian school of thought is that individual rights MUST be balanced against new community rights. Any law that claims a moral right to eliminate an individual's protection from government, any new law that allows agents to tresspass against individuals, in the name of safety, health or livability, is a communitarian law. Internationally, any law that balances a nation's rights against the larger governmental community is also a communitarian law. Basically, communitarian law balances the right of of smaller entity against a larger entity, and the larger entity always wins. Communitarian law trumphs national law, and a few internationals define it so that a ten year old can understand it. U.S. law used to defend the individual against the majority, and the nation triumphed. Today we all live under variations of communitarian laws, and our nation's disappearing into the global fiefdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.230.91.31 (talk • contribs) 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)

"Don't you think it rather odd that you and I are the only two people in the entire world debating the inclusion of the phiosophical foundation for international laws in the United States?" It's not that no one else is looking at this page. And it's not that I think you are entirely wrong. It is that your remarks are longwinded, often vague, and you to have an axe to grind, which doesn't really lead me to want to work with you on this. Yes, a good exposition of Etzioni's views would be an asset to the page. Given that you seem to have pure, unadulterated hostility to those views, I doubt you are the one to write it. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am an average American "Yankee ape" (a term coined by Engels) who defends my national constitution against what can only be defined as a vague, hostile attack by agents of a foreign power. Since my research was originally defined here as wacko misinformation, I began these Wiki discussions by defending the accuracy of my work. Etzioni's vague communitarian ideas are used to "shore up the moral, social and political environment." He has written 24 books and hundreds of articles on the need to balance ALL the world's laws against his philosophy. My longwinded defense of our national law is brief compared to what our communitarian "guru" publishes in his name.

Etzioni's been active in the New World Order Projects since the 1960s, and his most recent lecture in Jerusalem was titled: "Lecture: The Implications of Neo-Communitarianism for a New World Order" by Amitai Etzioni on December 13, 2005, 6:15pm, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus Campus. (For more information contact Avner De-Shalit at msads@mscc.huji.ac.il".) Should Wiki editors ask Etzioni to explain "neo-communitarianism" and a "New World Order" under it's brief communitarian definition? Do you think for one second Etzioni will condense his vague philosopical agenda for the world's fastest growing online free encylopedia? Maybe I should contibute more on Etzioni's history and his philosophical training to Wiki's Etzioni page.

Others are also having difficulty defining communitarianism. No matter who tries, if it's an honest attempt, communitarianism is always defined as somewhat "vague." For example:

"Communitarianism (Idea and Movement in politics) - With the demise of true socialism as a viable intellectual force, communitarianism is now the most active philosophical opposition to libertarianism. Communitarianism is usually presented in a vague terms, but it is probably best understood as a mild form of collectivism or "democratic socialism". Communitarianism has had some influence in the realm of practical politics, as witness the fact that Hillary Clinton is reputed to admire many communitarian thinker." The original definition of communitarianism, from the The Ism Book.

"Communitarianism [From Latin communitas: community or fellowship.] (politics) In the nineteenth century, the word "communitarian" was used to refer to members of voluntary communities formed to put socialist or communist ideas into practice (close to the more recent usage of the term communalism). After the fall of the Iron Curtain (and the demise of true socialism), a movement of intellectuals resuscitated the term to describe a philosophical and political challenge the seeming triumph of market liberalism. Although the content of recent communitarian ideas is somewhat vague, communitarian thinkers stress the importance of fellowship and community over economic relations and market interactions." Current definition of communitarianism from The Ism Book.

http://www.ismbook.com/communitarianism.html

If my writing is vague and longwinded it's because I cover a purposefully vague, longwinded topic. Etzioni is a Fabian socialist. The Fabian Society was created in 1884 to promote international socialism and a world government. Their writings have been published "for propaganda and other purposes" for over a century. Now I'll rest my longwinded case. [[User:NikiRaapana 66.230.91.226 23:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)]][reply]

If leftism and conservatism were philosophies with as small followings and recent developements as communitarianism, I believe they would also be viewed as vague. One must also keep in mind that, although Amitai Etzioni is a prominent backer of communitarianism, he is only one backer, and his ideas do not reflect others in the movement. I invite you to take a look at some others, such as Robert Putnam; this article links to a recording of "Talk of the Nation" with three communitarian speakers explaining the philosophy, including Etzioni and Putnam.

Balancing individual rights against commununity rights (although they usually refer to responsibility instead, not community rights) is not a new idea; leftists have been doing it for decades with policies such as gun control and health care. In this regard, the difference with communitarianism seems to be mainly rhetorical. Also, I have never seen evidence of a tie of communitarianism to internationalism. I apologize if this writing skips some points; I am on a trip and I won't have full access (if any) until about five days. Juan Ponderas 05:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"There are some tendencies within the European Union that can be seen with critical eyes," he said, notably "an extension of communitarian law by the European court." http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/01/news/austria.php: From Austria, 'new thoughts' for EU By James Kanter, International Herald Tribune, SUNDAY, JANUARY 1, 2006. 66.230.91.2 07:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC) [Niki Raapana][reply]

Schüssel's comments indicate that the implications of communitarianism for supranational attempts at unification need to be discussed in the article. However, much of what you said was unsupported by his reference to communitarian law, and some of what you referenced (such as his criticisms of the constitution writing process) was unrelated to communitarianism.

The Diversity Within Unity platform supports laws protecting human rights overruling local laws, but no others. It does mention the European Union's Declaration of Human Rights, and endorses the type of action that some of the laws indicated in the article represent, such as the one requiring nations to allow women in the armed services.

It seems to me that this article must link the policies advocated by the Diversity Within Unity platform to current attempts at supranational unions such as the European Union. Articles on the Communitarian Network's website that address such attempts should be useful in this, as well as the general platform, but policies beyond what these documents advocate should not be associated in this article with the communitarianism of Etzioni.

Specifically, I at this moment would propose two additional sections; one on the policies of the Diversity Within Unity platform, which is mainly a domestic policy, and another section on the implications of communitarian policies for supranationalism.

Acquis communitaire seems to be a separate issue than the communitarian movement of Etzioni, with "communitaire" simply an adjective indicating its relation to communities. I'm not sure if "acquis" translates to law; my translator gave "to obtain". In any case, this has its own article, and should be noted but not in great detail here.

What you said in that post about Etzioni appears unrelated to supranationalism, and should be addressed in a different section of the talk page. You made some claims in your post that would establish the need for communitarian law to be included in this article if they can be cited, including the claim that universities across Europe offer programs in communitarian law and the mention of official usage in Italy. The usage in that article, however, was uncapitalized. This seems to indicate that he is describing the laws as communitarian rather than mentioning a unified concept, unless the news service mistranslated. Juan Ponderas

Juan, First off I'd like to know what makes you an "expert" on a topic you obviously have not studied, and what gives you the right to remove my contribution in an area I've been studying for seven years. It appears that your goal on this page it to promote communitarianism and deny Wiki readers full exposure to all the facts available regarding the global communitarian agenda. I've provided ample evidence that communitarian law exists, and for that I was accused of being longwinded. Now you want more? What a joke.

Etzioni's communitarian law newsletter last month advertised for his lecture at the Hebrew University on "The Implications of Neo-Communitarianismon a New World Order." Etzioni calls nationalism "outdated" and he's been active in the New World Order projects since the 1960s. It's in his bio... look it up sometime when you're not too busy watering down Wiki's information pages.

Araceli Mangas Martín, a Professor of International Public Law and International Relations at the Universidad de Salamanca became a Professor ‘Jean Monnet’ of Communitarian Law in 1991. Marco Balboni is a Prof. of Communitarian Law at the University of Bologna. Jose Antonio Sanchez Quintanilla, Secretary General of the IDEA has a diploma in European Communitarian Law from the University of Seville. Manuel Estella Hoyos, President of the Courts of Castilla and Leon has a BL (Law) from the University of Salamanca in 1962, majoring in matters related to European Communitarian Law.

And now, after deleting my entire section on communitarian law (because you can't find evidence it exists) you suggest including Etzioni's Diversity Within Unity Platform, another "vague" academic proposal for achieving Etzioni's lofty Fabian Marxist utopian ideals. How very interesting that in your opinion, this page needs more communitarian propaganda as opposed to more factual evidence about the communitarian law that upholds Etzioni's "movement." What purpose does that serve?

Professor Ján Mazák, PhD. President, Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic general remarks on "National judiciary after the accession of the Slovak Republic to the European Union" as follows:

http://www.us-rs.si/pcceu/index.php?flash=2&sv_path=589,743 [begin quote]

On the immediate applicability of the communitarian law

The primary rule is, that the national courts of member states are obliged to apply directly those communitarian standards which fulfil the communitarian conditions of the immediate applicability.

The immediate positive application of the communitarian rule means the direct application of this rule instead of an incompatible national regulation, or application solving the legal situation not defined by any national regulation.

Under the immediate negative application of the communitarian rule is to be understood the application in order to achieve the state in which the incompatible national regulation will not be used. This usually leads to quashing decisions issued on the basis of this national regulation without need of positive application of the communitarian rule. It follows from above also that it concerns the application of the communitarian rule for the purpose of reviewing the legality or lawfulness of a national regulation or act (decision) issued on its basis.

The national courts of the member state are obliged, ex offo, to use immediately applicable communitarian rules. It always applies, if the national procedural norms stipulate, ex offo, to apply the national law. Furthermore, the national courts have to apply, ex offo, the communitarian rules also in that case if this application is necessary for guaranteeing the protection of rights resulting for a person from the specific communitarian rules.

On the preferential application of the communitarian law

The preferential application of the communitarian law is solved in the above-mentioned Article 7 paragraph 2 of the Constitution.

The duty of the national courts (and also of other public authorities) to apply preferentially the applicable communitarian rules prior to the incompatible national rules means that the national courts in case of such a conflict always have to apply the communitarian rules and at the same time they have not to apply or not to take into consideration the national regulation which is incompatible with these rules.

It is necessary to emphasize that the national courts have to proceed in such way and to solve this conflict through the preference and application of the communitarian rule in the scope of their own power, ex offo, developing their own initiative.

Under § 109 sect. 1 (c) of the Rule of Civil Procedure the proceedings shall be suspended if the court has arrived to a conclusion that there is a question on preliminary reference which must be decided by the European Court of Justice. After suspension of the case, the court sends a preliminary reference to the European Court of Justice and awaits its decision.

On the proceedings on the preliminary question

The law of the European Communities is superior to the law of the member states (lets leave aside the delicate issue of the superiority of the communitarian law to national constitutional law). The priority of the communitarian law requires unified application of this law in all member states. The application process of the communitarian law consists of two fundamental issues:

1. Unified interpretation of the communitarian law, while the unified interpretation must precede the unified application of this law in member states 2. The communitarian legal acts are considered valid in national environment and for that reason the national courts cannot reject the application of the communitarian legal acts only on the basis that they have arrived to the conclusion on invalidity or ineffectivity of the said communitarian legal acts.

These problems are solved in proceedings on preliminary question under Article 234 of the EC Treaty the purpose of which lies especially in the interpretation of the primary and secondary law and the review of the validity of the secondary legal acts. For that reason the proceedings on preliminary question are procedural enforcement of the priority of the communitarian law on the national level.

The obligation to submit the case to the Court of Justice for decision on the preliminary question relates only to the national court which proceeds in the case in the last instance in accordance with the judicial organisation and powers and competences under the Constitution and laws regulating these issues. In Slovakia there are two such courts. Both the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court sometimes could also be a competent regional court.

The question is whether the Constitutional Court belongs to courts which should make a preliminary reference. It depends, but most of the opinions on this issue have agreed to involve Constitutional Courts to the scope of Art. 234 of the Treaty on European Communities.

The possible effects of the violation of the national court’s obligation to submit the case to the Court of Justice under Art. 234 of the Treaty

Relaying on the obligation and possibility of a national court to submit the case to the Court of Justice for decision on the preliminary question, it is necessary to underline that if a national court was a last instance court and in spite of this fact it did not submit the case to the Court of Justice, the communitarian law would be violated. Such a qualification of a national court negligence follows from the fact that the national court has to respect the Art. 234 of the Treaty if it is a last instance court. The violation of this obligation may result in commencement of proceedings before the Court of Justice in special type of proceedings on violation of the obligation following from the EC Treaty. The member state whose court has not fulfilled its obligation under the quoted Art. 234 of the Treaty will be charged. The charge against the member state is justified for a simple reason. In spite of the independence being a functional principle of a national judicial system, a member-state court remains a public power authority of the concerned state, and the violation of the obligation following from the EC Treaty de jure is assigned to the member state.

On application of the domestic procedural code

In proceedings on communitarian claims and rights the national courts hear and decide these cases usually under the domestic procedural rules.

The work of the national courts on application of the domestic procedural regulations in proceedings in which cases following from communitarian standards are heard and decided, abide by the requirements of equivalence and efficiency.

The issue of competency of the national courts in relation to cases following from the communitarian law

Under fixed case-law of the Court of Justice it is a matter of each member state to define which court shall be competent locally and concerning the subject matter of the lawsuit when the subject of the proceedings is an individual right based on the communitarian law. The member states shall be liable for the effective protection of this right in every single case and it is not the task of the Court of Justice to solve whose jurisdiction shall the individual case fall under.

Concluding remarks

The Slovak judiciary is expecting its transformation into an effective part of the European judicial system. The right attitude might be a cautious optimism in spite of some expected difficulties. We are entering into a stabilised system and it has acted relatively long time in the fixed legal environment. We have at our disposal some experiences, case-law, developed doctrine and the willingness of the colleagues from the member states to share their experiences gained on their way from national judge to the European one. The rest, I think, will be our task. The first step is to get general knowledge then to learn special know-how and finally the improvement of skills in the application of the communitarian law.

[end quote]

Dr. Mazak has a valid point, don't you agree? I propose that first you need to get general knowledge then improve your skills in the application of communitarian law BEFORE you delete my next contribution to the communitarian page. And, maybe you should brush up on your French while you're at it. 66.230.91.55 09:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC) Niki Raapana[reply]

If you prefer, Niki, I could just put this template above the article after your insertion, which would result in oute editors deleting your material. You criticize me for deleting material "because you can't find evidence it exists", but this is Wikipedia policy. The three rules of content on Wikipedia are as followed:

You'll find that the first two mandate citing your sources. Inn particular, you should read the second one. An exxcerpt follows:

An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is:

   * it introduces a theory or method of solution; or
   * it introduces original ideas; or
   * it defines new terms; or
   * it provides new definitions of pre-existing terms; or
   * it introduces an argument (without citing a reputable source for that argument) which purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; or
   * it introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source; or
   * it introduces a synthesis of established facts in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the synthesis to a reputable source.

Most of your research clearly falls in this category; for example, you may not argue in this article that communitarianism is a snythesis in the hegelian dialectic unless you can find this opinion featured in a reliable source, such as a reputable acdemic journal.

I proposed citing the documents of the ocmmunitarian network because those are the only statements representative of the entire communitarian movement; there is disagreement within that movement. For example, as a writer in the Washington Post notes, "Some, such as DiIulio and outside Bush adviser Marvin Olasky, favor religious solutions for communities, while others, like Etzioni and Galston, prefer secular approaches".

Furthermore, you may not describe them as supporting ideas such as the overthrowing of the US Constitution unless they say that they support that. Of course, specific policy examples are needed that reflect the general philosophy within the communitarian platform, but these have to be attributable to them- not policies you think the philosophy entails.

These are the limits within we have to work. It would make no difference if you were an expert, and you don't have any credentials such as a professorship. If you think I am being biased, or that this article doesn't maintain a neutral point of view, then perhaps we should invite editors from the artice on libertarianism to take a look.

You have established the existence of communitarian law with credible sources. Please do the same thing in answering the following question, which needs to be answered so that Wikipedia discusses communitarian law properly. Communitarian law is one of three things. Which?

Related to the modern movement of Etzioni, Putnam, and others. Do they use the term?
Synonymous with acquis communitaire.
Something else.

I don't feel particularly compelled to learn French, and our relative understandings of communitarianism are of no consequence here. You may not like me, but the focus of this discussion is communitarian law and its application in Wikipedia, not Juan Ponderas.

Communitarian Law isn't limited to one of three things; it's all three.

It's directly related to the Communitarian Network. I've already cited and provided a link to Amitai Etzioni's communitarian law newsletter, twice. As the Contract Law Professor's blog explains, "The Communitarian Network—a group of academics and others dedicated to pursuing communitarian ideas in law—". http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/contractsprof_blog/2005/01/you_too_can_ear.html

European Communitarian Law is aquis communitaire, and it's also referred to as Community Law and community aquis and several other terms I've already listed above.

Communitarian Law is also the basis for Regionalism and free trade agreements. It's the rules for merging nations into regions. Regional proposals are in the works for Europe, Asia, the Americas and the Middle East. "The correct application of the Communitarian Law produced by an International Integration Organization implies that States Members have to make political and legal internal reforms." V International Symposium on Comparative Regionalism and the EU, Theme: The road to Regional Integration in Europe and America, University of Miami on November 4, 2005 was sponsored in part by Jean Monet and included Communitarian/Community legal scholars from around the world. http://www.miami.edu/eucenter/Conference_Nov4.pdf

The U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law in the United States. U.S. Supreme Law cannot legally be modified, merged, balanced, or changed without passage by 3/4 of the individual State legislatures, after full, open, public disclosure and public discourse. Neither the U.S. President nor the U.S. Congress has the legal authority to make trade agreements that require "legal internal reforms" without the individual state's express permission granted by elected representatives who have to answer to the individual registered voters in each indidvidual state. This is our Rule of Law. The U.S. cannot legally be "integrated" into an American Region. Any attempt to subordinate U.S. law or any U.S. citizens to the supremecy of Communitarian Law is the same as attempting to overthrow the legitimate government of the United States of America, which makes it high treason. Niki Raapana 66.230.91.17 18:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another very important way the term is used: "In 2001, the European Commission presented a proposal for a directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law. It is based on Articles 174 and 175, ECT, under which a high level of protection of the environment must be guaranteed. The European Commission points out that there is a considerable body of communitarian environmental law, and that Member States are obliged to provide for effective, dissuasive and proportionate sanctions." [emphasis added] pdf-Harmonization and harmonizing measures in criminal law, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. http://www.knaw.nl/publicaties/pdf/20021103.pdf User: Niki Raapana 66.230.91.139 14:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cut from article: communism, commune

Communitarianism is similar to Communism, in the preference of the community over the individual. Communitarianism is also similar to life on a commune. People living on communes have no private possessions, share everything, and divide labor equally in a tight community. Again, the community is more important than the individual.

This was recently added. I cut it. The comparison to communism and communes, without also stating the differences, is highly POV. Also, the whole thing is uncited, but so much in this article is uncited that in this case that is a side-issue. As it stands, there is a strong suggestion that communitarians wish to abolish private property, which is not true of anyone I've ever heard of who uses the label. Do they wish to regulate some rights of ownership? Sure, but everyone but the most radical libertarians wishes to do that. Similarly on division of labor. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:02, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I can see your point about citations being necessary. As for me, I've never met one single person who has ever heard of the term, let alone described themself as one. In fact, most people still think I made the word up. How many Americans have you met who define themselves as communitarians? Were any of them aware that there is no exact definition for the term? Also, I could certainly use evidence that "everyone but the most radical libertarians" wish to to regulate some rights of ownership, and similar evidence that everyone agrees on (regulating?) the division of labor.

Have we reached consensus yet regarding the placement of the ACL link on this page? Did we need any further discussion about the evidence that communitarian law does in fact exist? -- [[209.112.215.49 07:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC) User:Niki Raapana]][reply]

The problem's not that there is isn't an exact definition of communitarianism; it's that there are multiple exact definitions, in addition to multiple loose usages. I don't know what you define as rights of ownership, but even most libertarians support taxes, which seems to fit that description. I forgot about your last post, I'll repsond to it now in the above section. Juan Ponderas 18:47, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with linking the ACL.
Most self-declared communitarians I've met are left-of-center religious Americans; the sort of Christians who read Sojourner and the sort of Jews who read Tikkun.
The burden is not on me to refute this parapraph, it's on you to back it up with citation for the claim of similarity. That said, unlimited rights of property include (for example) the right to refuse to let the police enter your land in hot pursuit of a murderer, the right to let a person starve to death in front of you while you have abundant food and are in no want or danger yourself, the right to pour pollution into the atmosphere without limits, etc. You have to go pretty deep into libertarian territory to find anyone who advocates these things. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:48, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Communitarians balance individual rights against community rights and change U.S. laws. They came together to "shore up the moral, social and political environment" and that's exactly what they're doing. The multiple, loose usages are all ways to obscure the exact definition, which is: Communitarianism is the synthesis in the Hegelian dialectic. Not only is this our "thesis", it's been confirmed by the 1. Bolsheviks, 2. Jesuits and 3. Communists.

1. "Jean Thiriart's doctrinal works of the early eighties and those developed in the same period by the P.C.N., assume this last tendency. For this purpose, this party presents Communitarism as an "ideology of synthesis that wishes to fuse Marxist-Leninist ideologies and national-revolutionary ones into a synthesis of doctrinal offensive: the socialism of the XXI century" (47). From MARXISM-LENINISM AND NATIONAL-BOLSHEVISM. Bolsheviks.org.

2. "In a passage that is notable for its vagueness, Azevedo says that the CEBs should be the basis for a new communitarianism that rejects the two "bankrupt" models and systems "that are now polarizing the world," capitalism and Marxist socialism. This communitarianism is to be "a dialectical synthesis, a new creation, superimposing itself on thesis and antithesis rather than retrieving them." The passage illustrates the controversy in Latin American Catholicism between those who continue to endorse the "third-position-ism" (tercerismo) of Catholic social teaching and those (including all liberation theologians that I know of) who believe that only socialism can be in accord with Christian values." Theology Today-Basic Ecclesial Communities in Brazil: The Challenge of a New Way of Being Church By Marcello deC. Azevedo, S.J.Washington, D.C., Georgetown University Press, 1987. 304 Pp.

3. "The Socialist Alliance programme is the foundation upon which everything else is built, including in time our exact organisational forms and constantly shifting tactics. The programme links our continuous and what should be all-encompassing agitational work with our ultimate aim of a communitarian, or communist, system. Our programme thus establishes the basis for agreed action and is the lodestar, the point of reference, around which the voluntary unity of the Socialist Alliance is built and concretised. Put another way, the programme represents the dialectical unity between theory and practice." Posted by Towards a common Socialist Alliance programme Weekly Worker 368, January 25 2001. See also: 5. The transition to the communitarian system in the same issue of the American Communist Party's Weekly Worker."

I use the principles established in the U.S. Bill of Rights and our state constitutions to define individual rights of ownership, because our legal system was created only to "protect and maintain individual rights." The difinition of individual is clear. The definition of community is vague and varies widely. {"Those who drafted and adopted the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights in 1787 were well aware of the teachings and ideologies of philosophers like Milton, Locke, Voltaire and Mill. Merrill describes the 18th Century American voices of Franklin, Adams, Jefferson and Madison as intellectuals who gave a governmental form and structure to the philosophical ideas enunciated by Milton, Locke, Voltaire and Mill. It is, therefore, no fluke at all that the First Amendment guarantee comes first in the Bill of Rights. In contrast to Milton, Locke, Voltaire and Mill, author Merrill outlines the ideas of late 18th and 19th Century philosophers such as Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Immanuel Kant, Arthur Schopenhauer and Karl Marx. And he makes the case that these are the natural forerunners of many of today's communitarian thinkers who are attracted to people's journalism, public journalism or civic journalism." MERRILL PESSIMISTIC ABOUT PRESS by Don Corrigan. (John C. Merrill, professor emeritus, elected to Iowa Hall of Fame in 2005.)}

Our law was also created by folks who used what was once called "common sense." It probably never occured to them that the definition of individual property rights would be stretched into so many bizarre meanings, or that 19th century writers would change the meanings of all the key words they used to establish a government of the people. {Henry D. Aiken, Professor of Philosophy at Harvard explains the Hegelian theory of no-reason in his Introduction to the Age of Ideology commentary: "...Beginning with Kant, the very conception of the philosophical enterprise that had prevailed since the time of Aristotle underwent a profound sea-change, with the consequence that the meanings of even such basic terms of the traditional philosophical vocabulary as 'metaphysics' and 'logic' were altered beyond recognition... Much of the obscurity that pervades nineteenth-century philosophical writing is directly related to this fact."}

Today it's so distorted that it's used to include the "right" to stop police from protecting citizens from murderers, or the "right" to dump poison down your own well, or the "right" to watch someone starve to death. These are not "rights," they're absurdities. Just because a few wackos claim them doesn't make them right, nordoes it mean we should quietly change our entire legal system because we have a few wackos inour midst. Changing the U.S. Constitution can't be some sneaky little program only a few religious Christians and Jews know about. The first 10 Amendments in 1789 were added after years of public debates among the individual states, and it went through the full ratification process. The Communitarian Platform has never been presented as a way to eliminate our laws, nor has it ever had any public scrutiny or debate. Interesting to note the types of people known to already embrace it, compared to the vast percentage of Americans who've never heard of it, and then there's the problem of how to reconcile with the 90% who voted against communitarianism in the ACL poll.

We don't have vauge Communitarian system that makes people feel good about themselves while dreaming about creating Utopia. We have a simple set of CLEAR laws that protect every individual from governments, state religions, moral majorities and minorities, and any other large or small group that thinks they have a "right" to shore everyone else up to their personal standards. {".. Some historians have depicted the United States as a society centered around Lockean values, those of rights and liberty 8. Actually, it is now widely agreed that the United States had, from its inception, both a strong communitarian and individualistic strand, a synthesis of republican virtues and liberal values 9." Amitai Etzioni in The Emerging Global Normative Synthesis (pdf file) published in The Journal of Political Philosophy Volume 12, Number 2, 2004 pp. 214-244.} [Niki Raapana 209.112.213.111 20:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)][reply]

removed Nolan Chart

I removed the Nolan Chart because it is pro-right-libertarian and anti-communitarian, implying that right-libertarianism is the height of freedom (even though right-libertarians do not account for the positive liberty that communitarianism may seek to provide), and that communitarianism is necessarily authoritarian (while in fact it may be left-libertarian in nature). I have substituted the Political Compass Organization's chart, although the Friesian Political Spectrum may be appropriate as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.237.180 (talk • contribs) 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)

The Political Compass's chart say nothing about communitarianism. As it is, that passage and chart is no more useful than showing a left-right axis. Of course, perhaps we don't need this section at all- communitarianism at least claims to transcend such classifications, which your edit seems to say. Juan Ponderas 04:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If we are to show where communitarianism may fall on a 2-d chart, I thought it better to use one that isn't anti-communitarian. But it may indeed be better yet to remove this section entirely, if the rest of the article makes it clear that communitarianism may span right or left and authoritarian or anti-authrotarian. 65.28.237.180 16:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If we are to show where communitarianism may fall on a 2-d chart, then it needs to fall somewhere on such a chart. But it doesn't fit on that model, and it seems anything of the sort would be a generalization. I removed the section. -Juan Ponderas

I think in terms of communitarianism as a political ideology, a 2-D chart like the Nolan Chart might be worthwhile. Of course saying 'more' or 'less' freedom is asking for trouble, so I think it would be fair if it had 'more' and 'less' government involvement in the economy and society. That doesn't seem biased one way or the other. I don't think it's more of a generalization than saying what libertarians or conservatives or liberals are...clearly there are people who fall all over the place, but I have seen little to make me believe that amongst the populace at large any of these large groups consist more of exactly like-minded people than others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doregasm (talk • contribs) 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Deleted paragraph

I deleted the following paragraph from the subsection "Authoritarianism"

Communitarianism societies are similar to authoritarian societies in that communitarianism is totalitarian in its scope. Communitarians,however use different methods to attain it's goals. Communitarians seek to build consensus and use democratic processes rather than naked power. The UN document titled Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a communitarian charter showing the United Nations goals covering every aspect of society and life issues. The totalitarian nature of communitarianism also raises the question in the minds of many people about whether communitarian democracy is genuine democracy or whether it is merely a democratic dctatorship where the 'deck is stacked ' in favor of the desired outcomes.

For the following reasons:

Communitarianism is not totalitarian. See its definition; communitarianism does not advocate "widespread use of terror tactics", and certainly does not oppose "activities by individuals or groups such as labor unions, churches and political parties that are not directed toward the state's goals.". Quite the opposite.
I see no aspect in which the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is particularly communitarian.

Juan Ponderas

- Harvard Professor and noted Communitarian Mary Ann Glendon sees a Communitarian Influence on the UNHR-- From The Communitarian Update Number 37 July 10, 2001 http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/communitarian_update_n37.html. A Communitarian Influence? "In a recent interview with National Public Radio, Harvard Law professor Mary Ann Glendon discussed the role played by Charles Malik, a philosophy professor from Lebanon, in helping the United Nations Human Rights Commission draft the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. She explained: "In Article I of the declaration, which reads, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood," there was a great argument among the members of the commission about what exactly is the nature of the human person whose rights are being protected here. The Soviets, for example, wanted to submerge the person in the collective. Mrs. Roosevelt and the English representative had a highly individualistic idea of the person. And it was Malik who was able to bring these people together with an understanding of the person as uniquely valuable in and of him or herself, but also as a social being, constituted in part by and through relationships with others. And that was the position that was accepted by the group and that infuses the entire declaration. It's an important point because it kept the declaration from becoming either a highly collectivist or a highly individualistic document."" User:Niki Raapana

- I think that goes a way to address Juan's second point, but says absolutely nothing about his first point. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that deleting an entire paragraph was over kill. The paragraph, though did need some editing. Communitarian is totalitarian in that it involves the community in every aspect of the individuals life. I believe part of the problem is that many political terms that used to be adequate are no longer adequate inlight of new realities. Politics now involves NGO's and makes heavier use of political tools rather than violence. user:Dallas Houston

I suppose that communitarianism could be carried to the point of totalitarianism, but it doesn't inherently involve the community in every aspect of the individual's life. Certainly there are plenty of people in the communitarian camp who would never presume to tell people what books they may read (or write), what they may do sexually in the privacy of their own home, with whom they may associate, etc. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A goal of communitarianism is involving the community in people's lives, but this is different than involving the government, and is usually not forced upon them as totalitarian governments do. It may affect many aspect s of a person's life, but so do most religions, and they are not considered totalitarian. Juan Ponderas 02:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whether communitarianism is voluntary is debatable. Can a libertarian minded person opt out? Can he or she bring minority values to the table? The reason we have a Bill of Rights is to protect minorities from being marginalized or disenfranchised.

Conspiracy nuts are not the only ones concerned that communitarianism poses at least a potential threat to individual liberty. Here are several links to articles that discuss this very possibility. None of them are from a conspiracy site:

http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/magazines/2001/october/masugi.html

http://www.quebecoislibre.org/010901-13.htm

http://www.thirdway.org/files/policy/truedem.html Third Way Article primarily about restoring true democracy to England but contains a reference to Communitarian societies Dallas Houston 17:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Communitarian programs designed by Communitarian Network founder Amitai Etzioni are not voluntary. I can produce ample evidence that Etzioni's GIS centered Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) database pilot tests are not voluntary. http://nord.twu.net/acl/dawson.html

Participants in communitarian human subjects research and various community based database pilot tests are never pre-informed about the collection of personal data or the nature, extent, or full potential capacity of the COMPASS (Community Mapping, Planning and Analsis for Safety Strategies) programme. Participants are not allowed to withdraw from the program. Participants are not allowed to access their personal files or to be informed of all the levels in which their data is being used. Participants are not allowed to know where their personal files are stored and which agencies and personell have access to their private information. COMPASS exists without State Institutional Regulatory Board (IRB) oversight and holds the power to overrule privacy regulations for agencies previously bound by strict regulations prohibiting such actions under U.S. Code 552a. (The Privacy Act of 1974 is not a communitarian document and it includes none of their misunderstood terms.)

The communitarians claim to be many things, and much of what they say is almost too vague. As an encylopedia that presents lengthy explanations about communitarianism written by communitarians, why isn't it equally important to research and perhaps study the exact nature of communitarian policies in order to determine whether communitarians import and export the new Third Way definition of democracy? And then there's the whole realm of possibilities covered under communitarian law, which is becoming a more frequent google search term at the ACL. with visitors coming from across the globe. Wikipedia's section on communitarianism needs references to existing communitarian laws and theories for community aquis. Providing legal sources would be a valuable resource and allow Wiki visitors to determine their own political labels for the global ideology of the socio-economists.

User: Niki Raapana — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.230.111.167 (talk • contribs) 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Marx and Nietzsche

Were Marx and Nietzsche (in vom Genius der Gattung?) communitarian thinkers?--Daanschr 15:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marxism is the antithesis in the Hegelian dialectic. Communitarianism is the synthesis. http://nord.twu.net/acl/dialectic.html User: Niki Raapana — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.230.111.167 (talk • contribs) 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, somebody has been touching upon the topic of the relationship of Nietzsche to communitarianism. I personally found some relevant answers in this webpage called Communitarian Agonism (http://hem.bredband.net/b287842) and I consequently added it to this section. But apparently somebody who doesn't like it just deleted it (I have some reasons to think it's Mr Raapana but I may be wrong). Now, to leave this behind us, I'd like to ask all those who have some knowledge of the subject (communitarianism) or have some general interest in the topic to get up into this discussion and enlighten us in one way or the other. So

HOW DOES COMMUNITARIANISM RELATE (OR NOT) TO NIETZSCHE;

for example, IS COMMUNITARIANISM UNCONCEIVABLE WITHOUT HEGELIAN DIALECTICS (i.e., is communitarianism or at least inter-communitarianism unthinkable in terms of Nietzschean agonism);

more generally and for those more involved with the subjet, WHAT IS (OR HOW SHOULD BE) THE RELATIONSHIP OF WORLD COMMUNITIES ACCORDING TO THE COMMUNITARIAN VIEW?

A nice topic isn't it! I'll set back the link untill we settle the matter. Greetings MBJ 17:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who removed the link, because on a quick read I literally could not see its relevance to this topic; it does not even appear to be this sense of the word "communitarianism". If it is relevant, just linking it and giving the title isn't going to explain anything; you're at least going to need a paragraph explaining what it has to do with the topic at hand. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the site is about theoretical explorations at the borders between communitarianism and Nietzschean thinking -- but that can be too much for you maybe. It's absolutely not about conservative communitarianism as suggested above, quite the contrary. Now, you're free to delete the site; you apparently have the power (and apparently too the necessary number of inlogging identities) to do that. Never mind, just please comment on my questions above about Nietzsche being or not being communitarian. And when you're ready with that I have a bonus question for you: What you think about the November 2005 revolt in France; was it "communitarian" as official France has been claiming or not? What's your opinion about the French language use of "communitarianism"? Should the French rather speak of "communalism"? And by the way how does the deleters' consensus look; are communitarians and anti-communitarians equally represented on board? MBJ 20:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"number of inlogging identities": are you accusing me of using sockpuppets? If you are, then please start and RFC against me and indicate what you are claiming are my sockpuppets. And please request that I be de-adminned for doing such a thing, because if you were right, I would deserve to be. Otherwise, please assume my good faith, and don't make random accusations.

I'm not expert on Nietzsche; I've read two of his books, browsed others. It's hard to imagine a less "communitarian" notion than that of the Übermensch: the main thing I remember Nietzsche saying about communities in the aggregate is that perhaps a race is nature's way to produce a few great individuals. What precisely in Nietzsche do you consider communitarian?

I'd have to see a precise quotation on that about the November 2005 revolt in France being "communitarian": offhand, I suspect that it was not this meaning of "communitarian" but in the sense of "communalism", the sides being divided along the lines of different ethic/religious/etc. communities (as, for example, the riots at the time India and Pakistan were divided). I certainly do not have good enough French to say how these words line up in French; even in English, the words are sometimes used interchangeably, but that does not change the fact that this encyclopedia article is about one meaning not the other. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Even if the same word were used for both, that would simply call for a disambiguation.

Your link http://hem.bredband.net/b287842 leads to a collection of papers thick with jargon. Frankly, this is not one of my main topics, and I'm not planning to take the several hours it would obviously take to read them. It is not incumbent on me to work my way through these papers. It is incumbent on the person who wants to get this material into the article to write a comprehensible summary, with citations, as candidate text for the article. To be honest, I'm not even sure of the sense in which they are using the word "agonism". To me, "agonism" means being insulting or abusive without genuinely examining the arguments of the other side; they are obviously using the word in a different sense, but I am not sure I understand the meaning they are using, and I presume it has a history I am not familiar with. It is certainly not a common word: even the sense of the word I know, I would count as pretty obscure. And their abstracts, frankly, are miserable: for example, "Agonistic rights are basically individuation rights and duties in matters of identity interpretation and cultural meaning; (a) rights to critical contestation of monopoly and/or "herd" restrictions and (b) duties of moral integrity and innovative competition," or "The essay… takes up the question of the linguistic borders of Derridean supplementation, the question of the significance of borrowings in natural language-related cultures, and the question of the bias risk of a purely interdiscursivist approach." This is obscurantist. I have no intention of ploughing through it. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Communitarianism in Latin America

I came across as interesting passage in a book called "El Salvador: Central America in the New Cold War". Apparently, a Communitarian Action organization existed there, seemingly under the direction of Napoleon Duarte, who also wrote a book on the subject. After talking about some projects Duarte enacted as mayor of San Salvador, it goes on to say "This program of decentralization of authority, the creation of neighborhood organizations able to carry out self-help projects, is the heart of the doctrine of communitarianism, which was evolved by a Chilean philosopher, Jaime Castillo". I can't research this further due to a lack of time, but if somebody else could look into this... Juan Ponderas

Endless debate

So, obviously, there is some disagreement on this topic. But, as far as I can tell, the long debate on the talk page, essentially between two people, is doing little to move the article forward. Can those who wish to add material to the article (Niki, maybe Juan) try to write 2-3 paragraphs, with appropriate citations, succinctly summarizing the views they think are missing from the article, for possible insertion into the article? And/or, conversely, indicate specific material in the article that they think either is actively inaccurate or requires citation? Otherwise: guys, I assume you each have a website of your own to write long opinion articles, or can start one. This page is supposed to be for working on the article. Of course brief digressions are fine, and questions from people who need information are welcome, but this endless debate without any concrete proposal of content is turning into a distraction from the task at hand. -- Jmabel | Talk 9 Jan 2005

My main proposal was that Communitarian Law be included. Now that we've agreed it is an existing, verifiable topic directly related to theoretical communitarianism and Etzioni's "brand," I'm happy to end this debate. Will we be writing the new addition together? And, for the record, I have never deleted anything on Wikipedia, I do have a website that adresses all factual and verifiable facets of communitarianism (including its relationship to Etzioni, existentialism, religion, politics, law, foreign terminology, and U.S. domestic and foreign policy), and I'm a Ms, not a Mr. My next contributions will be devoted to updating and expanding Wiki's Amitai Etzioni page and creating a Wiki page for UN Local Agenda 21 (another global communitarian legal integration programme).66.230.91.244 18:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC) User: Niki Raapana[reply]

@@ Line 413: / Line 413: @@
 :The [[U.S. Constitution]] is the [[Supreme Law]] in the [[United States]]. U.S. Supreme Law cannot  legally be modified, merged, balanced, or changed without passage by 3/4 of the individual State legislatures, after full, open, public disclosure and public discourse. Neither the U.S. President nor the U.S. Congress has the legal authority to make trade agreements that require "legal internal reforms" without the individual state's express permission granted by elected representatives who have to answer to the individual registered voters in each indidvidual state. This is our [[Rule of Law]]. The U.S. cannot legally be "integrated" into an American Region. Any attempt to subordinate  U.S. law or any U.S. citizens to the supremecy of Communitarian Law is the same as attempting to overthrow the legitimate government of the United States of America, which makes it [[high treason]]. [[Niki Raapana]] [[User:66.230.91.17|66.230.91.17]] 18:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
+::Here's another very important way the term is used: "In 2001, the European Commission presented a proposal for a directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law. It is based on Articles 174 and 175, ECT, under which a high level of protection of the environment must be guaranteed. <b>The European Commission points out that there is a considerable body of communitarian environmental law</b>, and that Member States are obliged to provide for effective, dissuasive and proportionate sanctions." [emphasis added] pdf-Harmonization and harmonizing measures in criminal law, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. http://www.knaw.nl/publicaties/pdf/20021103.pdf [[User: Niki Raapana]] [[User:66.230.91.139|66.230.91.139]] 14:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 == Cut from article: communism, commune ==