The Necessary & Sufficient Confrontation
The essence of the necessary and sufficient confrontation is with the notion that "i own you" or "he owns me" - any form of one person owning the other, effectively as a possession.
The "state" that embodies this confrontation, upholds law that recognizes the person as not owned by any other than one's self.
The "church" that embodies this confrontation, is the logistic space and community support for personal routines of behavior towards self and other that recognize the person as not owned by any other than one's self.
So in a way it is not a confrontation. Its an affirmation. It is an affirmation that a person is not a thing, a person belongs to their own self. Even when that person is a minor (child.) The confrontation is only when one member of a relationship decides to live with that affirmation, and the other does not. The person can choose to join the church - the dedicated community.
So imagine that once the concentric community is made, the men as the outer ring do commit to defending the group at the property line. This is the best possible interpretation of the second amendment in action, the well regulated militia. If a member were to enter, having reached a consensus with the group that they do indeed belong there, another person from outside may not enter the circle to drag that first one out. Sanctuary has been claimed.
It will be necessary and possible to use constitutional law to override custodial order. Trespassing is recognized as a behavior to respond to with police action. Nonetheless, an upgrade of our cultural understanding of what constitutes humane imprisonment is called for, and must be part of the plan.
And for that matter, it certainly needn't come to an actual property line (armed) confrontation - but in the extreme, it could happen. Especially in the form of police action to remove a trespasser.
The "state" that embodies this confrontation, upholds law that recognizes the person as not owned by any other than one's self.
The "church" that embodies this confrontation, is the logistic space and community support for personal routines of behavior towards self and other that recognize the person as not owned by any other than one's self.
So in a way it is not a confrontation. Its an affirmation. It is an affirmation that a person is not a thing, a person belongs to their own self. Even when that person is a minor (child.) The confrontation is only when one member of a relationship decides to live with that affirmation, and the other does not. The person can choose to join the church - the dedicated community.
So imagine that once the concentric community is made, the men as the outer ring do commit to defending the group at the property line. This is the best possible interpretation of the second amendment in action, the well regulated militia. If a member were to enter, having reached a consensus with the group that they do indeed belong there, another person from outside may not enter the circle to drag that first one out. Sanctuary has been claimed.
It will be necessary and possible to use constitutional law to override custodial order. Trespassing is recognized as a behavior to respond to with police action. Nonetheless, an upgrade of our cultural understanding of what constitutes humane imprisonment is called for, and must be part of the plan.
And for that matter, it certainly needn't come to an actual property line (armed) confrontation - but in the extreme, it could happen. Especially in the form of police action to remove a trespasser.
