It was clear to me that Lisa had chosen the wrong name for a viable alternative political movement, plus her list of key principles was inadequate. I identified 4 essential principles that were missing:
The reason symbiosis is an essential principle is because humanity must achieve a symbiotic relationship to nature in order to survive. The current and traditional relationship is exploitative and destructive on our part. An alternative political movement must signal to people that it is part of the solution to the global crisis by identifying itself as a better option than business as usual. It can only be a better option if it includes a sustainable economy, which requires eliminating the exploitation and destruction of nature in a society that is sustainable in perpetuity. Embracing symbiosis with nature is essentially a spiritual transformation.
The reason symbiosis is an essential principle is because it is the key to wealth-sharing. Recognising equity of access to common wealth restores our original tribal economy in which food was always shared equitably. Survival of the tribe always depended on this basic equity. It is enshrined nowadays in human rights covenants adopted by the UN but states keep failing to ensure that the economy delivers it, due to the fact that they remain captive to vested interests. An alternative political movement must enforce delivery. Intergenerational equity must be preserved in a sustainable society.
The reason transcendence is an essential is because it is necessary for people do to liberate themselves from an unsatisfactory status quo. Personal transcendence is often accomplished via reframing, education & enlightenment, therapies and self-improvement disciplines. Insufficient application of transcendent techniques to group involvement is the reason for the inertial effect of business as usual as a collective mind-set. Replacing that paradigm with a better way of working together requires collective transcendence. Only by doing this will our quality of life improve.
Collective decision-making must be constrained by the moral imperative of producing decisions that are consistent with the common good. This can readily be achieved by imposing a legal requirement that group decisions conform to the principle of natural justice. Normally this equates to social justice and the concepts of fairness and the greater good of all. Historical usage as a legal `term of art' cannot be deemed to prevail over our recognition of the basic principle. In deciding, people are best advised to use their conscience and prioritise the common interests of everyone.
It is worth noting that the Greens have a global collective tradition based upon 4 key principles: ecological wisdom, social justice, grassroots democracy, and non-violence. While these always seemed reasonable I sensed their insufficiency and am not surprised by efforts to extend them, as in the US ten-point plan. Their social justice principle is more akin to the equity principle above than the natural justice principle.* To extend a sectarian view into the mainstream requires precision of thought and articulation; reasoning that connects to common sense!
Ecological wisdom superficially equates to the symbiosis principle but the greens failed to think deeply enough to identify it explicitly. They correctly identify a sustainable society and regenerative agriculture as required but fail to specify that the economy must be sustainable also. They imply intergenerational equity is necessary without actually saying so. The american greens have created a non-growth principle (#10) separately from the sustainability principle (#3), but non-growth is a consequence of a sustainable economy, not a basic principle.
There is merit in emphasising the point, but you need to do that in public relations via a social charter or manifesto when you explain how people can collectively prosper without growth. I agree with acknowledging participatory democracy as a natural right, along with gender equity. Their decentralisation principle (#5) is better identified as the principle of local autonomy - that too is a natural right people ought to have.
Their #6 tries to describe equity in economic systems, and working together for the common good. It beats all round that bush in woolly thinking without actually getting to the heart of the matter. Economic democracy is the closest they get but they fail to identify it as a key principle. Their #8 seems valid but embracing diversity is stronger if you actually identify a principle of inclusion of minority views in public life - a right of representation in public debate.
Their #9 is mere idealism devoid of principle - it looks like a vision statement instead. There is actually a principle of responsibility that could be identified. Everyone is responsible for the effects of their behaviour on others. The group also has the right to enforce accountability on members. That's a separate (complementary) principle!
freedom of choice
The right have correctly identified that we must be free to choose, as Milton Freidman famously put it back in the mid-'70s. This fundamental right of expression of our decisions is guided by our personal values. It applies superficially to goods & services, but more importantly to self-development, fulfillment and destiny. The economy works best when we have the incentive to contribute in the manner that best suits our skills, talents and aspirations.
All such key principles are contenders for inclusion in a contemporary social charter. Such a document is valid on the basis of consensus. Consensus only happens when people move beyond complacency and formalise their agreement.
* see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pillars_of_the_Green_Party