Local autonomy discussion - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

User avatar
By AFAIK
#14781764
Split/ inspired from here.

How would city-states be formed? How would they function? How would they interact? By what mechanism would the strong be prevented from dominating the weak? How would they address regional or global problems such as environmental degradation, the internet, trans-national businesses or international crime syndicates?

Local autonomy would only work if non-interference became a strong cultural value and economies were downsized by requiring local ownership, imo.
#14781778
AFAIK wrote:Split/ inspired from here.

How would city-states be formed? How would they function? How would they interact? By what mechanism would the strong be prevented from dominating the weak? How would they address regional or global problems such as environmental degradation, the internet, trans-national businesses or international crime syndicates?

Local autonomy would only work if non-interference became a strong cultural value and economies were downsized by requiring local ownership, imo.


I doubt anyone is interested in this thread except me, so I will withhold my comments for now. This ^ is correct however.
I understand the frustration at me introducing this topic in other threads but it is a vital part of what is happening in the US, if not the rest of the world, right now. We are discussing 'individual rights' versus 'community rights' and failing to recognize this makes many arguments meaningless. How can we discuss our differences if we fail to recognize what they really are? :?: Dividing between 'I support gay rights' and 'I oppose gay rights' forces the discussion to be based solely on 'individual rights', so we are not having a real discussion at all. :(
#14781786
I doubt anyone is interested in this thread except me


Yet so many seem to want to argue the point. :lol:

Rights don't exist, IMO, and I feel no moral obligation to happily let people enforce a set of rights I disagree with.

I don't value this sort of moral pluralism.
#14781790
mikema63 wrote:Yet so many seem to want to argue the point. :lol:

Rights don't exist, IMO, and I feel no moral obligation to happily let people enforce a set of rights I disagree with.

I don't value this sort of moral pluralism.


I don't believe we have the choice of living without laws, so rights will be dictated by some authority. The question is how large of an authority should our rights extend to. If you believe your right should be worldwide, then you advocate for a world government that is capable of knowing what is truly right and wrong. I do not believe humans are capable of that, and therefore our rights should be limited to a much smaller area. It is dangerous hubris to believe otherwise.
#14781798
I don't believe there is one right or wrong, because I don't think there is any moral truth.

Morality has always been a combination of rules necessary for survival, social cohesion, and matters of taste.

There is no best morality, but there are ones with more utility.

Our rights being limited to any particular area is completely arbitrary, and in itself is an ought statement I don't agree with.

I don't have any particular moral belief about what size government ought to be. It might as well be efficient then.

In every age there will be people who fight for what they believe and either get it or don't. Then everyone dies and the point becomes moot.
#14781804
@mikema63
I don't believe there is one right or wrong, because I don't think there is any moral truth.

I agree, but creating moral truths is essential to civilization.
Morality has always been a combination of rules necessary for survival, social cohesion, and matters of taste.

Agree
There is no best morality, but there are ones with more utility.

Of course this would be the Communist (not to be taken as a derogatory) view. Personally, I believe economics should be viewed separate from community. It is an asset, but not a 'need'.
Our rights being limited to any particular area is completely arbitrary, and in itself is an ought statement I don't agree with.

Yes, they must be arbitrary to some extent, but there will be limits established whether we think there should be or not. They are either universal or they are limited. If you do not believe in a 'moral truth', then it would be logical not to support a universal truth.

I don't have any particular moral belief about what size government ought to be. It might as well be efficient then.

I limit my belief to being the elimination of tiers of government. A population that requires layers of government becomes unresponsive to the people. My current ideal would be less than one million people and reduced as technology allows for self sufficiency of basic modern needs. In reality this is probably 50,000 people today. This is the number for supporting a power plant or major hospital. A university would require more of course. An ideal high school only requires a population base of 10,000.

In every age there will be people who fight for what they believe and either get it or don't. Then everyone dies and the point becomes moot.

Exactly, so why not allow people to explore as many avenues as possible to increase our chances of making breakthroughs?
#14781811
My suggestion is that federalism is too valuable to be dispensed with. More local autonomy would be great. I favor local worker control of enterprises. Without a doubt we could have a much greater degree of local autonomy and democracy than we now have - but the federal issuer of currency is vital in the context of a modern economy. The genius of a true federalist economy (as designed by Hamilton) is that it prevents excessive extremes of poverty and wealth in different locations (when allowed to operate properly).

In a properly functioning complex adaptive system, all hierarchical strata coexist in an interdependent fashion and their is free communication in both lateral and vertical directions, allowing the system to respond in a timely and effective way to new challenges.

Too little coordination is as deadly as too much central coordination. The federal issuer of currency is the irreducible and necessary minimal standard for a healthy functioning economy, so a true federal economic union is vital.
#14781813
@One Degree because it's not a live option, and I'm happy to impose a good number of my beliefs. I don't care if it makes people sad.
#14781821
quetzalcoatl wrote:My suggestion is that federalism is too valuable to be dispensed with. More local autonomy would be great. I favor local worker control of enterprises. Without a doubt we could have a much greater degree of local autonomy and democracy than we now have - but the federal issuer of currency is vital in the context of a modern economy. The genius of a true federalist economy (as designed by Hamilton) is that it prevents excessive extremes of poverty and wealth in different locations (when allowed to operate properly).

In a properly functioning complex adaptive system, all hierarchical strata coexist in an interdependent fashion and their is free communication in both lateral and vertical directions, allowing the system to respond in a timely and effective way to new challenges.

Too little coordination is as deadly as too much central coordination. The federal issuer of currency is the irreducible and necessary minimal standard for a healthy functioning economy, so a true federal economic union is vital.


These are valid arguments but trade and currency issues can be worked out. 75 of our current 233 countries have populations of less than one million. Local autonomy is here and it is working. Economic issues can be dealt with and standardized without standardizing the cultures.
@mikema63 I agree with your sentiments and believe we should all pursue our best interests, but limits will be placed so we still need to choose what those limits are. This does not limit how far our rights may be implemented, it just says they must be accepted by each. :hmm:

Edit: I short changed @quetzalcoatl argument about versatility. My short answer is areas that have failed should be allowed to fail and it's citizens dispersed. A failed area is normally due to systemic abuse of power and aid will not really solve much. Citystates that fail should also be allowed to fail.
#14781833
I'm not willing to allow quite a number of things in the name of some generalized respect for the opinions of the bulk of humanity.
#14781838
mikema63 wrote:I'm not willing to allow quite a number of things in the name of some generalized respect for the opinions of the bulk of humanity.


Well good luck. I can empathize having been a rebel most of my life. I fought a lot of battles against the establishment and won quite a few, but as soon as I went away so did the new regulations I forced to happen. :(
After awhile they wear you down fighting the same battle over and over. Common sense is always only a temporary win over ingrained traditions. Perhaps this is why I prefer a wide variety of communities with different traditions. :hmm: They won't let you significantly change a current one, so all you can do is find one that mostly agrees with you.
#14782007
The biggest problem I see with local autonomy is ideally about 90% of the earth should be international territory and it's resources shared by all. The problem is, is this possible without a world government developing that is too powerful? An agreement between citystates without providing a budget or actual employees for a world organization might work, but might be clumsy. :?:
#14782012
I don't see how you'd govern 90% of the world's resources without a substantial budget. It would also grant the world government massive power through resource control. An agreement without enforcers is also problematic.

What happens to the people living in international territory?
#14782014
mikema63 wrote:I don't see how you'd govern 90% of the world's resources without a substantial budget. It would also grant the world government massive power through resource control. An agreement without enforcers is also problematic.

What happens to the people living in international territory?


95% of the earths population lives on 10% of the land surface which would be about 3% of the earth. This leaves at least 90% too thinly populated to be self sufficient. These areas are either settled by native inhabitants or corporate/military installations. My suggestion would be the citystates grant leases to any 'standardized area' with less than 10,000 people. This means they would operate independently but would have no vote in a 'world council'. Expanding to over 10,000 would then make them autonomous and have a vote. Uninhabited areas could be granted short term leases to businesses equally owned by the voting citystates as needed for resource extraction. Policing and military actions would be carried out by small contingents from each citystate rather than a separate police/military. Don't claim this to be ideal, but the best I have come up with so far. We have managed fairly well in Antarctica with this semi formal arrangement. :eh:
Besides, you are offering more questions when I was hoping for help with some answers. :lol: :lol:
#14782073
Well Antarctica works because there isn't really anything to fight over. We are talking about vast amounts of natural resources and likely the bulk of the world's food supply.

Ultimately this seems to be turning into a world wide federal government along the lines of the US with some modified government levels. Actually my intuition would be that since the lower power blocks will be so much smaller that the federal government would expand quite rapidly unless you added larger governing blocks over the city state level which would manage the "unincorporated" land.
#14782078
mikema63 wrote:Well Antarctica works because there isn't really anything to fight over. We are talking about vast amounts of natural resources and likely the bulk of the world's food supply.

Ultimately this seems to be turning into a world wide federal government along the lines of the US with some modified government levels. Actually my intuition would be that since the lower power blocks will be so much smaller that the federal government would expand quite rapidly unless you added larger governing blocks over the city state level which would manage the "unincorporated" land.


I admit this is a dilemma I have had difficulty with. I have several possibilities, but the best is probably the same way we deal with the 'high seas'. It is an international agreement that is enforced by individual countries by the power in the agreement. This means any citystate could enforce the restrictions on 'unincorporated land' usage. People are already established in the food production areas. It is only mineral resource that is actually a question, and as I proposed this could be dealt with by corporate leasing. This does not fully answer your objections and I don't propose I know what all the answers should be. I just advocate a direction to pursue. :D
I do agree the basic guidelines appear to follow a US federalist system, but it eliminates the central government having any resources or power other than that of the individual citystates. No standing army of it's own and no employees of it's own. More of a workable UN than a US.
#14782089
I don't see how you can get by with no employees, after all it's an administrative body and would at least have to hire a file clerk.

The no standing army clause would only work if you had zero chance of a city state rebellion or a civil war.

Just as a matter of personal taste as well I wouldn't even contemplate the system without some sort of scientific program, space program, epidemic prevention function, regulatory function to mediate deals between several city states that would be necessary for things like fishing rights and water usage. I don't see how you can not regulate interstate commerce as well since that would be a major way to manipulate other city states otherwise.
#14782105
mikema63 wrote:I don't see how you can get by with no employees, after all it's an administrative body and would at least have to hire a file clerk.

The no standing army clause would only work if you had zero chance of a city state rebellion or a civil war.

Just as a matter of personal taste as well I wouldn't even contemplate the system without some sort of scientific program, space program, epidemic prevention function, regulatory function to mediate deals between several city states that would be necessary for things like fishing rights and water usage. I don't see how you can not regulate interstate commerce as well since that would be a major way to manipulate other city states otherwise.


I don't see why any of these are determined by the size of the sovereign nation states? :?: The UN has no standing army other than what the individual sovereign nations provide. Communication and coordination are necessary, but they can be carried out by the states themselves without a separate body. The only thing necessary is a commitment to the sanctity of the states themselves to the point where all will join against any citystate that tries to violate their agreements (same as the UN ideal). Using the US as an example, why do you need federal employees who are located in the states to enforce programs. Why can not the states be trusted to do this themselves? It is simply a matter of where you want the power to be. This has always been a debate in the US and has no real effect on operational ability. There is nothing the federal government does that can not be done through coordination of the states doing parts of it themselves.
#14782143
The UN is almost entirely powerless. It's literally just a shell organization designed to legitimize powerful countries forcing their whims on weaker states. If the UN passed some demand that the US doesn't like the US can simply ignore it with no repercussions.

In the same way a powerless central government is one that a powerful bloc of city states can simply ignore.

Your trying to create a central body that will glue the city states into a stable system but you aren't giving it any glue. The UN is held together by the political power of the US, UK, EU, China, and Russia. If you model your central government of that then it's going to be a handful of city states whose power holds it together. They will act as enforcers, but to their own wills, and everyone else will eventually be either under their thumb or will bail when they are powerless.

The whole thing falls apart.

@litwin is clearly an Alex Jones type conspir[…]

It is true that the Hindu's gave us nothing. But […]

I dont buy it, Why would anyone go for a vacation […]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@JohnRawls No. Your perception of it is not. I g[…]