On Centralization and Representation: A Dialectical Libertarian Approach
In a dialogue following one of my posts, I made the following comments. I just wanted to share them in a post.
"Decentralization can be just as fascist as centralization. Centralization can lead to more libertarian outcomes. I mean, the centralized policing in Norway is more libertarian than the decentralized anarchic policing of South Africa.
"Also, take the United States. The local governments in the South wanted to preserve slavery, the central government overruled. The local governments wanted Jim Crow laws, segregation, etc., but central government overruled. America has lots of rural areas, where the people are mostly uneducated bigots (homophobic, racist, etc.). If you allow the small towns in America to make their own rules, many of them would ban or execute blacks and homosexuals. The central government allows the big cities, where the majority of people are, to override the rural populations that are generally fascist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. And, generally speaking it is best for everyone in America when the educated city population gets to drown out the uneducated rural populace, because the rural population generally supports fascism. Not that they are bad people; they just don't know any better....
"To clarify, I only accept centralization under certain very specific conditions. I will support centralization only if the result of that centralization happens to be more libertarian than the result of decentralization would be in the same circumstances. I am, first and foremost, a libertarian, and only support decentralization when it has libertarian results. I want things to be done through direct democracy as much as possible, but not if the things that get done are anti-libertarian and bad in themselves. A fascist policy that is anti-libertarian is just as bad if it is passed through local direct democracy as it would be if imposed by a single tyrannical despot. I support the results that are most libertarian. It was direct democracy in Switzerland that banned the construction of mosque minarets. This is a fascistic policy that I can’t support, even though it was voted in directly by the people, not through representatives. The mosques in question are private property, and the building of minarets doesn’t harm anyone, so the libertarian policy must be to allow mosques to have minarets. Furthermore, as someone who has somewhat of a background in Christian fundamentalism, having been influenced by theonomy/reconstructionism (a movement to implement biblical law in America) before becoming an atheist, I am very aware that there are religious folks in certain small towns that would actually make “sodomy” a punishable offense, so that a person accused of sodomy would be publicly flogged if not executed. That policy is unacceptable and fascist, regardless of the manner in which the law is formed. If a town decides to execute homosexuals or drive blacks out of town, that policy is fascist and unacceptable, even if it was formed through directly democratic processes at the local level. Insofar as more centralized power prevents such anti-libertarian policies, I think those forms of centralization are justified.
"On the other hand, I adhere to the distributist doctrine of subsidiarity which holds that all matters should be handled by the least centralized and smallest body capable of efficiently dealing with it. If a matter can effectively be dealt with on the individual level, then no one else needs to get involved. If it can be dealt with at the family level, then that’s where it should be handled. If it can be handled by the local community or municipality in an effective way, then no larger or more centralized authority should get involved. However, this is not pure decentralism/anarchism. I believe that governments should exist for the purpose of maximizing human liberty, with liberty being defined as non-domination. If two families are feuding and come to violence, I think local government ought to get involved. If a massive army starts marching into town, then federal/central government ought to get involved. When it comes to issues of civil rights, if the local governments fail to appropriately guarantee those rights to all people, then more centralized levels of government are right to intervene. Also, this comes into play with things like corruption in local government institutions. For instance, there was a cop in my city who killed and injured several people because he was intoxicated while on duty and crashed his cop car. The local police were all working to cover up the fact that he was intoxicated. There was local corruption, so the federal government stepped in and took over the investigation to ensure that justice was done. In such instances, I am for less local and more centralized levels of government taking over, if they can effectively deliver justice when local government fails to. If, however, the more centralized levels are less effective at delivering justice in any instance, then the more decentralized/local level action is to be preferred.
"Thus, my position is more pragmatic. I don’t think that decentralization is either good or bad in itself; same for centralization; I don’t think that “more government” is necessarily good, nor that it’s bad; and I don’t think that “less government” is necessarily good nor bad. What is good is whatever happens to maximize liberty and general wellbeing, and what happens to maximize liberty/wellbeing will differ from time to time, varying with “particular circumstances of time and place."
"I am for decentralizing any thing as soon as more local/decentralized/directly-democratic levels of government are able to effectively deliver justice on that particular thing. If you can educate people through public schools, get them to learn tolerance for other cultures, and thereby eliminate bigotry through education, then local direct democracy won’t lead to fascistic policies. Once you thoroughly educate the rural populace and eliminate the bigotry that causes rural folks to support bad policies, then it is perfectly fine to allow rural populaces to govern themselves directly at the local level once more....
"When I said, “they don’t know any better,” I was not making an ignorant comment. I was merely stating a fact. The reality is that a large part of the populace is ignorant. Hopefully the majority are not. However, it is often the case that people with like minds and similar cultures flock together. Thus, the majority in a certain small town or area could very well be ignorant. That’s why I think the votes of the majority of people who are not bigots ought to override the votes of the bigots in the form of urban liberals overriding rural racists, etc. It’s still majoritarian democracy, and it can even be direct democracy.
"I like direct democracy, and like digital direct democracy in particular. However, I do think there are instances when decisions need to be made on complicated issues only after long deliberation. I tend to agree with Edmund Burke on this point, that sometimes decisions need to be made by people who listened to all the arguments and participated in all the discussions. If there are meetings on town planning, to discuss some pressing issue, then there ought to be much deliberation, debate, and discussion. The people that took part in the discussion and listened to the various sides of the debate and heard the various arguments—those are the people that should vote on it. If some such topic is debated within the context of a parliament, council, or congress of delegates or representatives, then it would be best for only the delegates/representatives to vote rather than allowing the people to vote directly, since the people did not all listen to the arguments and would therefore not be in a position to make the most rational choice. Suppose that the people all agree that there ought to be taxes and that the taxes ought to fund defense, only stipulating that the tax shall be the least burdensome tax sufficient for funding the defense of the territory (it is quite possible for people to reach such a consensus in smaller polities, like Rojava)—the people have consented—but now the people go back to work and the administrators are left to implement the policy agreed upon. It may be best to have representatives assemble in a deliberative assembly and discuss how to go about implementing the policy. The deliberative assembly will thoroughly discuss the issue of how much defense is needed, debating all the finer points, then they will determine the cost of that defense (i.e. how much tax revenue they need to fund defense), and then they must determine the least burdensome way of collecting said taxes (shall it be a flat income tax, progressive income tax, flat sales tax, value added tax, land value tax?). The representatives would discuss all of these matters, determine what is most consistent, in their own estimation, with the mandate that they were given by their constituents, and then vote in favor of that. So, the representatives, after deliberation, may decide that land value tax is the least burdensome way of collecting tax. And that decision ought to be made not by the people at home who did not listen to all the arguments for and against it, but by the representatives that did listen to the debates that took place."
As things currently are in America, I think decentralization and direct democracy won't work. However, if we enact education reform that makes books by Karl Popper, Hilary Putnam, and Charles Darwin essential reading in high schools and gives due attention to evolutionary theory and science, people will turn away from religion and prejudices, which will allow us to explore more decentralized approaches to governance. Then, if we create a universal basic income funded by land value tax, thereby abolishing wage-slavery, we can free people up to engage in politics more. Educational reform and basic income are prerequisites to moving in the direction of decentralization and direct democracy.
There is a lot to digest here. I think your pragmatism relating to decentralization vs. centralizing is very sound and reasonable. If we moved to this type of government we would be leaps and bounds ahead of where we are now.
Moving from Bronx, NY to rural Michigan, I have a broad experience of cultures. I do agree that rural communities tend to be more bigoted, but it isn’t because a lack of education. I find in general, a lot of people are more educated out here than in the “inner city”. A large percentage of populations in the cities are impoverished and poorly educated. I think “cultures” is the difference. People in the city are constantly experiencing new cultures and this puts them in a mindset more open and willing to accept new ideas. I massive problem rural America has from the artistic, gifted, talented, and open individuals leave to the cities. Thus leaving the rigid and “backwards” folk and the culture never is challenged or grows. A solution to this would be decentralizing the population where there is access to education, culture, art, nature, and agriculture for all. That is easier said than done and would require a complete restructuring of our societies though. The internet is changing that however, as people are no longer bound to living in a city to find high paying work.
I think culture is only part of it, but it's the part that is harder to address policy-wise. Education is easier to address, and culture is shaped by education. If rural schools taught Darwinian theory, the science of evolution, the epistemology of science, sociology, anthropology...and had the students read James Baldwin, MLK, Gandhi, Hilary Putnam, Karl Popper, books on feminist theory, gay rights, etc, then rural culture would be drastically different, far closer to urban culture.... If you did that, then I'd be fine with them also learning the Bible, John Calvin, and C. S. Lewis in school, because understanding the real sciences will put people in a position to make an informed decision when choosing a religion or choosing to reject religion.
I disagree that culture is shaped by education, if you are refering to schooling as education. I think this aim can be extremely dangerous. Culture is much more controlled by the home and community. Schools can try all they want, but it’s going to fail without the community and families.
As I stated, with schooling, those who learn well in the school system end up leaving their rural hometown or poor hoods, and the communities tend to remain just as impoverished and bigoted.
I know that you have some good ideas and good intentions. I also agree that decentralised is not generally positive or negative. But parts of your ideology are downright dangerous.
I will reply in detail to a few parts I find particularly worrying.
you are very subjective and negative when it comes to the rural population. Nothing good ever comes from dividing people in groups (by causation or correlation). Just replace rural population in your post by any marginalised group and read it again. It might be quite shocking.
you advocate for a minimum education to be a full member of society. But what should that be? In the end it will just be a tool for people in power to exclude others from political participation.
you support democracy, but only as long as it provides the results you want. If it doesn't you say we should find different ways to decide. In the end, you have a goal in mind and want to construct a political system that fulfils that goal. What if you wont end up on top of that system and some asshole will?
Lets say I have a different goal and thus want other decisions to be made by direct vote, etc. How could we reach consensus?
In the end i believe you are using valid arguments to construct and promote a totalitarian system. And yes, a totalitarian system with a benevolent dictator can do amazing things. But never in the history of humanity did such a system end well. The power will not always stay in the hand of the good. It only takes one bad dictator to ruin it all.
That's a strawman.
In some of my other posts, I have written in favor of abolishing the office of the President and eliminating all monarchical and quasi-monarchical institution. My argument is about what level democracy ought to take place at: a majority of a thousand in one local area, that happens to be a minority of the total populace nationally, vs. the majority of the whole populace. Furthermore, I am not for or against democracy per se. I am for the maximization of liberty, and specifically liberty defined as non-domination in the civic republican sense (I am free to the extent that no other person has the capacity to arbitrarily intervene in my choices). Furthermore, there are different forms of democracy. No one just supports democracy in general, because that's nonsense. My argument cannot justify a totalitarian State. The only thing that it justifies is not putting the cart before the horse! And I'm looking specifically at the American system, btw. More direct democracy and more decentralization would be despotic in the context of the United States today. In the town where I currently live, the majority of the population is racist and homophobic. And, most towns in America are the same way. The majority of Americans are not, but the majority of the small towns are. I'm arguing for the majority to overrule a backwards minority. In terms of territory, the bigot minority has more control. They own more land and are spread out more. In terms of actually headcount, they are not in the majority, but decentralization would allow this minority to impose their backwards despotic politics on the majority of the nation. Given the current American situation, centralized democracy is actually more democratic in the context of the whole. Localization of politics would mean the return of Jim Crow, racist laws, and banning of homosexuality. In this town, my spouse is a racial minority, one which the majority of the populace would oppress if given the opportunity. Currently, centralized democracy does not allow local populations to pass such oppressive laws.
Rural population as a marginalized group is an invalid argument, in my opinion. They are part of the majority, in terms of race, class, and everything else. They are a minority only in terms of their extremist and fascist political views, which stem from lousy education in rural areas coupled with lack of exposure to "the other." You said "Just replace rural population in your post by any marginalised group and read it again." Okay, let's do that. We'll replace it with the most vocal and powerful marginalized group in the United States right now, "white supremacists." I'm not pitting one group against another; they are already against each other. It is a fact that the greatest indicator of political view in America is where you live, whether in an urban or a rural environment: if you are in a rural environment, your views are generally more likely to be authoritarian.
What you argue would follow from my position is precisely what follows, not from by view but, from the alternative. We currently have a dictatorial leader with totalitarian leanings, moving more and more towards fascism, because the institution of the electoral college allowed the rural minority to override the popular vote and thereby impose their fascist leader on the urban majority. Here I'm arguing for more democracy, not less. I'm arguing that the same thing that happened in the Presidential election would replicate itself locally throughout America if we were to switch to decentralized direct democracy today.
With representative vs. direct democracy, the majority of the populace is under wage-slavery, working 40+ hours a week, then working on finances, shopping for groceries, dealing with personal matters, etc. in their "spare time." The wealthy are the only ones with the free time to actually participate in politics if we transition to direct democracy, which means that direct democracy will intensify plutocracy (rule of the wealthy). With representative democracy, the poor and middle class—the working class, which is the majority—simply has to find time to vote for representatives a few times a year, which it's easier to find time for than it is to attend directly democratic meetings on a regular basis. By switching to direct democracy, without freeing people from wage-slavery, you simply increase the control of an already powerful minority, thereby making the system less democratic. Direct democracy is only more democratic when the people are free to participate and have the time and ability to become informed and make informed decisions.
I did not imply that the rurals are a marginalised group and i don't think they are. Still I believe that generalisations against them (or anyone) and not recognising their individuality is the wrong approach.
On democracy and governance, I agree that policies can be harmful. But government cannot make an immoral people moral. Government cannot create wealth. If we want real change we must change the way people think and not the political system. We should be champions of our vision for a better world and not champions for political change. We should live the change we want to see instead of waiting for the government to forbid the opposite.
And I think right now there can be a lot of hope. Technology has made ordinary workers jobless over the past decades. But now it is slowly starting to also make the capital holders redundant.
But if the generalization corresponds to facts, then the assertion that we ought not generalize amounts to the assertion that we ought not speak the truth. It is a fact that people in rural areas are generally less well educated and consequently far more likely to be racist, homophobic, xenophobic, and advocate bad politics. The most libertarian way that you can change this is to reform education, so that kids in rural areas get a better understanding of science, sociology, anthropology, and history. We already have public schools, so we ought to make them better.
stating facts is always good. Saying that the rural population is on average less well educated is fine with me. Maybe I just misunderstood your comments about the rural's.
Categorization/generalization could be helpful in helping us make decisions, especially on issues that currently cause harm towards other people. Obviously, not all rural people are racist, but racism does tend to be worse in rural areas. There's a theory that a large part of it is the lack of racial diversity and engagement between races in rural areas. People are not as exposed to people of other colors as much in those areas, that they never learned to care for people of other races.
Some interesting difference between people perception on races in rural vs urban areas:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/08/28/the-black-white-and-urban-rural-divides-in-perceptions-of-racial-fairness/
ps: Race is really just some social construct anyway, but it's unfortunate that there are existing racial demographics that are treated unequally depending on the areas. Once people someday stop thinking in term of skin color and races, then we could stop worrying about it.
Congratulations @ekklesiagora! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPoh that gif hahah it had me rolling lol
Upvoted, Resteemed, Facebooked and Tweeted.
Waw amazing your post. I really like
what is that happening ..
If you are talking about the image/gif, the flag that the white guy is waving is a racist and pro-slavery symbol in American; it's the flag of the white supremacist faction from the American Civil War.
oh lol.thanks
I think culyure is a part of it......... In a number of my alternative posts, I even have written in favor of abolishing the workplace of the President and eliminating all monarchical and quasi-monarchical establishment. My argument is concerning what level democracy have to be compelled to happen at: a majority of thousand in one native space, that happens to be a minority of the full public across the nation, vs. the bulk of the full public. what is more, i'm not for or against democracy in and of itself. i'm for the maximization of liberty, and specifically liberty outlined as non-domination within the civic republican sense (I am unengaged to the extent that no alternative person has the capability to every which way intervene in my choices). what is more, there area unit totally different types of democracy. nobody simply supports democracy generally, as a result of that is nonsense. My argument cannot justify a totalitarian State. the sole factor that it justifies isn't golf stroke the cart before the horse! and i am trying specifically at the yank system, btw. a lot of direct democracy and a lot of decentralization would be despotic within the context of the u. s. these days. within the city wherever I presently live, the bulk of the population is racist and discriminatory. And, most cities in America area unit constant approach. the bulk of usa citizens don't seem to be, however the bulk of the tiny cities area unit. i am maintaining the bulk to rule a backwards minority. In terms of territory, the zealot minority has a lot of management. They own a lot of land and area unit detached a lot of. In terms of really count, they're not within the majority, however decentralization would enable this minority to impose their backwards despotic politics on the bulk of the state. Given the present yank scenario, centralized democracy is truly a lot of democratic within the context of the full. Localization of politics would mean the come back of Jim Crow, racist laws, and forbiddance of homoeroticism. during this city, my relation may be a racial minority, one that the bulk of the public would oppress if given the chance. Currently, centralized democracy doesn't enable native populations to pass such oppressive laws.
Rural population as a marginalized cluster is associate invalid argument, in my opinion. they're a part of the bulk, in terms of race, class, and everything else. they're a minority solely in terms of their extremist and fascist policy making, that stem from lousy education in rural areas including lack of exposure to "the alternative." You aforesaid "Just replace rural population in your post by any marginalised cluster and browse it once more." Okay, let's try this. We'll replace it with the foremost vocal and powerful marginalized cluster within the u. s. immediately, "white supremacists." i am not roughness one cluster against another; they're already against one another. it's a indisputable fact that the best indicator of political read in America is wherever you reside, whether or not during an urban or a rural setting: if you're in a rural environment, your views area unit usually a lot of seemingly to be authoritarian.