Ex London Mayor Calls For Cities To Run The World
According to Ex London mayor, Ken Livingstone, he thinks that the world would be a much better place if there weren't large governments running the show, but instead city authorities ran the world.
Unfortunately, city authorities are still “government” and force by definition. So he isn't saying that he wants to get rid of government altogether.
But as far as running the state of things currently, is it really large governments and their well-known representatives that are largely in charge? Some reports have suggested that some sort of shadow government or group might be responsible for heavily manipulating international and domestic policy and if this is the case, then how might switching to the alternative of cities being in charge pose a solution to that problem?
Are mayors and other local figures going to be immune to corruption?
That hasn't shown to be the case in the past.
Specifically, Livingstone said that he is starting to think that it is “time to abolish governments” and to instead let cities run the world.
He says that high-ranking political officials are out-of-touch with the citizenry and therefore they cannot accurately represent them.
But can a city mayor do any better of a job, in trying to accurately represent millions or even hundreds of thousands of people at any one given time? I don't think so.
One thing he neglected to specify was whether or not his vision of a world run by smaller jurisdictions would be one that was organized in a voluntary manner or organized just the same as it is today--via coercion.
In theory, decentralization could result in more freedom for the people and might offer the opportunity for some jurisdictions to rise above the others in competition, with their adherence to liberty and freedom. And his idea that the solution to big government might be smaller government, isn't something new. There is a nationalist movement growing around the world with many who see that smaller and more localized government is going to be the solution, but we've seen from past experience how limited government can grow into a nightmare given the right amount of time.
Livingstone's comments came just as hundreds of thousands of people are heading to Germany this week to protest against the G20. They expect at least 100,000 people to protest in the streets over the weekend.
Pics:
pixabay
Know Your Meme
Sources:
https://www.rt.com/news/395514-livingstone-abolish-governments-g20/
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40526169
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/21/americas-oligarchy-not-democracy-or-republic-unive/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/bilderberg-group-meeting-what-is-it-and-who-is-attending-global-elites-a7069561.html
AWESOME post... I think Thomas Jefferson said it best, " "The way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to. Let the national government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, law, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man's farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best. What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body." (Works 6:543; P.P.N.S., p. 125)
Ken Livingstone is very left wing and like all socialists, believes in a lot of government (he has just decided it should be at a slightly different level). He believes in a big welfare state, nationalisation of all major industry and high levels of taxation.
He was also suspended from the Labour Party for anti-semetic comments.
Ken Livingstone doesnt believe in smaller government, he beieves in a lot more government,just at a diffferentlevel (ie the level at which he can govern)!!
He sounds like a very different Mayor of London than the current one. Can we have the old one back please?
I think it might be a step in the right direction. Nobody can expect full libertarianism/agorism over night. It needs to be a slow decentralization process.
It would be cool to try something like the Venus Project promoted by Peter Joseph from the Zeitgeist
Don't believe anything "Red Ken" says, he's completely insane.
Personally, I support the decentralization strategies it s giving more political power to cities and one of the advantages that has the decentralization is diversification of tasks and work in general and being able to treat affairs with more precision and accuracy . Moreover it is a sort of freedom and self development for cities ! I like the content thanks for sharing it !
That's the idea of ubuntu as well you may like it!
giving them more political power kind of defeats the purpose of the decentralization... but yea :)
Yep can't agree more ! But the kinda power I'm talking about is just like giving them more political acting freedom , when you gather up all the work that cities from all around one nation for example, it gives you higher outcome than what the government could do by following the centralization principles !!
Cities need to run the small local city world.
We've had a World run by City-States before. The result was war as the City-State Governments wanted more power and territory. We may not have war this time around but there will be those who manipulate the City-State system and it's likely they'll encourage Federations of City-States. And then we go back to where we are now, with larger groups of politicians running everything and the public being pretty much ignored.
Whatever route you choose you will come back to what we have now, you see the major flaw with the anachist theory is that people don't want to have face life by themselves, they want and need for someone to take care of their problems and are willing to pay taxes for this. So you can have whatever society you can come up with, when it gets a certain size it will demand a government, regardless of whatever flaws this government has.
That's a good point. Some people could handle an anarchist society and take care of their own lives but many people wouldn't be able to handle that. It seems part of the human condition (for some more than others) is to want a leader to follow that makes a person feel "safe" and taken care of. A lot of us dream of a totally free society but will humans as a whole be able to deal with that? I fear there will always be some sort of Government around due to how people just are.
I am 100% on board with this! Lets do it!