In article <1qumqkINNq1i@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu  (William December Starr) writes: > >(ca.politics omitted from the distribution line because my site's news >posting software doesn't believe in it and refuses to try to post to it. >:-(  I sure hope that Matt also reads either a.f.r-l or t.p.m...) >  Saw it in t.p.m., thanks.   >In article <C5qK7t.2qK@voder.nsc.com>, >matt@galaxy.nsc.com (Matt Freivald x8043) said: > >> I like to call the form of government that I advocate "Fractal >> Federalism."  With Fractal Federalism, there is a representative >> national government that has only certain limited powers to do what is >> absolutely necessary at that level.  Next there are the state >> governments, again with only absolutely necessary powers.  Onward to >> counties, cities/townships, districts, and neighborhoods... >> >> 1) The lowest (read- "most local") levels are the ones that have the >> most power over individuals' day-to-day lives, which is good because >> that is the level where individuals have the most voice.  >You know, if you take all this to its logical conclusion, doesn't it >seem that the _real_ "lowest level... the level where individuals have >the most voice" is that of the single individuals themselves?  Why have >you omitted that level from your model?  Yes, and the individual is not omitted; I just didn't fully articulate the  principles of Fractal Federalism.  All government powers derive from the People; each level can receive a new power from the level below through  the amendment process, where a true consensus (say a 3/4 majority) writes  that power into the Constitution of the level above (in the case of the  lowest level, an amendement is passed by a 3/4 majority vote; in the case  of higher levels, it must be passed by 3/4 of the legislatures.  We can of course haggle about the specifics of "true consensus" when we hold our  Constitutional Convention :-).  Once a power has been granted, it may be  exercised by the legislature.  Powers not in the original Constitutions must  percolate upward, starting from the individual.  The ratification process  for the original Constitutions should involve consensus and not simply a  plurality or majority.  Granting a "right" in a constitution is of course the same as empowering the government at that level to restrict the activities of the governments at the lower levels, so it operates in the same way as the amendment process  (again, that crazy resemblance to the supposed-but-not-actual U.S. government  structure).  This government structure is a very frustrating one for those people (read- "liberals") who would like to have concentrated power to use the government to force people to do "good" (a difficult-to-define word, and one that it  is difficult to reach a consensus on).  It is also a frustrating structure  for those who want to use the government to dictate personal behavior (read-  "big-government conservatives").  I personally would rather see those types of people frustrated than the incredible erosion of liberty (both civil and  economic) that is going on now.  This is IMHO a "good" government stucture for those who see the role of government as the protection of individual liberties, while still recognizing that individuals need to have some influence in the type of community that they live in.   >> 2) A free market works on government, not just economics.  Succesful >> ideas propogate, unsuccessful ideas die.  >What is your definition of a "successful" idea or a "successful" >government?  One which maintains peace, liberty, and the opportunity for happiness for its people, while working within the realities of human nature.  You do bring up the point (intentional or not) that a "lasting" idea is by no means necessarily a "successful" idea.  I believe that Fractal Federalism would at least bring many ideas to light, and The People would have the opportunity to democratically choose between "good" ideas and "bad" ideas.  If the Docialists, er, I mean Democrats are right and government activism fosters a prosperous People, they will have a plethora of local opportunities to   check their thesis.  If Libertopia is possible, it will arise.  If a balanced Conservative Republic is democratically received as the best level of government activity, it will become clear to The People that it is best.    >> As far as "set the moral tone" is concerned, if a community does not >> collectively want to put up with prostitution going on in front of >> their kids, why should they have to?  If a community does not want to >> see proliferation of drugs among their kids, why should they have to?  >For the same reason that they have to put up with a church operating >right out in the open, where their kids can see it, and with the owner >of the house across the street flying an American flag right out there >in the open every day in front of their kids.  It's called "freedom." >If they don't like the ideas to which their kids are exposed, they can >try to educate and persuade their kids as to why the things that they're >seeing other people doing are wrong or bad.  Right, and people would not rescind any freedoms (read- "empower the government") except through the amendment process.  That is how the Federal  Government is supposed to work now, but the Supreme Soviet, er, I mean the  Supreme Court put a stop to that "republican government" nonsense.  In my hypothetical government, if there were a constitutional provision empowering the government to regulate churches the government (whatever level we are talking about) could indeed ban churches.  The constitutional provision would be invalid if a higher level had a constitutional provision protecting free exercise of religion.  The uppermost Constitution is still the Supreme Law of the Land.    >(I find it interesting that you applaud the idea of free-market >competition among various ideas, and yet support the right of he >majority in a community to suppress ideas which they don't like.)  It is a matter of individuals being able to control their own associations and environment, not a matter of suppression of ideas.  One dilemma of the human condition is that individuals need liberty, and they also need to have some control over their environment.  In my "Fractal Federalism" government, certain "rights" are protected by the  constitutions.  Other "rights" are protected simply because the government  has not been empowered to infringe upon them.  When a consensus is reached that the government should have a certain power, then freedom is infringed upon.  This cannot be avoided -- murder statutes infringe upon freedom, but I think that the consensus of the American people is that murder statutes are a good idea.  I am sure that many parents believe that they have a "right" to control the environment that their children live in.  People feel that they have a "right" to sleep peacefully at night; thus, there are noise ordinances. There are zoning laws that keep businesses from overrunning residential neighborhoods.  I do not view these as bad things (certainly some individual instances are bad, but the concept is not necessarily bad), I view them as the people in a community having some control over the type of community that they live in.  I see the alternative as near anarchy.  Like I said in another post, if you can come up with a scenario where an  individual can do something truly autonomously -- with absolutely zero effect on anyone else -- then no individual or government has the right to restrict that activity.  There are simply not very many behaviors that fit into the category of the truly autonomous, so the whole thing becomes an issue of one individual or group having power over another individual or group.  I think that the "Fractal Federalism" approach is a sound, if not ideal, approach to limiting this restrictive power.  The libertarian  scenario degenerates to "might makes right," and the system we have right now is one of "lawyers abusing natural rights philosophy to decide what  powers the government should have by subverting the democratic process  though the Supreme Court."    >> The problem with the egalitarian view is that it tries to deny the >> fundamental dilemma of democratic government: The People have a right >> to exercise a voice in their community, yet individuals have the right >> to be left to themselves.  This is a serious dilemma precisely because >> there is not much that takes place in a vacuum.  >Oddly enough, if what you say is taken literally there is little or no >conflict: the people do indeed have a right to exercise a voice -- where >"voice" equals "persuasive speech" in their communities... it's only >when they somehow get the idea into their heads that they also have a >right to dictate behavior in their communities that the trouble begins.  I think I answered this above already, but let me expand a little more with an example.  If I stand naked in front of your house and masturbate  in front of your children while they play, in your libertarian (small 'l') scenario the only recourse you have is to yell at me.  "Autonomous" is a value judgement 99.99% of the time, it is not a scientific reality with a clear definition.  Exactly who would you empower to make that value judgement?    >[stuff deleted]  >> Certainly not the only cause, Mike, but people in a local neighborhood >> should have a voice in what goes on in that neighborhood.  To deny >> this is to create another concentrated centralized power to keep the >> locality from abusing its power -- in essence, using a pit bull to >> keep a toy poodle from biting your leg.  Chances are, the pit bull is >> going to turn on you some day, and you have much less defense against >> it than you do against the toy poodle.  >The argument here appears to be that tyranny of the individual by the >local majority is superior to having the federal government have and >exercise the power to protect the individual from his neighbors because >that federal government will eventually and inevitably become corrupt >and use its power to tyrannize everyone.  Okay, there's a lot of truth in >that; certainly we're seeing something like that happening in the United >States today (though it's unclear that he progression here matches the >model, since our beloved and benign federal government hasn't >_ever_shown much enthusiasm for the idea of protecting any individuals...)  Lots of people are long on complaints and short on practical solutions. Although I am pessimistic that my idea will ever bear fruit, I am at least trying to be long on solutions also.  I am truly interested if you have any improvements to make on my ideas (I call them "my ideas", but they all come from an "average guy" reading of the U.S. Constitution without benefit of the indoctrination of Constitutional Law academia).    >But I have to say that I think that your solution is at least just as >bad.  Trading the yoke of federal tyranny for the yoke of local tyranny >doesn't cheer me up much... I think I'd prefer to put my faith in a >larger government that at least _might_ protect the individual from time >to time rather than place it in local mob rule.  Admittedly, it's the >lesser of two evils, and it's not less by very much, and they're both >pretty damn evil...  Sorry, the confusion was my fault.  When I said that "Fractal Federalism"  resembles the U.S. constitution, I meant it and thought it was pretty clear.   I should have more clearly explained that the ultimate derivation of government power is from the CONSENSUS of the people (although not the CONSENT of every individual; a practical observation, not a moral judgement).  It is certainly  better than having all government power derive from nine lawyers, which is the situation we have now.  That is why I think the Supreme Court should be a jury court, with a different jury for each case.    It is certainly not perfect (no philosophy of government is), but do you still  find it a repugnant idea?  If so, what is your solution?    >> Ideally, everyone would leave everyone else alone and no government >> coercive power of any kind would be necessary.  This will never work, >> because people are different and by their nature they will always want >> to force their views on others.  If this were not the case, nobody >> would try to force their view that murder is wrong on anyone else.  >This is true... the question is, what we you going to do about it?  Your >proposed solution seems to actually _encourage_ these bozos to lord it >over their victims.  I think that you misunderstood the structure of the form of government I advocate, and it was my fault for not being more clear.    >Oh, and by the way...  >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> LiBORGalism: >>              THINKING IS IRRELEVANT. INTEGRITY IS IRRELEVANT. >>           FREE SPEECH IS IRRELEVANT. PRIVATE PROPERTY IS IRRELEVANT. >>                  PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY IS IRRELEVANT. >>                      CONSERVATIVISM IS FUTILE. >>                       YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED. >> --------------------------------------------------------------------  >How much would freedom of speech or private property rights be respected >in a community in which the majority was allowed to make all the rules? >("That man's saying things in public that I don't want my children >exposed to!  Let's shut him up!  Those homos are living together and >fornicating in that house over there!  Let's run 'em outta town!")  The majority does not make the rules.  The majority (or possibly a  plurality) simply elects representatives to exercise limited government  powers; those limited government powers derive from a large consensus,  not a simple majority.  And the Federal Government, in my scenario, still has the power to protect freedoms.    >-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>    Matt Freivald   -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LiBORGalism:              THINKING IS IRRELEVANT. INTEGRITY IS IRRELEVANT.           FREE SPEECH IS IRRELEVANT. PRIVATE PROPERTY IS IRRELEVANT.                  PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY IS IRRELEVANT.                      CONSERVATIVISM IS FUTILE.                       YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- THESE ARE MY OPINIONS ONLY AND NOT THOSE OF MY EMPLOYER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!