Disclaimer: I don’t have answers to everything. In fact, I probably don’t have answers to anything at all, just some thoughts on what’s wrong with the structure of governance around the world (it’s too centralized and authoritarian) and some general ideas about what direction we should head in.
Given the increased likelihood that all sorts of things about the current paradigm will begin to fail in a more acute and undeniable manner in the years ahead, well intentioned people capable of critical thought should begin contemplating how things could be as opposed to how they are. Ideally, this will lead to increased action and experimentation, particularly at a local level. Never forget, if we don’t come up with our own ideas and perspectives for how things should be, others will be more than happy to decide for us.
This piece should be seen as a thought exercise of how I would think about structuring things if presented with a blank slate opportunity.
In Part 3 of this series, I outlined a framework of sovereignty beginning with the individual, progressing to family, municipality/county, state and finally country. Though the broadest scope of decision making should always reside with the individual, the reality of social relations means some individual autonomy is relinquished as sovereign units grow to include more and more people. It’s part of human nature to expand beyond ourselves and our families into larger and more complex social relationships, but far more thought should be directed at the dangers and uncertainties that arise as these units start to include increased degrees of geography and population.
As you move along the units of sovereignty scale you always add complexity and individuals, but at certain levels you start piling on additional meaningful variables, such as geography (coastal, mountain, plains, etc) and various population densities (urban, suburban, rural, etc). Both these distinctions lead to meaningful differences in the needs and desires of given populations, and must be considered carefully rather than flippantly waved away in the pursuit of larger political unity. This is one reason I’ve come to conclude political life should be centered at the municipal/county level as opposed to larger units such as the state or country. It’s at this smaller unit that actual self-government is possible. Once you start adding geography and disparate masses of people you can’t properly and practically address local concerns (for more see my post: The Next Revolution by Murray Bookchin).
While it’d be nice to stop there and proclaim we’ve solved politics by deciding local’s the way to go, it’ll never be that easy. Issues will arise and conflicts will emerge that result in larger political structures being formed. The key aspect to discuss and ponder is how should these structures look once they grow beyond the city or county level? In the modern world, many people seem to think it intuitive and appropriate that larger political units exercise greater power and authority than the smaller bodies that comprise the whole. I believe this is fundamentally wrong and must be addressed and corrected in future models of governance.
I think we should stop viewing political constructs beyond the local level as sovereign. The individual, the family and the municipality/county can be seen as sovereign units for a few reasons. First, they check several important boxes that should be required in order to exercise ethical governance. For one, they’re generally voluntary since they offer well-defined escape routes (divorce, move to a new city). Second, there’s usually a shared geography that’s limited in scope, whether we’re talking about a concentrated metropolis or the boundaries of the more than three thousand counties that comprise the U.S. These attributes start to disappear once you leave the local level.
Although moving from one state to another is fairly easy in the U.S. (it checks the voluntary box), it doesn’t check the other boxes. Virtually all 50 states have some mix of rural and urban; liberal and conservative; mountainous, plains, or coastal; and many states have populations that exceed certain countries. As such, we should ask whether it makes sense to place so much power in the hands of the 50 state governments, as opposed to the people at the municipal or county level. If you ask me, it makes no sense at all. Moreover, if we’re going to concentrate a great deal of power in the states, why is 50 the right number? It seems low.
Beyond the states, putting power into a national government is far more concerning and problematic since the voluntary aspect of the union pretty much disappears. The vast majority of people on this earth are born to a certain piece of land with a particular national government, and they will live under it their entire lives. In most cases, leaving to go to one’s desired external country simply isn’t feasible or desirable for a variety of reasons. As such, at the national level you not only add the complexity of large numbers of people, diverse geography, but also a lack of exits. For all practical purposes, it is no longer a voluntary relationship at this stage. So what should we do about it?
We can’t just pretend political unions won’t expand beyond the city or county level, in fact, I’m convinced this will always occur to some degree. As such, the real question becomes how best to structure such bonds, and the first thing to do is establish some ground rules. I’d start with the view that any issue (beyond core civil liberties) which does not require larger scale cooperation, be decided at the municipal/county level.
For the relatively small number of issues that must be kicked up to the state or national level, the sovereign units that make up the larger body must be consulted. Directly. Via referendum. No more of this “elected representatives” deciding things for the people. They do not know best and they tend to be corrupt, unscrupulous types. We may still want to elect representatives to larger political unions for administrative tasks and crafting legislation, but the final vote on any such agreements should always be finalized and approved directly by the public.
This is a start, but it skirts an even larger issue that must be addressed. How do we ensure larger political bonds are more voluntary and fluid? The issue of secession is a challenging one to discuss in the U.S. due to its historical association with the civil war and slavery, but it’s something that must be addressed more thoroughly. I’ve personally come to believe questions of secession should be seen as a regular and normal part of human political life. Our larger political associations, particularly at the national level, are far too rigid. While stability is important, so is flexibility.
This really hit home for me during the Catalonia revolt of 2017. In the post, It’s Time to Question the Modern Nation-State Model of Governance, I noted:
As things stand today, humans essentially have two choices when it comes to political life. We either accept the nation-state we’re born into and play the game to the best of our advantage, or we try to become citizens of another country with values that more align with our own. The only way to really shatter existing political power structures and form new ones is through violent revolution or war, which is an insane way of reorganizing matters of human governance. One of Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy’s key arguments in casting the Catalan referendum as illegal is that Spain is an indivisible nation under the 1978 constitution. Let’s think about what this means in practice.
Anyone who’s spent any time in Spain understands how culturally and linguistically distinct many of the regions are when compared to Madrid. These are differences that go back centuries and can’t be brushed off by a constitution created a few decades ago. The idea that these various regions must be part of a centralized Spain even if the people within the regions want political autonomy is ethically preposterous, as well as authoritarian and evil in every sense of the word. If done properly, human governance should always be a voluntary arrangement. If an overwhelming majority of culturally distinct people within any nation-state decide the super state is no longer working for them, they should have every right to leave. Anything else is bondage.
If the smaller units that make up a nation decide they’ve had enough, they have no real options in the modern world. The presumption that the nation-state is eternal and unchanging is as unrealistic as it is authoritarian. As such, it’s my belief that any political union that reaches beyond the local (city or county) level be subject to regularly scheduled referendums on the union. The cities and counties that make up a state should periodically vote on whether or not they wish to continue in that relationship, and the states should do the same with regard to the federal government. It shouldn’t be some extraordinary act, but a regular affirmation or rejection of the larger union.
When entering into a larger political union, all parties should start with the assumption nothing in this world’s permanent and this new bond will last only so long as it’s working for the smaller units involved. Any initial agreement should include an explicit understanding that regular referendums on the bond will be held in order to ensure the union remains voluntary. The length of time between referendums should be long enough to provide for a period of stability, yet short enough to allow a person who lives a full life to vote on the union several times. I think a 20 or 25 year period between such votes might make sense.
The goal here isn’t to have nations constantly breaking apart, but rather a system that more properly distributes power and final say to the smaller units that comprise the whole. If such a system existed in these United States I doubt Washington D.C. would be as big, bloated and powerful as it is today. The simple understanding that states could easily leave in a few years if the feds pushed too hard could provide a meaningful deterrent to massive expansions of centralized control in the first place.
The key thing is we need to shift our entire perspective. We need to view the local units as sovereign, and emphasize that the larger unions exist only at the pleasure of the smaller bodies. Secession, as well as reconstitution into new more favorable/appropriate bonds, should not be seen as unthinkable and extreme, but rather as completely normal. This shouldn’t just apply at the national level, but every step of the way. Municipalities and counties should hold regularly scheduled votes on whether to remain in their current state, join another state, or perhaps even band together to form an entirely new state. Larger political bonds should be structured in a far more fluid and voluntary manner in order for them to serve their real purpose, which is the sovereign interests of the smaller units.
As I noted in the beginning, I don’t want anyone to think I’m presenting these thoughts as a silver bullet. Even if we implemented everything I outlined above from scratch, if humanity fails to become more conscious and ethical, it probably won’t make much of a difference.
I also understand it’s unlikely we move to such a governance model anytime soon — or even within my lifetime — but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be discussing these things. I think it’s helpful to highlight where sovereignty should reside (locally) and how larger political bonds should be structured in a more voluntary and fluid manner. This isn’t supposed to be the final word on anything, but a thought experiment in political philosophy. I hope it sparks inspiration in the minds of those who read it, so we can carry this important conversation forward.
Liberty Blitzkrieg is an ad-free website. If you enjoyed this post and my work in general, visit the Support Page where you can donate and contribute to my efforts.
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G
Follow me on Twitter.
I agree heartily that a smaller government that is local, and municipal is “ideal”. That being said, I fear that in America today, it is impossible to escape the partisan identity of national politics, even if government were scaled down to the local level. For example, my homeowners association is comprised of politically very conservative people who simply refuse to address reasonable public policy issues for fear of their liberal, “intellectual content” – its an utterly knee jerk position.
The concept of a citizens referendum is, to my understanding, “legal” yet no national referedums have ever been on the ballot. I would bet this is because of the primal fear that both parties in Washington have about citizens “taking things into their own hands”, and bypassing the corrupted legislative process in Washington. For example, how is it that no national referendum has surfaced to repeal Citizens United or banning assault weapons.
National referendums could be a very potent weapon indeed.
As for the homeowners association, it sounds like my town. Conservatives with a “K”. But bring up the subject of allowing fracking in their backyards and they and I crowd the town hall with LOTS of public policy issues and ideas.That happened here in New Mexico in early 2019.
Now, as for a national referendum, let’s try “legalize recreational marijuana nationwide.” Chuck Schumer centrists in New York would scream, “NO”. And most of Mr. Krieger’s Colorado would scream, “YES, it works here”. And Colorado would include LOTS of 2nd amendment Repubs.
Or, let me offer another issue: “allow mining of any sort utilizing unionized labor.” New Mexico and maybe Coloradans would scratch their heads saying, “unionized? I thought they were banned or somethin’, but yeah, give it a try.” Minnesotans would say give you a 50/50 split, but would think, “I thought all miners are unionized.”
Each issue is very localized. New York Staters love licensing and prisons. New Mexicans do too, but can’t maintain a system statewide and always go sniffing for “cowboy” money (for mining or cannabis sales).
I think you give citizens too much credit.
Take a gander at the adult literacy and numeracy rating from 2017:
https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/current_results.asp
Half of this country (and the world) can’t read above a 5th grade level or make change for a $20 and you want to start thrusting referendums at them?
Your homeowners association is comprised of people that have at least figured out how to acquire and retain ownership of a single piece of real estate and you accuse even them of being incapable of critical evaluation and the propensity to vote based solely on emotion.
Now translate that down the bell curve.
There is some obvious deep thought and research that has gone into this article. The less people making up a jurisdiction the greater the individuals political power and of those around him.
If “humanity fails to become more conscious and ethical, it probably won’t make much of a difference.” Never a truer statement on the situation has been written. As the aggregate of human behavior acts in a moral or immoral manner within a set population so to does the world situation that is manifested by these individual actions taken in aggregate. As morality increases so to does the people’s freedom, liberty and self determination. As immorality increases. so to does tyranny and oppression of all manner against the individual and group. It appears then that and reform relies not just in the establishment of how we are to govern ourselves but perhaps even more so in how we are to conduct ourselves towards the other as the very basis of how we wish our society as a whole to perform as a product of the manifested culture of the people.
To achieve local sovereignty we must also achieve a local cohesion that can only come from a strong morality among the people in dealing with one another. This requires just law designed on a greater authority than moral relativism.
Great stuff Michael ! I also have given thought to what needs “fixing” in a post chaos system. I have 3 essentials which I believe would lead to or allow minor or subsequent problems to be addressed with “COMMON SENSE”.
1/ In a true democracy all political PARTIES must be abolished and outlawed. There would need to be severe punishment for any collusion or deal making between 2 or more elected members to any government. This would ensure honest representation of conscience or the will of constituents.
2/ Provision for the “common good” or public projects would have to be funded by a TAX ON TRANSACTIONS (not earnings, not savings, not special activities, not wealth)
3/ Finally, although the Political rule No1 would ensure this, the METHOD of collecting and transacting (BANKS) must be publicly owned and controlled. There can be no private or corporate (colluding individuals) entities profiting from this essential public service.
That’s it in very brief simplified form, and like you, my aim is to stimulate thought, planning, and preparation, rather than complaint, protest, or resignation.
My belief is that once the fundamentals are identified, improvement, change, and development can occur. Furthermore, these fundamental “systems” should be possible to implement at ANY level (Family, community, region, state, National, or Global.) In any case, they must always start with AN or THE individual.
Love the theory. Really do.
But theory and practice rarely meet on anything deeper than a superficial level.
In this instance, you fail to address the most primitive of motivations for political/social constructs:
mutual defense of life and property, property being the means for sustaining life tomorrow.
It’s why people gather around a campfire and ask people to watch their shit when they take a piss.
If I found myself promoted to any position of authority in your localized world, the first thing I would do is begin contacting the authorities of neighboring jurisdictions to determine who is going to help me assert authority over other jurisdictions and/or defend against the same. If I don’t, someone else will… because it’s much easier to take than to make.
Without an overriding structure wielding unrivaled authority, that will be the constant threat we all face, even if our borders were somehow rendered impenetrable by foreign powers bent on domination. It will color all decisions and absorb time, labor and capital.
That is inefficient.
Maybe decisions at the higher level should always have to be approved locally first via an explicit “Yes, decide this at the higher level” vote and, if it’s a permanent arrangement, reapproved every few years.
Consciousness and ethics are bound to improve after this giant ponzi falls, simply because we will finally be incentivized to work together. This model of privatized profit and socialized losses encourages fraud on a scale never seen in human history. People are a mix of good and bad depending on the circumstances, but we’re a whole lot better when we see a benefit to camaraderie.
The former USSR was woefully corrupt and inefficient, but modern Russia is much improved after their period of painful adjustment. They’re a much more honest society than we are because they need to be efficient. They live within their means, unlike our Wall Streeters who act recklessly, secure in the knowledge the Fed will provide bailouts and liquidity as needed. They also don’t wage Forever Wars designed to maximize spending and waste for as long as possible. Our MIC shows how bonkers we’ve become.
We’re ruining young people today by raising them in this environment of insane debt loads. Even if they can’t articulate why, they can see the rampant fraud and cynicism for what it is. Once we start depending on each other more again, we will see much more “buy in” from the young and everyone else for that matter.
Hey Michael, you should consider a closer look at the Swiss governance system. It seems to be pretty close to what you suggest in your piece here.
Great post Mike. There is actually a business case supporting the decentralisation you are calling for. I lay this out in the following article.https://toughnickel.com/business/The-application-of-power-in-organisations
Spain traditionally respected its differences, in that until Napoleon came along, it was governed as a dozen different kingdoms with a dozen parliaments and a dozen prime ministers. Castile was the powerhouse, owning all the colonies and controlling most trade. But the regions enjoyed their particularisms and marched to Castile’s tune under their own banner. Napoleon abolished all those, centralized the mess under his brother Joseph, and was shocked when the periphery around Madrid rose in revolt. Spain’s been a basket-case ever since, especially in the so-called “Republican” times when communist-style centralization attempted to blot out the particularisms that had made Spain thrive. Civil war followed, and Franco was smart enough to reward the regions with the autonomy they craved. But the modern Kingdom is making the same mistakes Napoleon and the Republic made, and regretting none of it.
Great Mike.
We need people thinking and writing about ways to change things. The status quo media narrative keeps the populace from even thinking about, or discussing how to change things.
Hence why you will never read or see anything on mainstream TV about having a credit based monetary system, rather than a debt based one. Search: “Old Dick Eastman”.