Political Theory

Re: Pro's and Con's to a Democratic Hierarchy

Luis Ramirez — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 05:46:07 GMT

True, but an argument could be made that local governments could impose more of a threat on liberty because of the fact that they are a local governments (being a political embodiement at any rate).

Re: Pro's and Con's to a Democratic Hierarchy

Angurse — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 05:05:05 GMT

TelfordUS:
But you can change the balance of power. Town councils should have more power, since they deal with the small and personal issues in the area. More power in that area would mean a more satisfied population, since there would be more population to the more intricate detail. That's just one example of

I already hate the local police more than the federal police, more local power seems like a terrible thing.

Re: Pro's and Con's to a Democratic Hierarchy

TelfordUS — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 04:23:52 GMT

Spideynw:

TelfordUS:
A radical theory, yes. But it works in theory, and given the right conditions, it could work smoothly, no?

No, it could not work to guarantee liberty. It is irrelevant how the politicians are chosen. What would there be to stop them from doing whatever they want?

But you can change the balance of power. Town councils should have more power, since they deal with the small and personal issues in the area. More power in that area would mean a more satisfied population, since there would be more population to the more intricate detail. That's just one example of

Re: Pro's and Con's to a Democratic Hierarchy

Justin Spahr-Summers — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 04:11:54 GMT

I think that, even if politicians in this system would honestly try to represent their constituents (and many wouldn't), it would be like a game of political telephone. Your political inclinations would be drowned out by any greater majorities at the local, state, federal, AND presidential level, or severely distorted if they actually made it that far.

Re: Pro's and Con's to a Democratic Hierarchy

Luis Ramirez — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 03:44:15 GMT

By the way, wasn't this fundamentally the same system used in the Soviet Union?

Re: Pro's and Con's to a Democratic Hierarchy

Spideynw — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 03:38:39 GMT

TelfordUS:
A radical theory, yes. But it works in theory, and given the right conditions, it could work smoothly, no?

No, it could not work to guarantee liberty. It is irrelevant how the politicians are chosen. What would there be to stop them from doing whatever they want?

Not only that, but any elected official that did not get 100% of all the votes and if everyone that could vote did not vote, then the politicians authority is illegitimate anyways.

Re: Pro's and Con's to a Democratic Hierarchy

Andrew Cain — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 03:36:33 GMT

TelfordUS:

Hypothetical Situation:

A country has an annual election, where every town elects a commision of a local council. Those local councils vote among themselves to elect a state council, whose councils vote among themselves for a federal council of 1000 representatives (Reichstag). From that, 100 (Bundesrat) are elected out of those 1000, and a president comes out of the 100. This system would resemble a pyramid, where the officials would be elected by people they know personally, instead of voting for someone you don't know or don't agree with.

A radical theory, yes. But it works in theory, and given the right conditions, it could work smoothly, no?

By what authority does this process even start?

Re: Pro's and Con's to a Democratic Hierarchy

liberty student — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 03:26:34 GMT

TelfordUS:
progression is made quicker when the public is united under a government for security and efficiency.

What is this statement based on? There is no proof that going back to limited government is possible. Big governments collapse, they don't shrink.

And has all of the work of libertarianism in the last 40 years amounted to a hill of beans in the size of government?

How long did it take for the ideals of the anti-federalists to be compromised? Was the ink even dry on the Constitution yet?

TelfordUS:
It's our duty as people of that union

Duty? Who signed the Constitution? Who agreed to it? Can people secede from it? Read some Lysander Spooner. It's not a valid contract. There are no duties of the people to that union.

Re: Pro's and Con's to a Democratic Hierarchy

Luis Ramirez — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 03:16:10 GMT

The lex (legislative law) is artificial. The state only recognizes "citizens" and not human beings, therefore, any sort of government is an imposition.

Re: Pro's and Con's to a Democratic Hierarchy

Luis Ramirez — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 03:08:49 GMT

Who`s to say, though, that honest representation will remain that way and not be corrupted? Or even, be able to excersize their moral fortitude when being opposed by less honest politicians?

Re: Pro's and Con's to a Democratic Hierarchy

liberty student — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 03:08:46 GMT

There are pros to democracy?

Re: Pro's and Con's to a Democratic Hierarchy

TelfordUS — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 03:03:32 GMT

Stranger:

If you think politicians elected by the people are bad, what do you think politicians elected by politicians elected by politicians elected by politicians elected by the people would be like?

Modern politicians are bad because the selection we have to vote from are narrowed to those that can 1.) afford a national campaign and 2.) possess no radical interests (radicals are scary in the democratic system).

This small selection reduces democracy to an oligarchy.

Re: Pro's and Con's to a Democratic Hierarchy

Luis Ramirez — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 03:03:24 GMT

More checks and balances made up through the law? Don`t think it`ll work mainly because there`s no fundamental change with the present system. If anything it centralizes power. If you`re going to have some sort of government, let it be as close and represent as few constituents as possible. Anything else (other than anarchy) won`t solve much.

Re: Pro's and Con's to a Democratic Hierarchy

TelfordUS — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 02:58:37 GMT

nirgrahamUK:

i dont want somone to be my representative, my advocate in a poltical tussle over how i should be treated politically. i want the END to political tussles. no more politics. the political means are anathema to liberty and justice. in contrast, the economic means are congruent with liberty and justice, and sufficient for my material being as well. that's why i am a libertarian, voluntarist, anarcho-capitalist, or market anarchist. or some other cool sounding name.

I don't like politics or representatives either. I wish i was able to have an equal say in the conditions of my country, instead of voting for people that do. Although anarcho-capitalism promises the most personal freedom and liberty, progression is made quicker when the public is united under a government for security and efficiency. It's our duty as people of that union to make the system represent us as best as possible, my idea is to vote locally so my people's concerns are proportionally met with the rest of the country's.

Re: Pro's and Con's to a Democratic Hierarchy

Stranger — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 02:53:10 GMT

TelfordUS:

Yes, the system is supposed to benefit both the individual and the country. In a representative democracy, the individual must be given the opportunity to vote for the officials that will represent them as best as possible. This can be done by electing local officials, for they can represent you better than an aristocrat who doesn't know you or your concerns.

This puts power and importance on the local level, where it should be.

This would in no way return power to the local level, as the meta-politicians would be no more accountable to their politician-electorate than regular politicians to that people.