Continuing the topic of rebuilding, one of the themes that emerged in the recent discussion was that of local government. AVI suggested that a lot of the difference in the need of government has to do with the facts on the ground about a locality: dense populations may need more, he suggests, whereas rural areas may be able to make do with much less. Douglas added that he thought there was a general problem about trying to nationalize rather than localize problem-solutions, and that a focus on locality might be beneficial. Elise's proposal makes a lot of sense in a community in which people know each other, and is harder to implement as actual knowledge of candidates has to be mediated by, well, media.
By coincidence, Thos. and I had a discussion on the same subject in person over some Thai food (which is improbably popular in the Teton Valley: there are a surprising number of Thai restaurants given a population that is relatively non-diverse, mostly descended from the Mormon settlers of the late 19th to early 20th centuries). The role of the local is often underexamined, but it is also where I have been focusing my practical efforts for several years now: abandoning national and state politics as hopelessly corrupt, nevertheless there is a lot of practical good to be done in your own community.
One of the reasons that a voluntarist society has come to make sense to me is that I can see how much practical good is actually done by such organizations in communities, which compares extremely favorably to the good actually accomplished by larger-scale government organizations (or professional organizations like public schools even at the local level). There's no reason that you can't make your living privately, and still contribute to the public good as a member of a volunteer local 'government' organization -- to whatever degree it is really proper to refer to such an organization as a government, since no one acting in the public interest here is employed by the government.*
There is another question about the importance of planning. Localities really do benefit from planning at a higher level than the individual: while the market can do a lot to align interests about how various properties are used, it can also be helpful to have a higher-level perspective to ensure that there are not bottlenecks in traffic, pollution of water sources that are of general utility, a large amount of wild space that does not get developed so that the natural beauty and wildlife continue to flourish, and so forth. In principle a voluntary council like the old Icelandic Thing could do this, but in practice America has long chosen to depend on coercive organizations -- even privately, as with Home Owners Assocations -- in order to compel obedience to the decision of the planning council. There is an important discussion to be had as to whether coercion is really required, and if so to what degree, and how to ensure that it minimally troubles human liberty.
So again: what do you think about all of that?
* I think I've told the story of an old man who was upset that we had temporarily blocked his driveway with a fire truck while fighting a wildfire that was literally just over the ridge behind his house -- indeed, the truck was stationed there specifically to protect his house. He was furious with us anyway, and finally said the worst thing he could think to say to us: "The Fire Department is no better than the government."
10 comments:
Do we really want to digress into a discussion of Home Owners' Associations? HOAs? Because if so I have about six beers worth of tales to tell of that concept as implemented in Texas.
Also, Public Improvement Districts. PIDs: The advantages and disadvantages vis a vis HOAs.
I'm not intentionally ignoring hanging questions about the Gnostic extremes, by the way. Just wondering where those interested in such discussions might continue without boring the general audience.
For the purposes of this discussion, HOAs can be assumed to be bad. You don’t need to prove the concept.
The question is whether adequate planning can be done without a coercive force like that.
I remember this fire.
https://alaskapublic.org/2016/06/10/big-lake-recognizes-20th-anniversary-of-millers-reach-fire/
....Govt blocked the road preventing people from returning home to protect their homes from the fire, so we the people put said Govt in their place. The barriers were removed, roads were opened by the residents, homes were saved by residents, govt withdrew with tails between their legs....
What a glorious day to be alive!
When a community acts as one, mountains can be moved!
Greg
Subsidiarity: Catholic teaching for thousands of years!
In a small community, perhaps a form of shunning could take the place of government coercion. Someone who, for example, pollutes the water supply would be shut out from community. No one would buy from him or sell to him. His children could not attend school. His home would not be saved in the event of a fire. The ambulance would not go to him or his family if needed. Draconian, perhaps more draconian than fines backed up by imprisonment.
How did the old Icelandic Thing insure cooperation with its plans?
I think part of the reason for concern about national and State governments is that those levels often seem to interfere in local politics. It will be necessary to hold a space for local communities free from both regulations and money from higher levels of government.
Elise's proposal makes a lot of sense in a community in which people know each other, and is harder to implement as actual knowledge of candidates has to be mediated by, well, media.
This is an interesting point to consider because the incentive structure would be much different in a "veto the lottery pick" campaign. If the first candidate picked by lottery was vetoed, another lottery would be held to pick another candidate. Any person or entity who opposed the first lottery pick would do so not knowing who would get the office instead of the current pick. So it would not be the media basing Trump to get Biden. Instead, it would be the media bashing someone they considered unacceptable with the risk of getting someone they considered even worse as a replacement.
We might also consider some additional ideas such as requiring a lottery pick be vetoed not by a majority vote but by a super majority; or be vetoed by a majority of registered voters not just of those who voted. We could also have a 3 strikes and you're out rule: the first lottery pick could be vetoed; the second lottery pick could be vetoed; but the third one we're stuck with.
How did the old Icelandic Thing insure cooperation with its plans?
More or less as you suggest: through an institution called Outlawry, which meant that all the legal protections were removed from you. Anyone who wished could kill you, beat you, burn your house (with you in it, as happened in the Saga of Burnt Njal).
We could also have a 3 strikes and you're out rule: the first lottery pick could be vetoed; the second lottery pick could be vetoed; but the third one we're stuck with.
Yes, I thought of that as well, although I was going to go with only the first strike. You can veto him, but you'd better be sure because you're stuck with the next guy and he's a pig in a poke.
The hamstringing of federalism in the US has caused innumerable problems. I've thought, if we were to keep the current system and merely correct it, that re-implementing the original federalism and then adding a layer of local autonomy within states might be good (so, a sort of 3-layer federalism).
But that doesn't really address the question.
Bastiat had two things on this that I thought were useful. He, too, was concerned with eliminating or minimizing coercion.
First, he claimed all government is violence in that it either governs through actual violence or the threat of violence.
Second, he said that one should never support any law that one would not be willing to personally pick up arms and enforce on one's neighbor. If you wouldn't be willing to commit the violence to maintain the law, then don't make the law.
However, he didn't come up with a system to eliminate coercion entirely. Any laws are going to be enforced with violence or the threat of violence, and if they aren't going to be enforced they should be eliminated. So his idea was to have the minimum: only have the laws we agree warrant violence and are ourselves willing to enforce.
Outlawry, to take Grim's example, isn't about government coercion, but it still relies on the threat of violence to push people to conform to laws or social standards. It is coercive. Maybe getting government out of the coercion business was good, but some level of coercion was still necessary.
Ostracism seems less coercive. One flaw might be if the target were someone the community needed, e.g., their only physician, or the guy who owned the power station.
Just my 2 cents tonight.
I'm not intentionally ignoring hanging questions about the Gnostic extremes, by the way. Just wondering where those interested in such discussions might continue without boring the general audience.
J, do you have posting privileges or a blog of your own? I'd be interested in seeing you flesh out your ideas.
He could have them if he wanted.
Anyone who wished could kill you, beat you, burn your house (with you in it, as happened in the Saga of Burnt Njal).
Wow - I thought shunning seemed draconian. I guess my Norwegian side has become soft.
Human nature being what it is, I think some form of coercion will always be necessary in a community. If the coercion is certain enough and swift enough, the threat of it may be sufficient to insure it never needs to be unleashed.
Yes, I thought of that as well, although I was going to go with only the first strike.
Well, I've been watching a lot of baseball.
Part of what happens with government is that it becomes overgrown with laws that seemed like a good idea at the time - or that served someone's purpose or that someone got away with passing. Perhaps all governments need to be stripped down to the bare minimum from time to time and re-built. That would require being willing to tolerate chaos for a while because, hey, Chesterton's fence.
Post a Comment