This aligns with the concept of subsidiarity: solving problems at the level at which they occur. The problem of administrative tyranny occurs when large, distant governments ruling over vast numbers of people in a wide array of geographical and cultural contexts attempt to gather to themselves all regulatory and decision-making power. They attempt to solve small problems with big solutions, and only create bigger problems. If instead society were organized such that decision making was pushed down to the level at which problems exist - or, to put it another way, each level were limited to the problems specific to that level - there would be no conflict between governance on a large geographical scale and individual liberty. A key problem facing us is that this principle is diametrically opposed to the impulse of the managerial class, whose entire raison d'etre is telling people what to do.
The problem is that 'subsidiaries' inevitably become more like 'soviets,' where the direction of decision making is top-down and total rather than local and bottom-up.
This is the essence of Communitarianism, sometimes called Stakeholder Capitalism, which makes a show of establishing legitimacy through consent by holding meetings with representatives of the so-called stakeholders, but in practice, the members of the public are being told what to think rather than consulted, and any dissent is squashed using the Delphi techniques developed by the Rand Corporation. It also means that people on the ground have no direct say in what the top echelons decide, as they are safely fire-walled into the lower layers, away from the locus of power. This is what the European Union actually means by its principle of subsidiarity. It is an old tactic which used to be described by the more honest expression 'divide and conquer.'
You didn't catch your lapsus linguae this time, numner rather than number. There is one more way that a monarch is better than an administrative government in that to change course one only need remove one man not entire classes of people, which is much more resource intensive. BTW in England we have postmen, or posties in the vernacular , not mailmen.
You are making an assumption here, that it is the job of government to organise people rather than protect their rights so they can go about their business. That is a socialist rather than more libertarian conception and one I am at odds with. We did have greater decentralisation in England, in the form of Local Councils, however many of the powers that were local have now been centralised, as is the want of those at the top, who set themselves against everyone else. You have reminded me of Carl's talk about the Universal Human -
That's a great distinction: that it is the job of governments to protect rights rather than to govern. I would love to hear a greater elaboration on that. What does it mean to protect rights? Specifically, how is that different from governing?
An example of protecting natural rights would be the creation and maintenance of a system of justice to punish / redress the infringement of the natural rights of one person by another. I would use the word manage over govern to describe what we have now in the Western world. Those in government now think it is their role to tell us how to live. Whether that be infringing our rights through lock downs or insisting we undergo a certain medical procedure before we can exercise our natural rights. This is not their role and they need to stop thinking it is, if they do not, well history is replete with examples of what follows. I hope that answers your question, if not please give me a hint as to how I might answer it in a way that would be more helpful to you.
Well put. I enjoyed this view of the situation. I started working in local politics to make a difference, and believe it or not, there's just as much drama. I don't get how anything gets done lol. But, that's because of career ambitions and politicians not willing to rock the boat to do the right thing. If you don't agree with the party platform they purge you even if it's the right call. If only people were more open minded about independents, or if we band parties on the ballots and mixed them all together.
How does your theory account for population density and migration? People will naturally move to be in bigger cities for protection, economic opportunity, or sheer environmental necessity. One can’t expect populations to voluntarily remain in neatly organized small fiefs, unless people are forced to do so (à la serfdom).
If large cities/polities naturally exist, then there MUST be a governmental body with the size and scope to meet the needs of the population.
In order to put your theory into practice one would have to have absolute control over people’s lives akin to Soviet collectivization efforts of the 1930s.
This aligns with the concept of subsidiarity: solving problems at the level at which they occur. The problem of administrative tyranny occurs when large, distant governments ruling over vast numbers of people in a wide array of geographical and cultural contexts attempt to gather to themselves all regulatory and decision-making power. They attempt to solve small problems with big solutions, and only create bigger problems. If instead society were organized such that decision making was pushed down to the level at which problems exist - or, to put it another way, each level were limited to the problems specific to that level - there would be no conflict between governance on a large geographical scale and individual liberty. A key problem facing us is that this principle is diametrically opposed to the impulse of the managerial class, whose entire raison d'etre is telling people what to do.
This is such an excellent and concise summary of the entire problem!
The problem is that 'subsidiaries' inevitably become more like 'soviets,' where the direction of decision making is top-down and total rather than local and bottom-up.
This is the essence of Communitarianism, sometimes called Stakeholder Capitalism, which makes a show of establishing legitimacy through consent by holding meetings with representatives of the so-called stakeholders, but in practice, the members of the public are being told what to think rather than consulted, and any dissent is squashed using the Delphi techniques developed by the Rand Corporation. It also means that people on the ground have no direct say in what the top echelons decide, as they are safely fire-walled into the lower layers, away from the locus of power. This is what the European Union actually means by its principle of subsidiarity. It is an old tactic which used to be described by the more honest expression 'divide and conquer.'
You didn't catch your lapsus linguae this time, numner rather than number. There is one more way that a monarch is better than an administrative government in that to change course one only need remove one man not entire classes of people, which is much more resource intensive. BTW in England we have postmen, or posties in the vernacular , not mailmen.
You are making an assumption here, that it is the job of government to organise people rather than protect their rights so they can go about their business. That is a socialist rather than more libertarian conception and one I am at odds with. We did have greater decentralisation in England, in the form of Local Councils, however many of the powers that were local have now been centralised, as is the want of those at the top, who set themselves against everyone else. You have reminded me of Carl's talk about the Universal Human -
https://www.lotuseaters.com/video-the-universal-human-05-10-21
Personally I would rather build than conquer, but then I'm an outlier.
That's a great distinction: that it is the job of governments to protect rights rather than to govern. I would love to hear a greater elaboration on that. What does it mean to protect rights? Specifically, how is that different from governing?
An example of protecting natural rights would be the creation and maintenance of a system of justice to punish / redress the infringement of the natural rights of one person by another. I would use the word manage over govern to describe what we have now in the Western world. Those in government now think it is their role to tell us how to live. Whether that be infringing our rights through lock downs or insisting we undergo a certain medical procedure before we can exercise our natural rights. This is not their role and they need to stop thinking it is, if they do not, well history is replete with examples of what follows. I hope that answers your question, if not please give me a hint as to how I might answer it in a way that would be more helpful to you.
Well put. I enjoyed this view of the situation. I started working in local politics to make a difference, and believe it or not, there's just as much drama. I don't get how anything gets done lol. But, that's because of career ambitions and politicians not willing to rock the boat to do the right thing. If you don't agree with the party platform they purge you even if it's the right call. If only people were more open minded about independents, or if we band parties on the ballots and mixed them all together.
How does your theory account for population density and migration? People will naturally move to be in bigger cities for protection, economic opportunity, or sheer environmental necessity. One can’t expect populations to voluntarily remain in neatly organized small fiefs, unless people are forced to do so (à la serfdom).
If large cities/polities naturally exist, then there MUST be a governmental body with the size and scope to meet the needs of the population.
In order to put your theory into practice one would have to have absolute control over people’s lives akin to Soviet collectivization efforts of the 1930s.
This woman uses the R slur and has a very privileged mindset. Very very weird
I'm sorry you're so scared of the word retarded. It's kind of retarded isn't it? How the west can steal literal words from you?