4 ms·

While generally true this iterative process created a huge amount of cruft and cargo cult, the best example of which is the common law system: Does it work? Abs

While generally true this iterative process created a huge amount of cruft and cargo cult, the best example of which is the common law system: Does it work? Absolutely, and surprisingly well at that. It's however also ridiculously Byzantine and can be quite inequitable. These convoluted structures and systems increasingly break down because they mandate a common code for everyone to live by regardless of their respective ideas and ways of living. Brexit is a nice example of this. An entire country's future jeopardised because a majority at that particular moment voted by a thin margin that this might be a good idea. Who are they to tell others how and where to live and work? Conversely, who am I to tell them how they should live their lives? I don't have answers to these questions but I feel the answers lie at a local level and with decentralised structures rather than nation states.

6d6b73 10y ago
A return to independent city-states is probably the future of society. Unfortunately we're currently going in a direction of a one world wide government
- CuriouslyC 10y ago
  While I agree with your statement that independent city states are the future of governance in general, we are always going to require a broad coalition government. This is because actions taken in one place frequently spill over to another, and there needs to be a mechanism for redress in these circumstances. For example, a factory upriver dumping waste legally according to its municipal regulations affects everyone downriver of it. Additionally, there needs to be a check in place against tyranny by the majority at the local level. I think a best case scenario would be popular-vote based local (metropolitan area) democracies, with a "world court" system that protects rights and arbitrates disputes between governments.
  - bjshepard 10y ago
    We can have micro and macronations.
  - djrogers 10y ago
    What would be the check against tyranny by the 'world court'?
    - thatcat 10y ago
      There can be no independent abstract "world court" because there is no military to back it. The closest we have is probably the united nations security council, which is composed of US, Russia, China, France, UK + 10 others that vary over time. These actors have varying interests which keep each other in check to some degree.
      - CuriouslyC 10y ago
        A world court doesn't require a military in a highly interdependent world. Economic sanctions are sufficient. A city state is going to require food and goods from other city states. If you go against the ruling of the world court, other city states refuse to provide those goods, and you are going to fall into line fairly quickly. Another benefit of smaller independent city states is that it is easier to check their aggression. If raising a large army requires broad cooperation among city states, that greatly reduces the likelihood that such a force will come into being. This is because of the difficulty in coordination and the fact that multiple city states are unlikely to share the exact same interests, reducing their impetus to unite.
- nostrademons 10y ago
  They may not be mutually exclusive, eg. you could have a system of a world-wide government whose only job is enforcing trade & property rights and providing physical security, while delegating responsibility for social mores & resident services to the city state.

6d6b73 10y ago

A return to independent city-states is probably the future of society. Unfortunately we're currently going in a direction of a one world wide government

CuriouslyC 10y ago
While I agree with your statement that independent city states are the future of governance in general, we are always going to require a broad coalition government. This is because actions taken in one place frequently spill over to another, and there needs to be a mechanism for redress in these circumstances. For example, a factory upriver dumping waste legally according to its municipal regulations affects everyone downriver of it. Additionally, there needs to be a check in place against tyranny by the majority at the local level. I think a best case scenario would be popular-vote based local (metropolitan area) democracies, with a "world court" system that protects rights and arbitrates disputes between governments.
- bjshepard 10y ago
  We can have micro and macronations.
- djrogers 10y ago
  What would be the check against tyranny by the 'world court'?
  - thatcat 10y ago
    There can be no independent abstract "world court" because there is no military to back it. The closest we have is probably the united nations security council, which is composed of US, Russia, China, France, UK + 10 others that vary over time. These actors have varying interests which keep each other in check to some degree.
    - CuriouslyC 10y ago
      A world court doesn't require a military in a highly interdependent world. Economic sanctions are sufficient. A city state is going to require food and goods from other city states. If you go against the ruling of the world court, other city states refuse to provide those goods, and you are going to fall into line fairly quickly. Another benefit of smaller independent city states is that it is easier to check their aggression. If raising a large army requires broad cooperation among city states, that greatly reduces the likelihood that such a force will come into being. This is because of the difficulty in coordination and the fact that multiple city states are unlikely to share the exact same interests, reducing their impetus to unite.
nostrademons 10y ago
They may not be mutually exclusive, eg. you could have a system of a world-wide government whose only job is enforcing trade & property rights and providing physical security, while delegating responsibility for social mores & resident services to the city state.