4 ms·
The problem is not the allocation of power, but the centralization of power. Once you have a lot of power in the hands of the central government, it will be cap
by iwwr 16y ago
The problem is not the allocation of power, but the centralization of power. Once you have a lot of power in the hands of the central government, it will be captured and misused by cliques and special interests.
The way to 'fix' democracy is to reduce its scope, to make it as localized as possible. In this way, political decisions tend to be made closer to those affected.
The idea that the various branches of government can block and check each other's power has proven quite misguided; they will always cooperate to increase their collective power.
- guelo 16y agoI'm guessing you're american even though this story Is about a british voting system. So you want local military, local FAA, local social security, local CDC, local EPA, local interstate highways, local FDA, local FDIC, local NASA, local weather satellites... I could go on but it seems like every little city providing all these services might be a tad wasteful.
- lhnn 16y agoDid he list any of those as being what he wants localized? Did he say every "little city" should do it? In principle, he's absolutely right. A weaker military, less intrusive FDA/EPA, no social security would be nice.
- guelo 16y agoAh, so the goal isn't some principle about democracy, it's about a desire to get rid of SS, let polluters pollute, and to have unsafe food. He should have come out and said that then.
- lhnn 16y agoYep, exactly. I'm glad we're on the same page. Or, perhaps overreaching bureaucracies should be eliminated and allow these united states to handle their own populace as they see fit, while abiding by the Constitution.
- iwwr 16y agoWhy would that be wasteful? Note that having local authority does not preclude having larger organizations in place. Changing the voting system does not change the dynamics of political power.
- knowtheory 16y agoWhy would it be wasteful: Lack of economies of scale. If you claim that states or municipalities can get together to leverage such scale, then you've just reintroduced bureaucracy and waste. This is why centralized control is useful. The US Federal government, one of the largest employers in the US (cause there is a lot of stuff to do for citizens) can guarantee health insurance to its workers because it's big. This is what frustrates me so much about republican/conservative free market rhetoric. They hate government because it interferes with markets, and then they try and hobble the government's ability to use market forces to save tax payers money. And then they accuse the government of being wasteful.
- DennisP 16y agoOr maybe he's from Switzerland, which actually does have a fairly decentralized system: http://www.bhutan-switzerland.org/pdf/Kaelin_Switzerland.pdf http://www.bhutan-switzerland.org/pdf/Kaelin_Switzerland.pdf
- knowtheory 16y agoYou are familiar with the Articles of Confederation, and their abandonment? The Federalist-Anti-Federalist debate has been going on since the Revolutionary war. It is neither a settled debate, nor is it without precedent. The branches of government do block and check each other's powers, and to assert otherwise is just false. The fact that the Federal government doesn't do what you want isn't a sign that the US system of government is broken. The fact that the government can't pass policies is a sign that US politics is broken (although i will grant that each branch of government has been complicit in this individually). But that's hardly collusion.