6 ms·

This is a good observation. There needs to be some kind of feedback loop to suppress the tyrannical bureaucratizing tendency of the modern state. It is obvious

This is a good observation. There needs to be some kind of feedback loop to suppress the tyrannical bureaucratizing tendency of the modern state. It is obvious that our own society does not have any such feedback loop. However, the answer is not some kind of local unaccountable justice system where a judge basically rules based either on the will of the crowd or his own personal interests, and then calls it "community reconciliation" or some such bullshit. It's like the person who wrote the article literally never contemplated the reason for written law to exist in the first place. > The unpleasant truth is that if you live in a community whose members are not good people, you won't have good outcomes, no matter what kind of system you design. I think this is also basically undeniably true. But across all of history, I really don't know of any politcal system that had a noticable positive effect on the moral quality of the individual humans it ruled over. So this just leaves me with a sense of metahistorical pessimism.

pdonis 6y ago
> the answer is not some kind of local unaccountable justice system There is no reason why a local justice system can't be accountable to the people who live in the community. But, as I said in another comment upthread, if the people in the community aren't good people, you aren't going to have good outcomes no matter what kind of system you set up, or what kind of laws you write. > It's like the person who wrote the article literally never contemplated the reason for written law to exist in the first place. Sure they did; they just recognize that written laws are attempts to achieve an unachievable ideal. It is impossible to capture "fairness" and "justice" in any written set of rules. There will always be human judgment required in individual cases, and human judgment is (a) subjective, and (b) depends on the humans doing the judging. If you have corrupt humans, you will get corrupt outcomes, and you can't fix that by writing laws, because corrupt people will just figure out loopholes in the laws, and writing guaranteed loophole-free laws is impossible.
- bilbo0s 6y ago
  Again, the flaw is that local people can be as corrupt as non-local people. I'm having a difficult time ascertaining a difference. In either case, a man is obliged to live under the tyranny of potentially corrupt people. In fact, given the people, local or non-local, have power, it is a virtual certainty that there will be some level of corruption among them.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > the flaw is that local people can be as corrupt as non-local people Sure, but at least local people have some skin in the game; they have to live locally with the consequences of their actions. Non-local people don't. > In either case, a man is obliged to live under the tyranny of potentially corrupt people. But the tyranny is much more limited in scope if it's only local people; they will have limited resources at their command, and worst case I can always move. If the entire planet is a tyranny, I'm screwed.
    - bilbo0s 6y ago
      Sure, but at least local people have some skin in the game; they have to live locally with the consequences of their actions The purpose of their corruption is precisely so that they don't have to live with the consequences of their actions. I can always move Not if the local people with power disallow it. Or are you saying you always want non-local people to have power over the local people so that the locals are compelled to allow you to leave?
      - pdonis 6y ago
        > The purpose of their corruption is precisely so that they don't have to live with the consequences of their actions. If they're local, they live there, so they can't avoid the consequences. The law of unintended consequences applies to corrupt officials just like it applies to everybody else. The reason corrupt officials in our current system can avoid those consequences is that they don't have to live in the places they govern. That's true even of many so-called "local" officials: mayors and city council members often don't live in the cities they govern. > Not if the local people with power disallow it. How are they going to prevent people from leaving? If the only resources they can draw on are local, their power will be too limited. Basically, your picture of "local" seems to be the way "local" works in our current society, which allows localities that are politically favored by higher level governments to draw on resources from those governments. But that's not actaully local; it's the higher level, non-local governments using the lower-level governments as political tools.

pdonis 6y ago

> the answer is not some kind of local unaccountable justice system There is no reason why a local justice system can't be accountable to the people who live in the community. But, as I said in another comment upthread, if the people in the community aren't good people, you aren't going to have good outcomes no matter what kind of system you set up, or what kind of laws you write. > It's like the person who wrote the article literally never contemplated the reason for written law to exist in the first place. Sure they did; they just recognize that written laws are attempts to achieve an unachievable ideal. It is impossible to capture "fairness" and "justice" in any written set of rules. There will always be human judgment required in individual cases, and human judgment is (a) subjective, and (b) depends on the humans doing the judging. If you have corrupt humans, you will get corrupt outcomes, and you can't fix that by writing laws, because corrupt people will just figure out loopholes in the laws, and writing guaranteed loophole-free laws is impossible.

bilbo0s 6y ago
Again, the flaw is that local people can be as corrupt as non-local people. I'm having a difficult time ascertaining a difference. In either case, a man is obliged to live under the tyranny of potentially corrupt people. In fact, given the people, local or non-local, have power, it is a virtual certainty that there will be some level of corruption among them.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > the flaw is that local people can be as corrupt as non-local people Sure, but at least local people have some skin in the game; they have to live locally with the consequences of their actions. Non-local people don't. > In either case, a man is obliged to live under the tyranny of potentially corrupt people. But the tyranny is much more limited in scope if it's only local people; they will have limited resources at their command, and worst case I can always move. If the entire planet is a tyranny, I'm screwed.
  - bilbo0s 6y ago
    Sure, but at least local people have some skin in the game; they have to live locally with the consequences of their actions The purpose of their corruption is precisely so that they don't have to live with the consequences of their actions. I can always move Not if the local people with power disallow it. Or are you saying you always want non-local people to have power over the local people so that the locals are compelled to allow you to leave?
    - pdonis 6y ago
      > The purpose of their corruption is precisely so that they don't have to live with the consequences of their actions. If they're local, they live there, so they can't avoid the consequences. The law of unintended consequences applies to corrupt officials just like it applies to everybody else. The reason corrupt officials in our current system can avoid those consequences is that they don't have to live in the places they govern. That's true even of many so-called "local" officials: mayors and city council members often don't live in the cities they govern. > Not if the local people with power disallow it. How are they going to prevent people from leaving? If the only resources they can draw on are local, their power will be too limited. Basically, your picture of "local" seems to be the way "local" works in our current society, which allows localities that are politically favored by higher level governments to draw on resources from those governments. But that's not actaully local; it's the higher level, non-local governments using the lower-level governments as political tools.