3 ms·

> So here’s a quick rundown of how the decentralisation mentioned in the article Sounds bit like: > Subsidiarity is an organizing principle that matters ought

> So here’s a quick rundown of how the decentralisation mentioned in the article Sounds bit like: > Subsidiarity is an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. Political decisions should be taken at a local level if possible, rather than by a central authority.[1] The Oxford English Dictionary defines subsidiarity as the idea that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity_(Catholicism) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity_(Catholicism) > […] and the citizenry engaged enough to keep them in check, in other words, like a well functioning democracy. How is the need/desire to bring forward and expose problems balanced with the Japanese cultural habit (?) of not rocking the boat? * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome * https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/出る釘は打たれる https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/出る釘は打たれる

rablackburn 5y ago
It’s not quite subsidiarity, at least not in the strict sense you’ve quoted. It’s not so much an organising principle as just how it’s always been done. The central government just doesn’t want to deal with certain problems. Going back to the 16th century unification of Japan the central government didn’t deal with individuals, they dealt with villages. You didn’t pay tax, the village did, as along as the tax gets paid they don’t really care who’s paying what. If the central government decides it wants to intervene more directly, there’s not much you can do to stop them. (Except give them the run around/work slow, and hope they don’t care enough to bring in the troops). I don’t think there’s anything hugely novel in their political structure, the difference is cultural. Design your system however you want, without the cultural commitment it won’t work (see: Liberia adopting the US constitution). You get around the tall poppy/not rocking the boat problem by consensus building. Japan is very good at collective action problems.

rablackburn 5y ago

It’s not quite subsidiarity, at least not in the strict sense you’ve quoted. It’s not so much an organising principle as just how it’s always been done. The central government just doesn’t want to deal with certain problems. Going back to the 16th century unification of Japan the central government didn’t deal with individuals, they dealt with villages. You didn’t pay tax, the village did, as along as the tax gets paid they don’t really care who’s paying what. If the central government decides it wants to intervene more directly, there’s not much you can do to stop them. (Except give them the run around/work slow, and hope they don’t care enough to bring in the troops). I don’t think there’s anything hugely novel in their political structure, the difference is cultural. Design your system however you want, without the cultural commitment it won’t work (see: Liberia adopting the US constitution). You get around the tall poppy/not rocking the boat problem by consensus building. Japan is very good at collective action problems.