Government & legal philosophy

[Nagelfar]

I thought I'd start a thread wherein people can share their views which incorporate politics in the manner of philosophical concepts: natural law, dialectical materialism, social contract, Plato's philosopher kingship type republic, et cetra.

I wrote something a few weeks back that I will start off by posting in part; the re-confirmation of my philosophical political position as a Federalist:


...To the American ear the name of Federalist implies simultaneously a devolved and evolved power structure, both centralization and decentralization. The difference between Federalism and every other political orientation is that, while they reject enumerating what they do not adhere to & reduce all constituencies down unilaterally to their own, being a Federalist means supporting the proliferation of ever more constituencies.

So does this mean letting everyone do their own thing? Isn't this just libertarianism or liberalism? laissez faire? No, for it is a official support of all retained selective retention of rules and coercive government practices within spheres of articulation and influence to the choosing of those who assemble under those pretenses. In fact, it would be the inverted opposite to libertarianism as communism is the contrasted opposite of libertarianism (between public & private spheres); meaning Federalism is not standardized deregulation as libertarianism is, rather, Federalism is regulated destandardization. Acquiring the benefits of refining man as a social animal in every mode of socialization as a polity; acquiring the strengths of every conservative viewpoint without the restrictive conventions of any one of them sullying the potential of all others.

An unconventional conservatism, that is liberal insofar as it is universal & free, even unto the degree which it sets its limits internally as determinate: even if unto the level of libertarianism or communism. Federalism is the supreme dialectical politic; concretely as well as empirically; being totalitarian in the manner of Panunzio & Gentile and anarchistic in the idea of Bakunin & Kropotkin; with the benefits of both the multiplying of strengths for the individual through the state as an infrastructure of confluent wills, and the voluntary self assertion of the atomisticly divergent will of a person spontaneously as meaningful and nonmarginalized in regard to any state.

Pillarization (the 'vertical' or non-territoral but ideological Federalism) is of course included in the sweeping use of the word Federalism, as well as consociation type developing states. If 'state' is understood in its Gentilean inevitability then Polycentric law, as an apparatus of statism in what the natural law & Hobbesians consider of a social contract that exists empirically considered, is also a form of true Federalism.

Federalism is the only constituency which accepts, and in fact affirms, all other constituencies. Every other constituency can do naught other than deny every other constituency by condition of its very existence; except insofar as accepting Federalism is accepting itself while appeasing all other demographics relegated to the ability to do the same without negating the other. Mankind has proven itself to be a political animal; well then, this is the only political politic; and therefore humanism par excellence. Majoritarian democracy is too mechanically leveled at simple standardizing for everything toward the most conventional and mundane, so too is every purely singular methodology to governance...

 

[L2R]

federalism is okay, but it is not perfect. it creates an inequality against individuals from states which hold greater populations in terms of national direction and policy.

 

[Nagelfar]

Inequality and prerogative rights for everyone, personally and individually, is the whole point of Federalism; population would have no sway on it - that would be a conception of Federalism limited by being in the power of a majoritarian voting democracy as its way of organization; which is not a pure Federalism.

I am not talking about geographical / territorial Federalism solely, but party Federalism, as per my mention of Pillarization and Polycentric law. Vertical Federalism in addition to horizontal Federalism; the existence of a state or more within a state, as many times as grassroots ideologies accrue and accede into active factions.

This means whatever your adherence is; it affects you directly as if by fiat, regardless of where you reside in the jurisdiction, depending on whether you can cluster to form a self-sustaining constituency and fill every position for need of functionality: by colleagues and peers of the same approximate constituency.

Meaning you do not have to vote for an either/or compromise before it comes into effect, but it effects you immediately & directly based just on what you believe; unless your polity, within it's sphere, has a voting system as part of its ideology, for instance.

For example, one group would hold an economic belief in collectivity to the point of a flat taxation for socialized healthcare and all so clustered would receive said benefits, and another group would believe in freedom from taxation to such a degree that none within such a group would have to pay such a tax nor would any receive such healthcare state benefits and would resort to private institutions. These two groups would live side by side in the same multi-cameral physical location. Capitalism and Communism can exist side by side in the same government; none being repressed or restricted in how they choose society to allow them to interact or be interacted with.

Whether one remains in such a party or factional state upon wishing to change ones mind and join another would be a matter just as diplomatic naturalization is inter-nationally; but would be on a scale intra-nationally without needing to displace oneself to another locale. There would be rules as per the states as they interacted betwixt themselves on the Federal over-all whole to remain so integrated, but rules dictated by the internal polities of devolved powers for their own cohesion.

Everyone's social political stance, and how they wished to socially interact on a legal level with their socius would be dependent on just whether they could get it to run by enumerating it as a viable demographic; but the Federal whole would officialize and codify as part of its constitution each divergent political system as an organ subcontracted to a legislature among its legislatures inside its complete legal structuring.

 

[L2R]

horizontal federalism is an interesting concept indeed. thanks for this.

i'm having trouble conceptualising what would count as a state if it can be such things as you describe. i also fail to grasp how it resolves the problem when one group elects not to pay taxes for general healthcare and misses the service (as in your example). what happens when people can not afford emergency services? do they become begging leppers until they die on the street? can an individual who has taken the wise choice to pay for healthcare sit idle as their neighbour rots on the porch? I'm not sure how this is much different to the poison libertarianism brings.

 

[Nagelfar]

They believe in it themselves; what you are critiquing is not Federalism but Libertarianism itself as an example of mine within Federalism.

Let libertarians be libertarians, without having to fight to be what they already hold as gospel. You are not beholden to it, if it is not your ideology. That is the entire point. I already attempted at an explanation of what one would do if they had found themselves in a change of heart as to what they professed within such a system: just like naturalizing to a new country, they would-must petition to leave and change their political orientation so the government could be effective unto them as their new choice / to their choosing; if necessary they must undergo a probationary period or be subject to regulation otherwise from the external side.

Personally, I think a libertarian capitalism would work if it were *only* composed of by those who believed in it or had a passion for that way of socially working. The same is true of Communism; if its composition were only those not worrying about not being able to 'progress' or what-not, that internal group would be much more functional because they all believe in it with their heart; without having stragglers and those uninterested weighing the system down. Every system would, I believe, work and be effective this way.

Bureaucracy would be effective again, because it is there to reinforce your own will, not a pre-prescribed order imposed from without by an a posteriori establishment.

Politicians would have to be honest; because their constituency no longer has to vie for votes; there is no longer the need for deception or pandering to interests; all interests have effectiveness to the degree that they *are* interests; and are immediately effective. A politician then, to be dishonest in such a system, would just be robbing themselves of their influence.

To bring honesty back into politics, and get the small individual to think government actually has a place for them without being compromised and marginalized, this is just one effect of this kind of Federalism. Party Federalism is a good name for it; others call it vertical Federalism; though I see how it can be considered horizontal as well (because of a hierarchical concept not pertaining to it, but being a collegiality of peers 'on the same level', but I am thinking of a 'land dimension' assignation to why a geographical jurisdiction would be called the 'horizontal' or traditional type, and name the vertical so because it is a reciprocal and direct relationship with the state regardless of area)

Example: perhaps when one individual has attained to skills which would warrant recognition in a meritocratic social structuring, they could divert themselves from their collectivist faction and change their quality of life; but only if they can truly profess of a change of heart and it is not done out of silly opportunism (if they had a deep conviction to begin with, it seems humans would sooner suffer setbacks than be 'wrong' about what they believe anyhow) when one who is a tycoon loses their livelihood alternately, they could attempt to convert to the strategy of other modes of social organization to survive. However; this would be maintained by the interests of the factions themselves; filtering out those who believe by what they contribute to the manner of governance it represents.

What would the 'state' be? The state is the "state of things", it always is. Anomie anarchism has its 'benefits' conceptually but can't exist. The moment laws are abolished, people create verbal agreements, and these become long standing, and a device for recording and recognizing these social contracts must be set up for ever increased flow of operation; the 'state' always constructs itself; and the top tier would be the over-all government which would exist to impose the organization of merged wills of multiple types interacting in as smooth of a way as possible.

This is self-government at its absolute truest; but a government must be, in a sense, "totalitarian" to track individuals, and account for their different positions; the future of technology makes it inevitable that society will be able to entrench its values more and more on to free individual wills; the government infrastructure cannot be so waylaid away from its own progress; but if its progress is the self-governance of individuals, a government to maintain ever superior self-government at the smallest levels possible with interaction at the biggest levels possible; a unity of public & private, making it so that there isn't a carceral state, just existing toward a unilateral singular way of doing things. We have DNA, social security numbers, etc., to keep us in a system which we are born into without necessarily agreeing with; we are citizens against our will. A state that allows for its citizens to be of whatever government type they are akin to, is the most adaptable government (a government of governments).

 

[L2R]

You're missing my point. This is not about naturalising from one state to another, but what individuals, as compassionate people, are obliged to do for those who's states are willing to harm its constrituents? sit by and watch?

As for people with a passion for their way of social working, humanity have not achieved anything close to the maturity level to sustain this.

I like your ideas, i just think they are not actually realisable. It sounds a lot like communitarianism tbh.

 

[Nagelfar]

People still interact as neighbors, and can be as charitable as they like. This is not multiple states, but one state of multiple governments, that effects everyone as they participate of their will. If you intervene it is as a private action. As peoples specific constituencies change and become more specific, new constituencies accrue. Just as off-branches of political parties have differences and form splinters; it is an organic process. Why should one concern themselves with someone who partakes of another way; when they & the other are having their own way? This is what I do not understand about your question.

People 'sustain' it to the level they believe in it; so it effects everyone to the degree that they can interact, it panders to, for instance, whatever could be called "immaturity": by this very fact; and lives and works by that subjective facet. If someone wants whatever you'd call an "ignorant" government, if enough believe in it to get it to run and fill the cabinet positions; it shall work as such. The over-all government will exist to defend the right to move in its patterns; it is like how the concept of freedom of speech is now defended; but this is freedom of living government and action; no matter the action.

How is this at all like Communitarianism? That is one limited philosophy, this is all unlimited philosophies.

A political party that was a Party Federalism party, for example, would be no less viable than any ideological party that has a sweeping rearrangement of society. It would start from it's own philosophy and nothing more. In the United States for example, it would start simply; by claiming to be allowing Democrats and Republicans to have their own separate constituencies if said Federalists were to come to power. Maybe even the 50 states would have their constitutions across the board sought for; and a Democratic & a Republican one. Other minor parties could be instituted later as it comes to them. We'd have less Democrats and Republicans because of the removal of the need to form a majority to have an impact; but it would start there, and when people saw that, they'd change to their true allegiance because people would take their splinter beliefs to the effective stage of action when they see that they can.

Every different belief would support this party Federalism because it gives them their place; opposing sides, instead of being negated by voting for one of their parties, would vote for the party that would give them all their own type of power; and if they still believed in unilateralism: in which all should be under the influence of their own particular idea whether others would agree with it or not; they still would rationally choose the Federalism because it allows their belief to affect at least just themselves which is a starting point which they didn't formerly have. etc.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

OP, I'd agree with you that federalism's greatest strength is its ability to effectively govern a geographically diverse population, by sanctioning a patchwork quilt sort of local policy-making. That said, it's not without some major flaws.

Number one, I'd argue that federalism only works in centralized regimes that grant de facto freedom of internal migration, such that people who live in a jurisdiction that's enacted laws they disagree with, are perfectly free to move to another jurisdiction within the same nation that has legislated differently. This then relieves both the national and local governments of the onus of legislative parity between jurisdictions, and goes a long way toward diffusing local pockets of popular unrest. For example, let's say my state bans men from wearing hats, and the neighboring state does not, but I have a national ID card which only gives me permission to reside legally in my state. If I want to hide my psoriasis-stricken scalp, my only choice is to petition my state government, and failing that, uprise. That doesn't bode well for me, my state government, OR my national government. Therefore, I contend that federalism is simply not feasible, in practice, anywhere that is unable to grant full freedom of movement and migration to its citizens. (Think any country with an overpopulation of rural peasants that it doesn't want pouring into the cities to create slums.) The USSR is a great example of how federalism doesn't work when citizens were not allowed to migrate legally from the constituent states. Eventually citizens realize that if they're corralled in, why do they need to answer to a faraway central authority? They just secede.

Secondly, I don't think there's any clear consensus on which federalist state model works better: a few large sub-national jurisdictions, or many small ones. The UK is a federalist nation with only 4 big states. Micronesia is a federalist state where pretty much every island makes its own laws. My point is, one highly centralized government (think China) and many fully sovereign nations (think the Caribbean economic zone) are very clear-cut extremes. "Federalism" is a term that encompasses pretty much every degree of compromise between these two extremes. How can generalizations about its effectiveness be made, then?

Thirdly, there's the issue of which powers need to be left to the central government and enforced uniformly nationwide, rather than left to local government to tweak as they please. Certainly you could make a case for national defense and currency regulations. But I think you'd find little agreement on most others. Do any political theorists you've read have some ideas about this?

 

[Nagelfar]

You misunderstood, territorial Federalism is not the form of Federalism I am espousing here, but non-territorial Pillarization (like the Dutch model, but grass roots to ideologies and not caste) like a consociative state. Where it doesn't matter where your locality resides at all. Where what political party you belong to is in-fact the legislature to which you are answerable; regardless of your place within the geographical swathe of the Federal government. Corporative (not co-operative) Federalism (as had during the end of the Austro-Hungarian empire to their castes, but again, non-caste). Your national identification is enforced through it's centralization and your transparency (as it's incorporated, public corporatism); but that is no issue due to it being transparent only to level of your own private constituency which is your own making by the chosen sphere of interaction making that very polity.

Of course, territorial Federalism may be simultaneously effective with it and alongside it: as a strata of state's within states.

 

[L2R]

sorry i didn't get back to you sooner.

the similarity i noted to communitarianism was structural, not philosophical.

also i'm still not grasping how this system you suggest could prevent a group of the population following a certain path which harms itself.

 

[Nagelfar]

the similarity i noted to communitarianism was structural, not philosophical.

How is it even structural? I'd figure someone thinking of anarcho-syndicalism before communitarianism; but there I'd argue that anarcho-syndicalism is non-centralized and dependent on it's individual economical structurings. It is the big government infrastructure of this sort of Federalism that allows the freedom to organize by ideology rather than limited to their sphere of production.

also i'm still not grasping how this system you suggest could prevent a group of the population following a certain path which harms itself.

Why not ask this question for a liberal state; how does the government, with allowing freedom, prevent people from harming themselves? It's a nonsense question. That a Federal government may allow a structure which enforces harm, self chosen and internally; allows for the same manner of prevention that the liberal state would: 'personal experience' that allows the human agency to in turn modify the way in which they interact with the jurisdiction they have power over. In fact, the Federal government does this better; for the government which prevents a certain kind of experience; never allows for the experience individually to even be had (a liberal state disallowing coercion for example or an overly safe police state never allowing crime, etc)

It is a matter of ophelimity; your opinion of "harm" is not necessarily the opinion of harm of those within a particular jurisdiction if it is of their own choosing; they may wish to marginalize certain groups that have fallen to the wayside, as it were, within their structure, but those who belong to that structure have agreed to the criteria as to what that would pertain to begin with.

How does any government prevent a path which harms itself internally? Most governments have less recourse in this way that you mention, not more; because they're unilateral by regard to law. Any one government may be on a self destructive course; it would cease to be after an allotted time if it really were self-destructive. Every faction within the government has to stand according to its own idiosyncrasies; it could be viewed negatively like a laboratory for all governments as experiments; and they exist in a context of 'social Darwinism' as it were.

All are allowed to exist immediately without argument from other constituencies disallowing their implementation for such experiment as a voting consensus would disallow: and this is the crux of it. The novel, genius ideas on how to organize, are never had by the majority, for the majority only has the insight of the mundane, and the new are the minority opinion by definition. This is why every constituency should be given life without being repressed or requiring a majority.

The dysfunctional groups simply do not function if they are truly so; and are left to their own merit to do so or not. Yet being that they are here built by the individuals who take to heart the social structure they choose and are given it fully, this is an unlikely case because of the zeal behind the entire constituency that as well contains no dissenters.

Think of it as nihilistic at the Federal level, and fascistic at the devolved level if you must understand by harsh terms. Absolute devaluation of opinion at the reciprocal government head, and absolute personal will to mold society to where that specific will leads at every part. A pyramid with a top crowning everything, extending down into infinity with no end in sight.

If there really must be a faction that believes in 'intervention' to factions which they believe have gone 'astray', it would form corporate syndicates that offer and provide the necessary care or coercive acts, to disparate factions, if it could provide them. It would form the same issues as international organization and governing, only intranationally. This is really simply bringing the diplomacy of the world's diversity of government down to the personal sphere where it is 'manageable' and meaningful to the individual. Therefore dialectically real.