How you do you implement subsidiarity without top down government? It's probably impossible because of the natural Pareto distribution of power, a cartel will just form and take over like what happened to America originally.
You cannot. Subsidiarity is an idea designed assuming a top down government is inevitable.
It is also an idea intended to limit this government if the people all believe in it. The reason it doesn't work in say, the EU, is because the people there don't really believe in it, just like Americans only really believe in like 4 items from the bill of rights, do the rest basically don't exist
The USA’s Old Republic was a semi-populist, semi-politically decentralized, semi-economically decentralized, semi-culturally decentralized, and semi-scientifically decentralized republic with democratic governance structures such as the decentralized mass-member parties of old. This system generated immense amounts of subsidiarity for 150 years and a large amount for 50 years after that…
We already have top down government, I think it could be used to allow freedom for local answers. There was a lot of hope the EU would do this for the multi-nation states of Europe like Britain and Spain, but ultimately the tendency to control came to the fore there.
As we're looking at governments which lack capability, funding and the actual human talent to do much there's a lot of space below them to fix problems if it's allowed to happen. Mandating it from the centre tends to result in the creation of more layers of jobs for national party members rather than effective localism.
Following the Brexit vote, I tried to get people interested in a constitutional reform party which I called Local Sovereignty. One of its primary goals was local autonomy but, because it's obviously something which shouldn't be imposed from above, the proposal was for an entrenched principle that there must be integration between different levels of government (to determine the level of government that decisions on specific issues should be taken), along with an absolute right for local communities to take control of local affairs at a time of their own choosing, through a jury-moderated process which I called 'spontaneous democracy'.
Not a bad idea, though most constitutional reform in my lifetime in Britain has come from Blair and was designed to give more power to the ruling party and make things easier for those in power.
I don't personally equate distributism with having to be democratic, but it will naturally tend to work out that way anyway. I don't really think places with six and seven figure populations can do anything remotely democratic, and as we see time and time again politicians are more than happy to use courts to push through concepts which lack democratic support.
How you do you implement subsidiarity without top down government? It's probably impossible because of the natural Pareto distribution of power, a cartel will just form and take over like what happened to America originally.
You cannot. Subsidiarity is an idea designed assuming a top down government is inevitable.
It is also an idea intended to limit this government if the people all believe in it. The reason it doesn't work in say, the EU, is because the people there don't really believe in it, just like Americans only really believe in like 4 items from the bill of rights, do the rest basically don't exist
The USA’s Old Republic was a semi-populist, semi-politically decentralized, semi-economically decentralized, semi-culturally decentralized, and semi-scientifically decentralized republic with democratic governance structures such as the decentralized mass-member parties of old. This system generated immense amounts of subsidiarity for 150 years and a large amount for 50 years after that…
We already have top down government, I think it could be used to allow freedom for local answers. There was a lot of hope the EU would do this for the multi-nation states of Europe like Britain and Spain, but ultimately the tendency to control came to the fore there.
As we're looking at governments which lack capability, funding and the actual human talent to do much there's a lot of space below them to fix problems if it's allowed to happen. Mandating it from the centre tends to result in the creation of more layers of jobs for national party members rather than effective localism.
Following the Brexit vote, I tried to get people interested in a constitutional reform party which I called Local Sovereignty. One of its primary goals was local autonomy but, because it's obviously something which shouldn't be imposed from above, the proposal was for an entrenched principle that there must be integration between different levels of government (to determine the level of government that decisions on specific issues should be taken), along with an absolute right for local communities to take control of local affairs at a time of their own choosing, through a jury-moderated process which I called 'spontaneous democracy'.
If you're interested, you can find that proposal at http://localsovereignty.com/home/primary-goals/local-autonomy/
Thanks for the link to the National Distributist Party which I hadn't heard of before.
Not a bad idea, though most constitutional reform in my lifetime in Britain has come from Blair and was designed to give more power to the ruling party and make things easier for those in power.
I don't personally equate distributism with having to be democratic, but it will naturally tend to work out that way anyway. I don't really think places with six and seven figure populations can do anything remotely democratic, and as we see time and time again politicians are more than happy to use courts to push through concepts which lack democratic support.