On Centralization and Representation: A Dialectical Libertarian Approach
In a dialogue following one of my posts, I made the following comments. I just wanted to share them in a post.
"Decentralization can be just as fascist as centralization. Centralization can lead to more libertarian outcomes. I mean, the centralized policing in Norway is more libertarian than the decentralized anarchic policing of South Africa.
"Also, take the United States. The local governments in the South wanted to preserve slavery, the central government overruled. The local governments wanted Jim Crow laws, segregation, etc., but central government overruled. America has lots of rural areas, where the people are mostly uneducated bigots (homophobic, racist, etc.). If you allow the small towns in America to make their own rules, many of them would ban or execute blacks and homosexuals. The central government allows the big cities, where the majority of people are, to override the rural populations that are generally fascist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. And, generally speaking it is best for everyone in America when the educated city population gets to drown out the uneducated rural populace, because the rural population generally supports fascism. Not that they are bad people; they just don't know any better....
"To clarify, I only accept centralization under certain very specific conditions. I will support centralization only if the result of that centralization happens to be more libertarian than the result of decentralization would be in the same circumstances. I am, first and foremost, a libertarian, and only support decentralization when it has libertarian results. I want things to be done through direct democracy as much as possible, but not if the things that get done are anti-libertarian and bad in themselves. A fascist policy that is anti-libertarian is just as bad if it is passed through local direct democracy as it would be if imposed by a single tyrannical despot. I support the results that are most libertarian. It was direct democracy in Switzerland that banned the construction of mosque minarets. This is a fascistic policy that I can’t support, even though it was voted in directly by the people, not through representatives. The mosques in question are private property, and the building of minarets doesn’t harm anyone, so the libertarian policy must be to allow mosques to have minarets. Furthermore, as someone who has somewhat of a background in Christian fundamentalism, having been influenced by theonomy/reconstructionism (a movement to implement biblical law in America) before becoming an atheist, I am very aware that there are religious folks in certain small towns that would actually make “sodomy” a punishable offense, so that a person accused of sodomy would be publicly flogged if not executed. That policy is unacceptable and fascist, regardless of the manner in which the law is formed. If a town decides to execute homosexuals or drive blacks out of town, that policy is fascist and unacceptable, even if it was formed through directly democratic processes at the local level. Insofar as more centralized power prevents such anti-libertarian policies, I think those forms of centralization are justified.
"On the other hand, I adhere to the distributist doctrine of subsidiarity which holds that all matters should be handled by the least centralized and smallest body capable of efficiently dealing with it. If a matter can effectively be dealt with on the individual level, then no one else needs to get involved. If it can be dealt with at the family level, then that’s where it should be handled. If it can be handled by the local community or municipality in an effective way, then no larger or more centralized authority should get involved. However, this is not pure decentralism/anarchism. I believe that governments should exist for the purpose of maximizing human liberty, with liberty being defined as non-domination. If two families are feuding and come to violence, I think local government ought to get involved. If a massive army starts marching into town, then federal/central government ought to get involved. When it comes to issues of civil rights, if the local governments fail to appropriately guarantee those rights to all people, then more centralized levels of government are right to intervene. Also, this comes into play with things like corruption in local government institutions. For instance, there was a cop in my city who killed and injured several people because he was intoxicated while on duty and crashed his cop car. The local police were all working to cover up the fact that he was intoxicated. There was local corruption, so the federal government stepped in and took over the investigation to ensure that justice was done. In such instances, I am for less local and more centralized levels of government taking over, if they can effectively deliver justice when local government fails to. If, however, the more centralized levels are less effective at delivering justice in any instance, then the more decentralized/local level action is to be preferred.
"Thus, my position is more pragmatic. I don’t think that decentralization is either good or bad in itself; same for centralization; I don’t think that “more government” is necessarily good, nor that it’s bad; and I don’t think that “less government” is necessarily good nor bad. What is good is whatever happens to maximize liberty and general wellbeing, and what happens to maximize liberty/wellbeing will differ from time to time, varying with “particular circumstances of time and place."
"I am for decentralizing any thing as soon as more local/decentralized/directly-democratic levels of government are able to effectively deliver justice on that particular thing. If you can educate people through public schools, get them to learn tolerance for other cultures, and thereby eliminate bigotry through education, then local direct democracy won’t lead to fascistic policies. Once you thoroughly educate the rural populace and eliminate the bigotry that causes rural folks to support bad policies, then it is perfectly fine to allow rural populaces to govern themselves directly at the local level once more....
"When I said, “they don’t know any better,” I was not making an ignorant comment. I was merely stating a fact. The reality is that a large part of the populace is ignorant. Hopefully the majority are not. However, it is often the case that people with like minds and similar cultures flock together. Thus, the majority in a certain small town or area could very well be ignorant. That’s why I think the votes of the majority of people who are not bigots ought to override the votes of the bigots in the form of urban liberals overriding rural racists, etc. It’s still majoritarian democracy, and it can even be direct democracy.
"I like direct democracy, and like digital direct democracy in particular. However, I do think there are instances when decisions need to be made on complicated issues only after long deliberation. I tend to agree with Edmund Burke on this point, that sometimes decisions need to be made by people who listened to all the arguments and participated in all the discussions. If there are meetings on town planning, to discuss some pressing issue, then there ought to be much deliberation, debate, and discussion. The people that took part in the discussion and listened to the various sides of the debate and heard the various arguments—those are the people that should vote on it. If some such topic is debated within the context of a parliament, council, or congress of delegates or representatives, then it would be best for only the delegates/representatives to vote rather than allowing the people to vote directly, since the people did not all listen to the arguments and would therefore not be in a position to make the most rational choice. Suppose that the people all agree that there ought to be taxes and that the taxes ought to fund defense, only stipulating that the tax shall be the least burdensome tax sufficient for funding the defense of the territory (it is quite possible for people to reach such a consensus in smaller polities, like Rojava)—the people have consented—but now the people go back to work and the administrators are left to implement the policy agreed upon. It may be best to have representatives assemble in a deliberative assembly and discuss how to go about implementing the policy. The deliberative assembly will thoroughly discuss the issue of how much defense is needed, debating all the finer points, then they will determine the cost of that defense (i.e. how much tax revenue they need to fund defense), and then they must determine the least burdensome way of collecting said taxes (shall it be a flat income tax, progressive income tax, flat sales tax, value added tax, land value tax?). The representatives would discuss all of these matters, determine what is most consistent, in their own estimation, with the mandate that they were given by their constituents, and then vote in favor of that. So, the representatives, after deliberation, may decide that land value tax is the least burdensome way of collecting tax. And that decision ought to be made not by the people at home who did not listen to all the arguments for and against it, but by the representatives that did listen to the debates that took place."
As things currently are in America, I think decentralization and direct democracy won't work. However, if we enact education reform that makes books by Karl Popper, Hilary Putnam, and Charles Darwin essential reading in high schools and gives due attention to evolutionary theory and science, people will turn away from religion and prejudices, which will allow us to explore more decentralized approaches to governance. Then, if we create a universal basic income funded by land value tax, thereby abolishing wage-slavery, we can free people up to engage in politics more. Educational reform and basic income are prerequisites to moving in the direction of decentralization and direct democracy.