Hi Nos4A2
The power of government is illegitimate to begin with. It functions on monopoly and plunder. Taking power in such an institution requires one to wield illegitimate power against his fellows, something my own conscience could not bear. — NOS4A2
Fair enough, so let’s start chipping away
A rapid abolition of any kind would be cruel to the unweaned, those who view the government as the solution to all their problems and rely on it to subsidize their lives. Generations of people who were raised under the auspices of that promise could be met with troubles I would wish on no one, like poverty, once they found themselves responsible for their own lives and communities. They would view you as if you killed their god and resentment would grow. — NOS4A2
Is this broken citizen a permanent fixture doomed to failure and the production of multiple future failures? Does potential exist within them, and can it be ignited? Keep in mind, this thought experiment affords you a wide variety of methods to reshape the game board, even if such methods seem wildly unrealistic in the current system. Are you sure you don’t want to take a swing? I would like to see a system that doesn’t function on monopoly and plunder as well, so paint it for me!
The power and reach of the church, for instance, declined only as people stopped attending, participating, and believing in its authority. — NOS4A2
As an aside, what would be the best system for strengthening religious vibrancy given the powers allowed in this discussion? Is such a thing desirable in your mini-state?
It would be constituted locally, for the needs of the local population, without all the heavy armaments, license to search, seize and destroy. Powers limited to keeping the peace and enforcing the law: to serve and protect, not dedicated to vested interests. — Vera Mont
Thank you for clarifying! When considering the formation of separate mini-states (or regional groups), how independent should they be in terms of varying methods concerning police tactics, justice system reform, free speech policy, and so on? Would there have to be an enforced uniform standard before you agree to separation? Who would this regulator be? If it is the US Gov, then we haven’t we expanded the state to move your rules across state lines (and failed the project)? Would you accept other states (local governments) running their governments differently given that your government outlaws or corrects the issues you’ve mentioned?
the citizens will no longer accept any kind change that comes from the current leadership. — Tzeentch
But what about a new leadership, say one that was locally harvested and directly connected to the wellbeing of their citizens/ruling territory? Such a scenario is possible in this thought experiment.
Maybe there are situations I am not considering. — Tzeentch
In this scenario, you have the ability to alter economics, war/defense, government, and (even if just by extension) society/culture. Even if your propositions are unlikely, if it is technically possible (given the totality of human potential and existing infrastructure) you can be as creative as you want so long as the end result is preferable to the current/future state.
Wisdom is rare after all, and among the ruling elite exceptionally so it seems. — Tzeentch
No arguments from me on this.
Ironically, the chance of fundamental reforms may be higher under despotism than it is under democracy. Needless to say it's not a great alternative. — Tzeentch
Let's try to avoid that then.
So individual states can, and do, pursue independent policies in areas which do not infringe on the prerogatives of the Federal Government. Plenty of contention around the intention, of course. — BC
Here’s another area we’re going to be forced to examine: What if it is necessary to go around (dissolve, restrict, reinvent) the Federal Gov? If you can only prevent disaster, civil war, and/or global catastrophe by doing so does it not become the most logical/ethical pathway?
At any rate, there is a way open for state governments to accomplish some levels of decentralization -- way short of succession. Maine and Nebraska can pursue an all-renewable energy policy. They can establish health-care-for-all for their residents. They can decide to teach German in their schools from kindergarten through college. They can tax and spend to their heart's content, and they can run miserly budgets and starve the public sector. They can do various things -- but they can't do foreign policy, interfere with interstate trade, and so on. — BC
This is certainly true, though we’re tied together through government taxation, elections, and international behavior. For example, the immigration policy of blue states (and their political leadership) drastically impacts red states as well (some could argue, in the case of Texas, far more). The majority of Illinois or Indiana may be against backing Israel or Ukraine or Taiwan in this or that conflict, but it is America that ultimately goes in and they’ll be dragged along with it. All this is to say that we do have license to experiment, but to a very limited degree considering national constraints and the bleed over from one local culture to the other of differing methods. If these constraints are good, if the experimentation is working, then the end result of restricted plurality seems to be an increasingly volatile “unified” state.
a) homeless encampments are not a good thing for the homeless.
b) homelessness is not a lifestyle. It's a disaster.
c) many of the homeless are there because of significant problems -- drug addiction, alcoholism, mental illness--maybe all three. They need residential treatment and housing,
d) homeless encampments become public health problems -- not by their mere existence, but because of public urination, dedication, drug use, drug dealing, prostitution, et al.
e. It isn't that nobody can figure out what to do about the homeless. What is missing is the will to do it -- yes, to shove it down the throats of various neighborhoods that don't want multiunit housing of any kind, especially not THOSE PEOPLE — BC
Hear Hear!