Thread: The Balance between Conservatives and Progressives - Why Consensus is the Next Stage

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

This post doesn't make sense. Government should be grounded in the lower/local levels yet the Federal government has supreme power and local government cannot nullify its power.

Am I the only one seeing this huge incoherent line of thought?

Perhaps you didn't read it all? I don't see what doesn't make sense. Federal government would be elected by state government which is elected by district government which is elected by municipal government which is elected by community government. Thus when the Federal Government meets to debate legislation, they are held to the constituency of the states, which are held by the constituency of their districts. If the federal government makes a law, it must be agreeable by the constituency and the constituency of the constituency and so on.

Furthermore lower government cannot nullify higher government but it can build upon higher government. What this means is if the federal government creates a skeleton of the basic model of government and basic rights, this makes the foundation of national law. From there, national law is enhanced by state law, district law and municipal law. The only difference between this and the government our constitution lays out is that all forms of government are elected by lower forms of government and all decisions require consensus while in its current form we put all votes directly in the hands of the people (but remove the people's power of nomination) and rest all decisions on majority rule/which mob yells loudest.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Perhaps you didn't read it all? I don't see what doesn't make sense. Federal government would be elected by state government which is elected by district government which is elected by municipal government which is elected by community government. Thus when the Federal Government meets to debate legislation, they are held to the constituency of the states, which are held by the constituency of their districts. If the federal government makes a law, it must be agreeable by the constituency and the constituency of the constituency and so on.

Furthermore lower government cannot nullify higher government but it can build upon higher government. What this means is if the federal government creates a skeleton of the basic model of government and basic rights, this makes the foundation of national law. From there, national law is enhanced by state law, district law and municipal law. The only difference between this and the government our constitution lays out is that all forms of government are elected by lower forms of government and all decisions require consensus while in its current form we put all votes directly in the hands of the people (but remove the people's power of nomination) and rest all decisions on majority rule/which mob yells loudest.

I get the federalism you are trying to implement (states come together in a mutual contract). I get that and to the degree that it promotes liberty (which is to say, some but not all) I agree with it. However, the incoherence I see is you retracting the ability of the state governments to disregard federal law. If the states come together to create a federal system then by that very action the powers that are given TO the federal government are FROM the states yet you make it impossible for the states to take back those powers thus leaving them in a perpetual system they cannot break free from yet they went through the process of creating.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

I get the federalism you are trying to implement (states come together in a mutual contract). I get that and to the degree that it promotes liberty (which is to say, some but not all) I agree with it. However, the incoherence I see is you retracting the ability of the state governments to disregard federal law. If the states come together to create a federal system then by that very action the powers that are given TO the federal government are FROM the states yet you make it impossible for the states to take back those powers thus leaving them in a perpetual system they cannot break free from yet they went through the process of creating.

The only power given to the Federal Government would be power contracted to the Federal Government by the states. What is in that federal contract is essentially untouchable by state law, universally recognized. The hope is that a Federal Congressman, held to his State Senate's power, would not sign a contract that does not coincide with his state's interests. Furthermore, the senate would not use their power in a way that does not agree with their own individual constituencies inside the state. The objective is to remove the distance between representatives and their constituencies on the federal level by creating a holonic system of legislation.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

The only power given to the Federal Government would be power contracted to the Federal Government by the states.

That's precisely what the US *federal* government was, by design. It still became too powerful.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

The only power given to the Federal Government would be power contracted to the Federal Government by the states. What is in that federal contract is essentially untouchable by state law, universally recognized. The hope is that a Federal Congressman, held to his State Senate's power, would not sign a contract that does not coincide with his state's interests. Furthermore, the senate would not use their power in a way that does not agree with their own individual constituencies inside the state. The objective is to remove the distance between representatives and their constituencies on the federal level by creating a holonic system of legislation.

Ok but doesn't that on some level assume that politicians are always going to make the right choice? What happens if the people change their mind? Can they refuse to follow federal law if they decide to change their stance?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Ok but doesn't that on some level assume that politicians are always going to make the right choice? What happens if the people change their mind? Can they refuse to follow federal law if they decide to change their stance?

If they don't think they're politician is going to make the right choice the constituency votes him out. They don't have terms, they're always vulnerable to lack of confidence. And yes contracts can be changed if representatives change their minds. What may be a good idea may be bad practice.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

If they don't think they're politician is going to make the right choice the constituency votes him out. They don't have terms, they're always vulnerable to lack of confidence. And yes contracts can be changed if representatives change their minds. What may be a good idea may be bad practice.

Ok so states can refuse to listen to Federal law if they wish to retract their previous support, right?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Ok so states can refuse to listen to Federal law if they wish to retract their previous support, right?

If they can turn over their representative or convince them to switch sides, then yes. They can ask for new compromise. There's still a process to go through though, legislation must be prioritized.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Ok but doesn't that on some level assume that politicians are always going to make the right choice? What happens if the people change their mind? Can they refuse to follow federal law if they decide to change their stance?

Jury Nullification. A judge can tell you that it's illegal, but it is NEVER. EVER. Ever illegal. I really wish more people knew about it, because we wouldn't have some of our silly federal laws like "no possession of illicit substances" and whatnot.

That's what happens if you change your mind, unfortunately ALL effective governing bodies derived from a citizenry require a responsible, involved citizenry.