First, we need to return to the fact of pluralism. Then we need to replace King of the Mountain politics with polycentric law and competitive governance.
Increasingly, America has lost, or at least forgotten, that there are certain aspects of American governance upon which we can agree. To recover our sense of agreement, I suggest the following.
Our Constitution guarantees that we will have a republican form of government, regardless which State we reside in. At the Federal level, thus far and no further, political powers will be delegated to each of the three branches, Congress, Administration, and Judiciary. Our remaining political powers are reserved to the States and to the people. It is implied that the people of each state will only delegate certain of their powers to the State and reserve all others to themselves.
Further, the Federal Constitution and the various State Constitutions enumerate what powers are delegated and others that are prohibited from being delegated. The ideological impasses to which we are increasingly coming to are caused by the extraconstitutional powers either arrogated by government officials and bodies or passively or aggressively delegated to them. So much so, we have lost sight of which governing powers we ought to jealously guard with our lives. We no longer understand, for example, what it means to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. Nor do we understand the concept of taxation without representation. We allow government to govern in the manner of royalty.
Perhaps we should demand the right to periodically officially re-ratify our constitutions, including each amendment. There is something to be said of the concept that laws approved by one generation ought not be enforced on subsequent generations. Of course, the re-ratification must be by the same significant majorities in congress and the states. To avoid the dangers of mob rule, it must not be subjected to popular vote.
Still interesting stuff Max and well presented. Yet I continue to have similar recurring thoughts: 1) for all the cutting-edge progressive articulation in modern verbiage, I suspect your best presentation of this vision...would stir up amusing smiles if done before teleported Plato/Aristole/Solomon. Your new vision is far older and well-worn than you seem to think. 2) Madison, Hamilton, Jay, Washington, et al...would recognize your social competition as but a new iteration of their notion/intent of Real-Federalism among the States. 3) Humans have historically/heretofore naturally clustered into more complicated and diverse communities...than the a hyper-fragmented diversity of this vision. Unity and Community...always seems to trump diversity quicker than we thought (or might like). 4) a vision which demands people/humans to think radically different than they ever have in history...might itself be but the new iteration of a new-and-improved revolutionary utopia?
So, here are four basic critical areas I want to address:
1. This is not as new as it seems, and has roots in ancient philosophy.
The ancients almost always did something first. I'd be delighted to see exact references to specific thinkers with particular ideas. What the ancients didn't have is the Internet, cryptography, and therefore novel ways of establishing relationships and jurisdictions.
2. Resembles the Founding Fathers' concept of federalism.
Yes, indeed! The problem is, a) the Founders overshot between the Articles and the Constitution, and b) the progressives steadily killed the relevant amendments that would have preserved far greater states rights. So the states must find a way to take back their powers. My argument is that we need to look beyond these traditional forms of federalism to novel means of decentralization, as well.
3. May overestimate humans' desire for diversity over unity.
I am constantly overestimating humans' desire for x with the hopes that I can change minds. It took Tom Paine and other pamphleteers to change Tories into Patriots, which was none too Burkean at the time, yet America was born, anyway. The thing that needs changing today is that most Americans think "unity" means shoving your system down the other party's throat. It would be far simpler to find unity within a smaller cultural enclave with more local power, no? Montana is not Manhattan. Yet we keep trying to "unify" everyone under everything but federalism and freedom.
4. Could be another iteration of utopian thinking that expects unrealistic changes in human behavior.
I'm struggling to understand how it is utopian to think that upgraded federalism, which acknowledges people's desire to live in different systems is Utopian, but forcing 330 million people to live under the same system is pragmatic. Just because that's the system we happen to live under doesn't mean it's not batshit crazy. Socio-political self-determination is sanity.
As expected (when properly nuanced)...we essentially agree on 1-3 above. It's just that your language sometimes implies a "this is really new stuff" mentality that is to me at least, a bit overdone! But then, of course we differ a bit at points.
Your juxtaposition of #4 missed my point...just a tad...which largely concede in #3... "I am constantly overestimating humans' desire for x with the hopes that I can change minds. It took Tom Paine and other pamphleteers to change Tories into Patriots, which was none too Burkean at the time..."
Just how many Tories Paine/Jefferson turned into Patriots...is grandly debatable. They failed largely...where Washington, Jay, Hamilton, Adams & thousands of their Federalist countrymen (with Burke) triumphed.
But my point is your Payne/Jeffersonianism affections...make me nervous per their flirtations with Jacobin Secular/Leftists Revolutions...like the Bolshevik tyranny I know you rightly loathe.
Increasingly, America has lost, or at least forgotten, that there are certain aspects of American governance upon which we can agree. To recover our sense of agreement, I suggest the following.
Our Constitution guarantees that we will have a republican form of government, regardless which State we reside in. At the Federal level, thus far and no further, political powers will be delegated to each of the three branches, Congress, Administration, and Judiciary. Our remaining political powers are reserved to the States and to the people. It is implied that the people of each state will only delegate certain of their powers to the State and reserve all others to themselves.
Further, the Federal Constitution and the various State Constitutions enumerate what powers are delegated and others that are prohibited from being delegated. The ideological impasses to which we are increasingly coming to are caused by the extraconstitutional powers either arrogated by government officials and bodies or passively or aggressively delegated to them. So much so, we have lost sight of which governing powers we ought to jealously guard with our lives. We no longer understand, for example, what it means to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. Nor do we understand the concept of taxation without representation. We allow government to govern in the manner of royalty.
Perhaps we should demand the right to periodically officially re-ratify our constitutions, including each amendment. There is something to be said of the concept that laws approved by one generation ought not be enforced on subsequent generations. Of course, the re-ratification must be by the same significant majorities in congress and the states. To avoid the dangers of mob rule, it must not be subjected to popular vote.
Still interesting stuff Max and well presented. Yet I continue to have similar recurring thoughts: 1) for all the cutting-edge progressive articulation in modern verbiage, I suspect your best presentation of this vision...would stir up amusing smiles if done before teleported Plato/Aristole/Solomon. Your new vision is far older and well-worn than you seem to think. 2) Madison, Hamilton, Jay, Washington, et al...would recognize your social competition as but a new iteration of their notion/intent of Real-Federalism among the States. 3) Humans have historically/heretofore naturally clustered into more complicated and diverse communities...than the a hyper-fragmented diversity of this vision. Unity and Community...always seems to trump diversity quicker than we thought (or might like). 4) a vision which demands people/humans to think radically different than they ever have in history...might itself be but the new iteration of a new-and-improved revolutionary utopia?
So, here are four basic critical areas I want to address:
1. This is not as new as it seems, and has roots in ancient philosophy.
The ancients almost always did something first. I'd be delighted to see exact references to specific thinkers with particular ideas. What the ancients didn't have is the Internet, cryptography, and therefore novel ways of establishing relationships and jurisdictions.
2. Resembles the Founding Fathers' concept of federalism.
Yes, indeed! The problem is, a) the Founders overshot between the Articles and the Constitution, and b) the progressives steadily killed the relevant amendments that would have preserved far greater states rights. So the states must find a way to take back their powers. My argument is that we need to look beyond these traditional forms of federalism to novel means of decentralization, as well.
3. May overestimate humans' desire for diversity over unity.
I am constantly overestimating humans' desire for x with the hopes that I can change minds. It took Tom Paine and other pamphleteers to change Tories into Patriots, which was none too Burkean at the time, yet America was born, anyway. The thing that needs changing today is that most Americans think "unity" means shoving your system down the other party's throat. It would be far simpler to find unity within a smaller cultural enclave with more local power, no? Montana is not Manhattan. Yet we keep trying to "unify" everyone under everything but federalism and freedom.
4. Could be another iteration of utopian thinking that expects unrealistic changes in human behavior.
I'm struggling to understand how it is utopian to think that upgraded federalism, which acknowledges people's desire to live in different systems is Utopian, but forcing 330 million people to live under the same system is pragmatic. Just because that's the system we happen to live under doesn't mean it's not batshit crazy. Socio-political self-determination is sanity.
As expected (when properly nuanced)...we essentially agree on 1-3 above. It's just that your language sometimes implies a "this is really new stuff" mentality that is to me at least, a bit overdone! But then, of course we differ a bit at points.
Your juxtaposition of #4 missed my point...just a tad...which largely concede in #3... "I am constantly overestimating humans' desire for x with the hopes that I can change minds. It took Tom Paine and other pamphleteers to change Tories into Patriots, which was none too Burkean at the time..."
Just how many Tories Paine/Jefferson turned into Patriots...is grandly debatable. They failed largely...where Washington, Jay, Hamilton, Adams & thousands of their Federalist countrymen (with Burke) triumphed.
But my point is your Payne/Jeffersonianism affections...make me nervous per their flirtations with Jacobin Secular/Leftists Revolutions...like the Bolshevik tyranny I know you rightly loathe.