10/11/97, a wsn contributor wrote to me privately:
> Where would you put:
> enlightened local governments (town / city / county)
> enlightened subnational regional governments
> enlightened international regional governments
>in your table?
_Following_ enlightened socialist democracy in nation states, I would favor
significant devolution of taxing power and decision making to smaller units
such as bioregions, cities, etc. Such devolution would strengthen
democracy - by keeping lines of communication more localized, and minizing
the power-brokering that occurs at larger scales. Devolution could also be
expected to facilitate environmental sensitivity - people aren't likely to
allow their own environs to be polluted if they have the power to prevent
it.
>And (recalling the importance of the King / City
>alliances in building effective (even if unenlightened) national
>governments in both the European and Japanese feudal systems, what
>role might sub-national units have to play in the development of
>super-national governance?
There would always be forces pushing for power to be transferred to larger
units - where manipulation and subversion by special interests is easier to
accomplish. This is how nation-states arose and it is how globalization is
currently being driven. The "eternal vigilance" of democratic forces would
always need to be on-guard to prevent such power concentration.
Democracy needs to be bottom-up, with larger-scale collaboration being just
that - collaboration - not centralized usurpation of power.
We need to start with nation states because the infrastructures exist.
After success at that level, smaller and larger structures can be fashioned
in a way that supports democracy and prevents the formation of large
capitalist power concentrations.
rkm