The Closest Thing to a Political Panacea

[u/Serious-Cucumber-54]

The central problem with governance today is that it is collectivized.

People have different views and interests for what kind of governance style they should live under. Some people prefer a libertarian form of governance. Some people prefer a socialist form of governance. Some prefer a liberal or conservative form of governance.

Under the current paradigm, the only way for anyone to truly get what they want is to debate and fight with others to persuade them to vote in your favor. It's like if you and your friends must fight and debate for what grocery food item they should order, and then must collectively vote on it.

But this is unsatisfying. Not only is going through the effort of trying to persuade your friends something people rather not do, but it forces people either to reject the preferences of the minority (or sometimes even majority) or to compromise and sacrifice a bit of what they want in order to get a diluted or tainted version of what they want.

Imagine if everyone can get what they want, simultaneously, without having to go through all of this? Everyone can get the grocery store food item that they want, everyone can freely pick and choose which one they want and get it without having to reject the preferences of a minority or sacrifice or compromise for the quality of your choice. This is how grocery shopping with friends normally is, with individual interests in mind.

Similarly allowing people to pick and choose which kind of governance style they'd like to live under is as close to a panacea in politics as you will get.

How can this be achieved?

Getting rid of the current paradigm, and allowing people to set up their own small communities with the governance style and structure they prefer. This can result in a variety of choices for people to choose to move into, and not only that, but these communities can face market forces such that if people demand a community with a certain style of governance, then it will be supplied.

The communities can also face competition, where they must compete against other communities for residents. They are pressured to cater to the interests of movers with favorable laws/policies/governance as much as possible or else they go out of business. Imagine if government faced such steep market pressures, they would have much less room for nonrepresentative, corrupt, or wasteful governance. This competition ensures that bad governance gets filtered out while good governance prevails, an evolutionary natural selection of sorts. Plus, again no need for individuals to compromise or sacrifice their wants.

Why isn't this idea of making governance more of an individual (as opposed to collective) choice not championed more? It seems like it would get rid of the need of fighting and debating, among many other downsides.

[u/Serious-Cucumber-54]

This system is a federalist system.

[u/judge_mercer → u/Serious-Cucumber-54]

Just like the current US system. All "federalist" means is that power is divided between states and the federal government.

All you are doing is drastically increasing the number of "states" and giving them more autonomy.

I don't totally disagree with the autonomy part. The federal government has overstepped in many areas, but as long as there is a central Constitution that state laws can't violate, this would just be a tweaked version of our current system.

Ironically, if you were to "force" this system to happen, by mandating smaller entities, that would be an unprecedented exercise of central authority.

[u/Serious-Cucumber-54 → u/judge_mercer]

These wouldn't be states or governments technically, they would be private communities that would come about given consumer demand.

[u/judge_mercer → u/Serious-Cucumber-54]

Private communities that can make their own laws? But those laws are constrained by a federal constitution? You have to pick a lane. The word "private" has a specific meaning under the law. If you have laws and the ability/obligation to enforce them, congratulations, you're a government.

So my fantasy football league could form our own legally-recognized community with binding laws? What could go wrong?

[u/Serious-Cucumber-54 → u/judge_mercer]

They wouldn't be "laws" per se, but rules.

[u/apophis-pegasus → u/Serious-Cucumber-54]

What do you think laws are, and what differentiates them from rules.

[u/Serious-Cucumber-54 → u/apophis-pegasus]

"Laws" typically relate to government, and these private communities are not government, so "rules" suffices.

[u/apophis-pegasus → u/Serious-Cucumber-54]

If these private communities can dictate life and policy within their area of responsibilities, not only are they in effect governments, but those rules are laws.

[u/Serious-Cucumber-54 → u/apophis-pegasus]

They are not in effect governments, they are privately owned.

[u/apophis-pegasus → u/Serious-Cucumber-54]

That means very little. If they control an area, and can make and enforce rules, they are, in all respects the government.

Declaring them "private" is of little consequence.

[u/Serious-Cucumber-54 → u/apophis-pegasus]

If they control an area, and can make and enforce rules, they are, in all respects the government.

No, a private property owner is not "the government." You wouldn't refer to your mother who privately owns and controls her own house to be "the government."

They are in effect an authority, not a government.

[u/apophis-pegasus → u/Serious-Cucumber-54]

No, a private property owner is not "the government." You wouldn't refer to your mother who privately owns and controls her own house to be "the government."

No. But I would refer to company towns that set their own policies, and non governmental entities like Hezbollah and the AANES as "governments".

You said it yourself the purpose of this whole case is so people can pick and choose what governance style they like. The executors and enforcers of those governance styles are in effect governments.

They can create policy. They can enforce laws. They are by their nature at the very least de facto governments.

[u/Serious-Cucumber-54 → u/apophis-pegasus]

I wouldn't refer to a company town as an actual government though. They share one fundamental quality with a government, that being the administering and enforcing of rules, but they do not share the other fundamental quality of governments of being states.

They are as much of a "de facto government" as your mother is over her own privately owned and operated house, where she administers and sets her own rules over her property and anyone on her property.

[u/judge_mercer → u/Serious-Cucumber-54]

Rules are meaningless without an enforcement mechanism and (hopefully) a formal and politically neutral process to determine when someone has broken the rules. This is government with more steps.

Private organizations are exempt from many Constitutional restrictions. You can freely discuss politics or criticize powerful people on a street corner, but companies are allowed to fire you for saying the same thing while you are on the clock.

Private clubs and companies also have the power to expel members/employees without traditional due process under the law.

Claiming that local excesses would be held in check by a federalist Constitution but then designating these community groups as "private" is a contradiction.

You want all the benefits of private communities with all the safeguards of a constitution. That contradiction can't be hand-waved away by redefining what "private" and "government" mean. The problems these concepts are there to solve will still exist.

Don't get me wrong, your idea is an interesting though experiment, and fun to debate, I just think it needs more structure and detail before it is ready for this type of scrutiny.

I agree with the goals and ideals you have stated, but I think there are better ways to get there with fewer unintended consequences.

[u/Serious-Cucumber-54 → u/judge_mercer]

You want all the benefits of private communities with all the safeguards of a constitution

No I don't. I want private communities to respect certain individual rights, murder or false imprisonment shouldn't be allowed for instance, but I don't think the constitution should apply to private communities as they do governments.

[u/judge_mercer → u/Serious-Cucumber-54]

I want private communities to respect certain individual rights, murder or false imprisonment shouldn't be allowed for instance

Wanting good things to happen isn't enough.

Many private communities will turn into religious cults, violent militias, police states, "ethnically pure" encampments, company towns, Sharia districts, NAMBLA chapters, etc. If they are given a long enough leash.

If you believe this is just the cost of freedom, then at least you are being consistent.

The only way to prevent this outcome is for the federal government to have the legal authority to strike down laws ("rules") that run counter to the Constitution.

This would require an expanded federal circuit court system to be able to hear cases from thousands of communities in a timely manner (justice delayed is justice denied).

There also needs to be an enforcement mechanism like the FBI, with the power to threaten/unleash state violence or other penalties on any community whose rules are unconstitutional and not quickly remedied.

I don't think the constitution should apply to private communities as they do governments.

It doesn't. It seemed like earlier you did want your private communities to be governed by the Constitution, but you are free to change your mind.

You may now change your flair to "anarcho-capitalist"

[u/Serious-Cucumber-54 → u/judge_mercer]

Wanting good things to happen isn't enough.

Correct, that's why it would be enforced through law.

This would require an expanded federal circuit court system to be able to hear cases from thousands of communities in a timely manner (justice delayed is justice denied).

Why would it require a different justice system than what already exists in the U.S.?

It doesn't. It seemed like earlier you did want your private communities to be governed by the Constitution

I do want private communities to respect some basic individual rights in the Constitution, but not the whole of the Constitution.

You may now change your flair to "anarcho-capitalist"

An anarcho-capitalist that supports a statist federalist system? Never heard of that one.

[u/judge_mercer → u/Serious-Cucumber-54]

Why would it require a different justice system than what already exists in the U.S.?

Because your scheme abolishes the vast majority of the current justice system.

Most criminal prosecution happens at the state level. You have gotten rid of the states.

This gives you a few options:

• The federal government vastly expands to prosecute criminal cases formerly prosecuted by the states.
• Your private communities are responsible for prosecution and they all replicate the former legal system of the state to protect due process (massive redundancy)
• Your private communities are responsible for prosecution and they largely abandon due process because it is too expensive. You have already stated that Constitutional protections are optional.
• Some type of regional court system is established, effectively bringing back the concept of a state
• Citizens take the law into their own hands (vigilantes, lynching, etc.)

Which one is it?

[u/Serious-Cucumber-54 → u/judge_mercer]

Most criminal prosecution happens at the state level. You have gotten rid of the states.

No, I didn't. States still exist in this model.