|
Click Here to Read Previous Papers in this Series All of us in free societies seem to know that if a king holds all power, particularly if this power is administered directly rather than through delegated governors in regional provinces, he can and often will be, completely tyrannical with full immunity. What more of us need to acknowledge is that any form of government firmly centralized, can and will impose a violent despotism against both individuals and substantial portions of the population. Such a system of governance, by its inherent nature, must make at the very least, tax slaves of all of us! Many have argued that establishing a national popular voting system for choosing a president will ensure that each person's vote will have equal weight and effect. While I cannot dispute this claim, I still vehemently oppose this concept because such a system is hostile to a federally structured government. In previous papers, we have discussed both the necessity of a federal system to safeguard our liberty, as well as the inherent propensity of national popular elections to speed up the never ending process of increased centralization which we labor under today. Although we have already given such topics extensive study, the nature and very essence of how our government is organized, centralized and distant versus decentralized and local, is of such great importance that further examination is clearly warranted. Let us be reminded that we were intended to be the United States of America, and not the United People of America. Such a federal system was meant to be not merely the collective will of the People as a whole, but rather, a union of sovereign states. In a properly decentralized system, States directly elect presidents, while individuals only do so indirectly. This is done to protect the integrity of the States and foster the growth of localized government. Doing so also encourages a cohesive union of all the States because it discourages presidential candidates from focusing on just a few highly concentrated urban areas. Since its inception, one could reasonably argue that the ensuing history of these United States has been one of a struggle between those trying to establish a decentralized society and those pushing for greater and greater levels of power and centralization. Centralists, as the word suggests, support increasing the power of a central government, while decentralists believe in localism, and tend to agree with Thomas Jefferson, when he said, "the government that governs best is that which governs least." In other words, decentralists want a central government to be as small as will possibly be compatible with societal peace. The Declaration of Independence is an excellent example of decentralist thinking in that it clearly states that a community of people has the inherent right to rid itself of any government that has grown too strong and despotic. The United States Constitution, as originally written, was more of a mixture between centralized and decentralized government, while the Bill of Rights was included to pull power away from Washington, D.C. and put it back in the hands of the States and the People. Experience and the entire history of the human struggle for freedom strongly suggest that a decentralized government is that which is most compatible with long-term liberty. This is why I implore you to find a deep attachment to the idea of federalism. Under this system of government, if it were ever to flourish in our country, the individual States would be the primary level of governance, while the Bill of Rights would serve as a legal boundary to protect both individuals and the States from overreaching impositions by the central government, no matter what the politicians use as justification. There are a number of reasons in opposition to centralization and in favor of decentralized government: In the first place, a localized system of government forces each region or jurisdiction to actually compete with each other for residents, and thus, for increased capital. Such a system naturally gives those governing a strong incentive to ensure a free society, or they will risk losing both residents and capital to an area with greater freedom. If tyrants still find a way to rule their areas, many people will find a way to leave. But, on the other hand, if that same tyrant was given the power to rule a broad area, or an entire nation, very few would be able to escape. Going further with this, the second reason is that despotism on a local level reduces the resultant damages just as despotism on a wide scale amplifies them. For example, if Stalin had ruled only Moscow, Napoleon only Paris, and Mao had only ruled Beijing, the effects of their devastating rule would have had a much greater chance of being contained. This is a simple concept; that evil people find it much harder to violate the rights of people outside their sphere of jurisdiction. Third, an increased number of governmental levels and jurisdictions help to prevent any one group from increasing its power. Each governing body naturally tries to keep its own power level, and will resist any usurpation of power by a central authority. This is what the founders were hoping for when they created the system with a "balance of powers." Although they were not as successful in the long-term as we would have hoped, we can still learn from, and improve upon, their ideals in order to help ensure the liberty of every person in the years to come. Our starting point must be a realization that no one body of governors can ever be trusted with complete control over our freedom. Fourth, history has absolutely proven to us that government cannot be trusted. Throughout the world, voluminous examples exist where governments have been given increased power to do good one day, only to turn around and use that same power tyrannically just a short time later. Sometimes good people call for greater power in government to do good things, while others use seemingly honorable motives as an unmitigated cover-up for personal aggrandizement and increased power alone. Therefore, what we must continually guard against is increased power in the central government. Once that power is gained, it is used by despots to put a legal authorization on control to the detriment of us all! The enemy of our freedom is not the person who is liberal or conservative. Our enemy is not from any particular party, social stratus, or geographic location. Our enemy is, and will always be, the statist, who is the proponent of force and concentrated power. Centralized government is the oppressor, and we the People, are its slaves. Our goal should be to adhere to rights which are universally accepted, but enforced on a local level only.These two canons quite often fight against one another. But, if we relinquish either, we risk losing liberty completely, as both are equally important and must remain in a proper stasis. A regional or local government that violates rights is evil, while a central government that uses rights to rule universally is just as evil. The endless process of centralization in America has become a seemingly invincible force that, if not stopped in the near future, will eventually turn our great country into an absolute tyranny. Once central government starts growing, no matter what the reason may be, it will, just like all parasites, do anything possible to continue its growth. We are at a dangerous point in our history. We will either completely lose our liberty to the cravings of a few, or we will resist and turn the tide in favor of our own freedom. Our best strategy is to be a constant reminder that one cannot be for liberty without also being intensely opposed to centralization. "The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position."
- George Washington
In the spirit of liberty and prosperity,
Franklin
This essay is the32nd edition of the series, The Populist Papers. Written anonymously to promote discussion of the principles alone, these essays attempt to both explain the complexities of government, and determine the proper place of a federal government based on the inherent rights of all people. Feedback is welcome at: info@populistamerica.com
| 
homepage:
I'd be interested in hearing what others thought of this idea.
Thomas Jefferson's 'Ward Republics':
Foundation Stones for a New American Democracy
What we desperately need is a grassroots-based public institution through which we the people can create a shared sense of community, civilly deliberate those issues we deem important, and then decide together on common actions that have significant political impact. In fact, it's the very lack of that kind of institution that is at the root of most of our current crises—political, ecologic, economic, etc.
Thomas Jefferson saw the "mortal danger" to our republic in an American
citizenry that, while in theory wielding the ultimate political power (via its votes), did not have any kind of meaningful space through which it could actually govern itself. Jefferson's solution was to propose dividing each county into a hundred or so "wards," in which every citizen would play a direct participatory role.
In fact, today's counties are already conveniently divided into about as
many voting precincts—all carefully mapped by the elections division of
every county government. These precinct maps and associated registered
voter lists are available to anyone to purchase and use as organizing tools.
Proclaimed Jefferson in 1810:
"Could I once see this, I should consider it as the dawn of the salvation of the republic.... But our children will be as wise as we are, and will establish in the fullness of time those things not yet ripe for establishment."
Although Jefferson was relentless in his attempts to make his vision a reality, he was a man ahead of his time who had retired from elective office. Because of his reduced political influence, Jefferson's desire to see the creation of self-governing ward-republics was never realized.
How Jefferson's "Ward Republics" Would Work
Jefferson wrote the following description of 'ward republics' in 1816:
"Divide the counties into wards of such size as that every citizen can attend, when called on, and act in person. Ascribe to them the government of their wards in all things relating to themselves.... [M]aking every citizen an acting member of the government and...the offices nearest and most interesting to him will attach him by his strongest feelings to the independence of his country and its republican Constitution. These wards are the vital principle of governments, and have proved themselves the wisest invention ever devised by the wit of man for the perfect exercise of self-government and for its preservation. [T]he whole is cemented by giving to every citizen, personally, a part in the
administration of public affairs."
Within each ward, every citizen could become "an acting member of the common
government, transacting in person a great portion of its rights and duties,
subordinate..., yet important, and entirely within his competence."
To Jefferson, "these little republics [the wards] would be the main strength of the great one [the United States]...."
"The elementary republics of the wards, the county republics, the state
republics, and the republic of the Union, would form a gradation of
authorities, each standing on the basis of law, every one holding its
delegated share of powers, and constituting truly a system of fundamental
checks and balances for the government."
The ward-republics would be the foundation for the political structure of the
nation itself in a four-tiered political system. This system was to be composed of the following elements and interests, in order of size:
(1) the ward (for "the interests within itself")
(2) the county (for "the local concerns of the counties")
(3) the state (for "the civil rights, laws, police, and administration of what
concerns the state generally")
(4) the federal republic (for "the defense of the nation, and its foreign and
federal relations")
Ward judges and sheriffs, for example, could be directly elected by the ward's
citizens, as would one or two jurors to serve in the county-level juries composed of jurors elected by all of the county's wards. Regardless of the type of elected position, terms of office would be kept very short, so that no ingrained power structure arose among those elected.
In fact, direct democracy within areas larger than even towns is now quite
practical through modern technology combined with various group process
techniques—consensus decisionmaking, future search, world cafe', etc. (see
the relevant links above). Much of this knowledge was not widely known in
Jefferson's time, but today his "most earnest wish" could soon be realized.
However, as Jefferson himself said, "If this avenue be shut..., it will make itself heard through that of force, and we shall go on, as other nations are doing, in the endless circle of oppression—rebellion—reformation, and oppression—rebellion—reformation, ... and so on, forever."
So it really IS up to us now. Our only realistic, long-term alternative to this "endless circle" is truly grassroots self-rule using cooperative group processes, whether based on Jefferson's 'ward republics,' our own pre-existing voting precincts, or some similar system.