Why Devolution? (mayoral race)
Kevin Dempsey Peterson (peterson@autobahn.org)
3 Feb 98 22:03:08 GMT
My connection to Berkeley is really slow right now, so I'll just send this
from here (which means I can't quote). Seth asked why I don't have a
problem with local governments doing things that the fed. government
shouldn't do (and taught me a new word).
In general, it's based on the idea that a city can be regarded as a
community, while the country is at best a society, or grouping of
communities. I know Seth recognizes that a voluntary commune is a
legitimate entity, so I'll start my argument from there. To remain a
commune, it would have to have some sort of property rights over an area.
This can be interpretted as private property ownership by the commune
itself, and management by all the people in the commune; or as ownership
of some things by the commune, and other things by individuals. For
example, a commune could own farmland, a solar power grid, and a car for
community use. Members of the commune would own the houses they live in,
their clothes, and other things. In return for labor in whatever method
the commune uses to support itself, they get a portion of the profits.
I would say that the commune can "own" certain rights that go along with
property rights in the real property owned by the members, like the right
to decide who to sell it to, though the owner still owns the right to the
profits from the sale. This implies that the commune "owns" the right to
"govern" a given area of land.
I think that this same principle can be applied to a city, in that by
founding a city (on land previously unoccupied), the founders (government)
assume the ownership of the right of governance, and when people settle
there, they can only claim the right to use the land and the right to
participate in the government. When the land is sold, only those rights
owned by the "owner" of the land can be transferred, and the right to
govern it is still controlled by the city government.
This implies that anyone who owns land in a city only has limited rights
-- they must submit to the local government. Renting, or doing business
on land in the city implies acceptance of these restrictions. Someone
comes along and says, I want to join your community, and the community
responds, Okay, but you have to play by our rules. This I consider a
legitimate government. The city is the outgrowth of the tribe, which is
an outgrowth of the family, which has legitimate rights to control the
members (you live in this house under the condition that you obey the
rules of the government of this house, the parents).
I don't think that the federal government is legitimate because the
territory it "controls" is based on stealing land from others, in contrast
to the *voluntary* membership in a community. The county is a subdivision
of the state, which is a subdivision of the country, so also illegitimate.
The country steals land by taking over territories by force from other
countries, then dividing those into states for efficient control, and
dividing the states into counties, which directly control the cities.
Example: San Francisco County is a division of the state of California,
which is a division of land stolen from Mexico in 1848, which was stolen
from Spain by revolutionaries in 1820, which was stolen from Indians in
the 16th through 18th centuries. The City of San Francisco (and it's
government), is an outgrowth of poor mestizo peasants who agreed to de
Anza's offer of, "You can live in the city I'm going to build in
California if you accept my authority to govern it." De Anza eventually
left the government to a more traditional (according to modern standards)
democratic government (and he had that right), and that government is the
predecessor of the present government of San Francisco (when the United
States gained "control" of california and all parts of it, San Francisco
was still run by the people who lived there, though maybe they started
keeping records in English to please the state). Therefore, the city
government of San Francisco is legitimate, being based on a voluntary
agreement, but the state government isn't, being based on theft.
So, if you accept that the "right to govern" is part of the rights that go
with land, city governments are legitimate, and can do whatever they want
(within the city), but national governments aren't, and should be replaced
with legitimate governments (which only arise through voluntary
agreements).
I think this means that a unanimous deciscion is legitimate government,
but plurality isn't, since unanimous decision is the same as voluntary
agreement.
Thoughts?
--
peterson@autobahn.org Home: 510-665-9670
http://www.autobahn.org/~peterson Page: 510-726-8960
Key fingerprint = 58 D8 20 42 F9 8F 23 C3 A8 C8 FC 38 3C 94 85 D0