Localism is more of a feature of libertarian rather than democratic institutions, isn't it? The way I see it, whether decisions are made at the local level or not should be subject to a democratic decision in a society where democracy is the guiding principle whereas a liberal society would have principles guaranteeing local autonomy.

Let me engage in some semantics: a "blah-blah" society is but a poor description of what people do. The labels are beyond pointless in my opinion, in part because the labels we use to attempt to explain to ourselves what we are doing become the thing they are trying to describe rather than remaining just a description of human interaction. This is the great failing of philosophy and politics.

fannybuckingham

My thesis is that a democratic system of government must allow for most decisions about production and the use of surpluses to be made at a local level. On the other hand, I also think that restraints upon overuse of resources and pollution must be made at a regional level. And it may well be that a consensus about some matters, such as human rights and carbon use must be made and enforced at a national or even international level. The question is what should be decentralized and what should be centralized? I wish that someone would start to discuss that.

I disagree. Splitting levels is part of the problem. Besides, things are far too integrated.

I was just thinking of a more integrated approach for important national decisions. 1. Local discussion and nomination of ideas. 2. Reps at regional level synthesize and present to constituents. 3. Revision. 4. The same Reps meet at state level. 5. Synthesis and present to constituents. 6. Revision. 7. Final state draft. 8. Some fraction of National Legislature reps meet at national level. 9. Final bill hammered out. 10. National vote.

Maybe 6 mo. in state legislature and 6 months in national legislature. Those reps back home just keep hammering away on stuff back home.

Power back to the people. This would really slow things down. **Good.** (One can always make provision for emergencies.) And, really, it decreases the size of gov't by eliminating a lot of people from it.

If this sounds strange it's because I literally just thought of it. However, we have to remake the system, not just tweak it, and power - and responsibility - in the hands of the people is vital.

Cheers