[BaronUberstein]

One day during History class, we were asked to create the perfect political system, to help show the class how no perfect system exists. So, I came up with what I call a Social-Confederacy.

It is made up of City-States.

City-States can:
+Make their own laws
+Have their own type of government
+Are pretty much independant but...

They are united by a huge National Council, aka, a bureaucracy that:
+Creates universal regulations, such as "All people are to be treated with basic rights" or "No invading other City-States"
+Represents the nation.
+Is made up of a represenative from every city state, so it's pretty big, but that wouldn't work so well in war, so...

During war, a small council would be elected as the "war council", that serves ONLY during war, and can be vetoed (sp?) or removed from office at any time, and is disbanded after war.


Comments?

[Dennis Von Bremen]

So... Switzerland to the extreme?

Also, I think that is what the Soviet Union was supposed to become. Originally.

This post has been edited by Deniz Baykal: 25 April 2008 - 02:08 PM

[Kenadian_2006]

BaronUberstein, on Apr 25 2008, 04:25 PM, said:

One day during History class, we were asked to create the perfect political system, to help show the class how no perfect system exists. So, I came up with what I call a Social-Confederacy.

It is made up of City-States.

City-States can:
+Make their own laws
+Have their own type of government
+Are pretty much independant but...

They are united by a huge National Council, aka, a bureaucracy that:
+Creates universal regulations, such as "All people are to be treated with basic rights" or "No invading other City-States"
+Represents the nation.
+Is made up of a represenative from every city state, so it's pretty big, but that wouldn't work so well in war, so...

During war, a small council would be elected as the "war council", that serves ONLY during war, and can be vetoed (sp?) or removed from office at any time, and is disbanded after war.


Comments?

Simple, far too decentralized to work in any nation of a decent size or with a decent sized population.

Also, I'd be more than willing to bet that there would be far too many differences between said city-states that such a weak system could bind them for long. Articles of Confederacy anyone?

This post has been edited by Kenadian_2006: 25 April 2008 - 02:09 PM

[Dennis Von Bremen]

Kenadian_2006, on Apr 25 2008, 03:26 PM, said:

Simple, far too decentralized to work in any nation of a decent size or with a decent sized population.

Also, I'd be more than willing to bet that there would be far too many differences between said city-states that such a weak system could bind them for long. Articles of Confederacy anyone?

Or the Soviet Union, it was originally supposed to be very decentralized (not city states but not a very powerful central power, compared to what they later had). They would also elect a national assembly from various states (soviets) to represent the people and decide on basic laws of the land.

[BaronUberstein]

Kenadian_2006, on Apr 25 2008, 01:26 PM, said:

Simple, far too decentralized to work in any nation of a decent size or with a decent sized population.

Also, I'd be more than willing to bet that there would be far too many differences between said city-states that such a weak system could bind them for long. Articles of Confederacy anyone?

Well, you see, thats what the regulations are for. They bind the city states together. Also, thats why they are city states, because they need to rely on eachother because their small.

[Kenadian_2006]

BaronUberstein, on Apr 25 2008, 04:32 PM, said:

Well, you see, thats what the regulations are for. They bind the city states together. Also, thats why they are city states, because they need to rely on eachother because their small.

And what's to stop a certain region of them breaking off when they realize that they could serve their own interests better as their own nation? To me this seems just TOO decentralized. Regional interests and the like would tear away at it in time, IMO. A dictatorship or something is the extreme for a centralized government, this is closer to the extreme of a decentralized. I'll take a normal federation or even a slightly stronger central government than that any day, they work just fine.

[Lord GVChamp]

There's a lot of "national-level" infrastructure besides the military. Highways, ports, airports, the internet, the environment, etc etc.

Personally, I would favor more centralization in certain sectors of the economy. For instance, education: some states set their standards to virtually nothing. It's almost inexcusable.



Also, the infrastructure neccessary to fight a war must be built far in advance. It's too late to plan when the bullets start flying.

[BaronUberstein]

Lord GVChamp, on Apr 25 2008, 02:10 PM, said:

There's a lot of "national-level" infrastructure besides the military. Highways, ports, airports, the internet, the environment, etc etc.

Personally, I would favor more centralization in certain sectors of the economy. For instance, education: some states set their standards to virtually nothing. It's almost inexcusable.



Also, the infrastructure neccessary to fight a war must be built far in advance. It's too late to plan when the bullets start flying.

Well, thats what the National Council is for. It passes regulations that all the city states must follow. Education is the example I used in class.

Military could be a regulation also, this is just a template.

[Lord GVChamp]

BaronUberstein, on Apr 25 2008, 04:21 PM, said:

Well, thats what the National Council is for. It passes regulations that all the city states must follow. Education is the example I used in class.

Military could be a regulation also, this is just a template.

It depends on how strong the National Council is, then.

[BaronUberstein]

Lord GVChamp, on Apr 25 2008, 02:29 PM, said:

It depends on how strong the National Council is, then.

Well, it passes regulations that HAVE to be followed, but it's made up of a single rep from every City-State, so it isn't a dictatorship or a aristocracy.

[Kenadian_2006]

BaronUberstein, on Apr 25 2008, 05:21 PM, said:

Well, thats what the National Council is for. It passes regulations that all the city states must follow. Education is the example I used in class.

Military could be a regulation also, this is just a template.

As GV said, that depends on how strong the National Council is. And if they are strong enough to keep the cities in line and forcibly control them in all national matters, how is this any different from a centralized government like the US's? Aside from the fact that the city-states would be far more numerous than the 50 states now (which would actually be BAD for some sort of national council or some other forum). How would you balance the power out between different cities as they do in Congress now?

Also, are the reps at the council voted for or appointed? That's a BIG sticking point.

This post has been edited by Kenadian_2006: 25 April 2008 - 03:14 PM

[BaronUberstein]

Kenadian_2006, on Apr 25 2008, 01:38 PM, said:

And what's to stop a certain region of them breaking off when they realize that they could serve their own interests better as their own nation? To me this seems just TOO decentralized. Regional interests and the like would tear away at it in time, IMO. A dictatorship or something is the extreme for a centralized government, this is closer to the extreme of a decentralized. I'll take a normal federation or even a slightly stronger central government than that any day, they work just fine.

Hmm, well, you make a good point. The city states still have to follow the National Council. The reason for City States is so they can set up their economy and such things for their personal area, instead of general laws that might not fit in certain areas.

This way, you can choose say, a planned economy or a capitalist economy for your personal city-state, and the politcians are more local and arn't trying to generalise for an entire country.

[Kenadian_2006]

BaronUberstein, on Apr 25 2008, 05:34 PM, said:

Hmm, well, you make a good point. The city states still have to follow the National Council. The reason for City States is so they can set up their economy and such things for their personal area, instead of general laws that might not fit in certain areas.

This way, you can choose say, a planned economy or a capitalist economy for your personal city-state, and the politcians are more local and arn't trying to generalise for an entire country.

Yanno, there's a reason why there is a common market in the US. Even in Canada (which has no common federal market, as of yet) the numerous provincial ones are far better than letting each and every city decide whether they wanna screw around with communism or whatever contraption of capitalism. Economics is one thing that should NOT be left up to, quite frankly, rabble equivalent city states.

[Frederick the Great]

This wouldn't work. Far too decentralized. Poor "city-states" would remain poor. Exchange rates would be a nightmare and there would be too much bureacracy. A centralized government can build and extend mass transportation systems to poorer cities by subsidizing the construction and operation with the funds from more densely populated areas. There would be a standard system of currency and a smaller chance that "city-states" would just break away.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

Quote

Economics is one thing that should NOT be left up to, quite frankly, rabble equivalent city states.

Quite right. The voluntary exchange of goods and services should be left up to the individual.

The articles of confederation might have precluded the US from becoming a hyper-power, but maybe that would've been for the best.

[BaronUberstein]

Hmm, well, it seems my lack of understanding economics has been the death of my idea.

So, more centralised government is better?

[Arcturus Jefferson]

Better in what way? It's a little silly to site infrastructure development as an argument for a centralized government since in the US stuff like that is handled first and foremost on a state level, not a national one.

[BaronUberstein]

Arcturus Jefferson, on Apr 25 2008, 03:59 PM, said:

Better in what way? It's a little silly to site infrastructure development as an argument for a centralized government since in the US stuff like that is handled first and foremost on a state level, not a national one.

Well, now i'm a bit confused. The USA is a hyperpower, and does infrastructure on the state level. Yet when I say pretty much the same thing, everyone says it would fail.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

The federal government has some say in infrastructure, but not the majority of it, I would think. But then again, I don't see a problem with the Articles of Confederation.

[BaronUberstein]

Arcturus Jefferson, on Apr 25 2008, 04:05 PM, said:

The federal government has some say in infrastructure, but not the majority of it, I would think. But then again, I don't see a problem with the Articles of Confederation.

I've never read them.

Oh, and yes, the represenatives are elected.