Originally posted by TrueBrit
Thanks for your comments. Let me address each of your points one by one.
your suggestion of a single nation, run by several different governments, which operate simultaneously, is interesting, but pretty much
If you read the earlier posts, "Bedlam" pointed out that this IS the concept the US was founded on (they referred to it as
"voting with your feet", you march to your chosen government). I believe that worked quite well.
For a start, getting people to accept that they can be governed as they would wish, if they would only move to within the territory controled
by thier favoured system is not going to go down too well.
Why would it not go down well to give people a choice?
Some families have remained in one town, for generation upon generation. Its not practical at all, to move them.
Americans are much more
mobile than traditional societies. Youngsters often move away from home depending on job opportunities. Syrians are moving out of the reach of their
government. People from the former "East block" did so risking their lives. People want to choose their government.
The other thing however, is that even if there could be a system which managed, by some miracle to even BEGIN to exist in the manner that you
describe, it would only be a matter of time until one faction wished to increase thier share of the total landmass of the nation, and operated in
secret against the others. This has happened on a wider scale before.
No US State ever attempted to invade another State to my knowledge. They
never would because of the federal military. One of the very few, strictly limited powers would include to provide military security to protect from
foreign invasion or other invasions from outside the State. The key is that this is one Nation, which has one Constitution, written by the people for
the people, and this federal constitution can set the rules of what it allows the States to do, and, on the other hand, what rules and limitations the
federal government must obey.
This Nation is thus a government of governments, similar to the United Nations, the difference being that the United Nations is not an popularly
elected entity and it does not have a Constitution to protect the rights of the people. Not does it allow people to move to other member nations. The
European Union comes one step closer in that respect but is also not popularly elected.
First, democracy does not dictate how many parties are viable to lead the nation. That is a matter for the internal structure of the individual
nation. All democracy says about government, is that it ought to be selected by the people.
Many people in many countries have come to realize
that there is little "real" difference (beyond the "hot topic issues") between the main parties (whether two or more). That means that voters have
no "real" choice at all. Even if there is real choice, that means that people are governed by the majority - at best. In that case, too bad for the
people in the minority.
More likely, the government is controlled by financial interests, which are often controlled by a small minority. The vast majority (99% ?) have no
influence over the government.
If they had a choice in governments they could live freely. For example a gay person 20 or 50 years ago, at least could move to the State that allows
for gay people to do what they want, whereas conservative people are not forced to live in what they oppose. That is why I say, Choice is Freedom.
But the main reason for my proposal is to avoid tyranny. Tyranny will die if people are able to move somewhere else.