Government : central or decentralised?

May 3, 2007

A new post has been opened at 1loneranger’s blog which we think should be the object of contributions from our friends. It is a question of discerning which system of government is more convenient to the interests of the public in general and which steps should be taken to the consecution of that target.

I recommend the reading of these ideas at 1loneranger’s whose link is

http://1loneranger.wordpress.com/2007/05/02/a-blog-project/#comment-1746

I am certain that many excellent ideas from our friends will eventually get us to reach the most adequate conclusions to the topic.

Thanks.

Advertisements

15 Responses to “Government : central or decentralised?”

  1. anticant said

    Jose, I have just read your discussion with 1loneranger on his blog, and I am pleased that you both are putting so much thought and energy into this important project.

    A few years ago I drew up a synopsis for a book which alas I never got around to writing, called “Strategies for Peace”. I offer you this title for your project, and maybe I can feed in some of the ideas I had for the book when I get around to refreshing my memory about what I intended to say. Decentralisation, localism, federalism and “global village” linkages bypassing and ultimately superseding the independent State sovereignty that used to be the cause of so many wars [pre-terrorism] was part of my thinking. Also the importance of applying modern psychological knowledge and insights to political affairs.

    What you both are doing is really exciting and worthwhile, and I admire your energy. Congratulations!

  2. Jose said

    Thank you very much for your presence which is a fundamental key for progress in the project, Anticant.

    I look forward to your contributions from that synopsis whose title I find suitable for the project and other ideas you most surely have on it and I expect 1loneranger will be only too pleased to accept it, too.

  3. anticant said

    Perhaps my mst useful role will be as Cassandra. I applaud your aims, but can already foresee some practical snags, which I shall elaborate on ranger’s site.

  4. earthpal said

    I am admiring your work too Jose and Loneranger.

  5. Jose said

    Thank you, Earthpal. Coming from you these words are really appreciated, but let’s wait and see how this works out.

    Your contributions will be much appreciated, needless to say.

  6. earthpal said

    That’s very kind Jose. I’ll try to contribute.

  7. boldscot said

    ‘Fine’, said he (throwing his hat into the ring).

  8. Howdy All.

    Good to see everyone sidling up thar horses.
    I’d just assume keep this little project as free flowing and easy as possible. It seems we’ve got the initiative and concern to put together a good effort and a bit of info for the cause. I wouldn’t want this project to detract from the other goings on that make blogging a fun pass time for us all. That being said, I’m sure it will be an enjoyable process. Thanks Jose for linking and really taking the initiative and thanks to everyone for expressing an interest.
    To refine everyone’s concepts and contributions into basic theory points is the goal. If the information is to be used in proper fashion the ideas and theories must be straight forward and simple to apply in a practical sense. Any viable theory is efficient in language and thoughtful in content.

  9. anticant said

    This link is to a very interesting and important article. I’m not sure whether I share the author’s pessimism, as I think such a move might ultimately prove beneficial rather than sinister. But I am curious to know what others think.

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17657.htm

  10. Jose said

    I have always wondered and said so in the Respect forum that I marvelled at the apparent uselessness of the European Parliament and that the Commission was a collegiate dictatorship. Nobody seems to give any importance to this but what started as an “independent” Union in Europe has encountered with many difficulties raised by countries such as Tony Blair’s New Labour’ s United Kingdom, followed recently by a Baltic country (I kind of remember it was Estonia) and the Czech Republik. Merkel’s Germany, unlike her predecessor, also seems to espouse this motion, as apparently Sarkozy’s France seems to start to do.

    You say you don’t share the author’s pessimism and I understand that you may back consensus in the ruling of not only one country but a number of countries whose most important activity – trade – will be coordinated in a supranational manner, but what makes my blood curdle, Anticant, is that this initiative has been mainly supported by the Right and the pseudo-left mainly represented by Tony Blair.

    And I would not be surprised your “great religious friends” also be a part of this movement. I always bear in mind that Religion and the Right have at all times walked arm in arm.

    No, I cannot say I look at this news with optimism.

  11. Well, I believe if motives of a non-sinister nature were intended we rabble would here much more about these sorts of events and proposals of mergers instead of having to read about them on the back pages of fear/terror/truth mags such as I.C.H. When international economies are being blended without transparency and public awareness I suspect intentions that stink of rotten fish.

    This EU/US economic merger sounds just like NAFTA to me. Sure some make out like bandits while most are left by the wayside. See the average Mexican.
    There are closed door talks going on here in North America that the author of this article eluded to and I don’t think a single North American currency is advantageous for any country or its economy within this continent other than the U.S., and more specifically the upper and upper-middle classes of the U.S.

    I agree with the author’s theory that a singular economy eventually leads to a singular authoritative body controlled by the dominant national power which will enforce homogenization and its standard of laws and morals. if that’s the case, I want nothing to do with a U.S. style “democracy” and its American style policies, i.e. he U.S. war on drugs, capitol punishment, civil rights, abortion rights, the war on terror just to name a few here in /my/ Canadian paradise of a backyard.

    I think the EU/U.S. economic merger could be very good for very few in the long run, the neo-con specifically. Will I be part of the very few living ‘high on the hog’, who knows, probably not. But that’s not what’s most important. Until I see the average Mexican’s daily situation getting a whole hell of a lot better I can’t support NAFTA and or any other massive and reckless forms of economic globalization.
    Which countries in Europe will be the next ‘Mexicos’ under this new plan?

    See this older post of mine for more info on ‘CANAMERICO’.
    http://1loneranger.wordpress.com/2007/01/11/us-take-over-of-canada/

  12. Jose said

    Indeed, 1loneranger, I do agree.

    There’s an issue you point to that has always bafled me: currency. Out of the blue the EU decided to establish the Euro as a common currency and it gave it a value which I don’t know where it came from, the fact was that at the beginning it was more or less the same as the US Dollar, nothing to do with the cost of living and the production of the Union. A significant move really.

    Economically matters have gone down the drain in the US and we can see the appreciation of the Euro – and of the British Pound – in respect of the Dollar. What is it that is pursued now? Again trying to avoid competition between the two, America and Europe? No competition, in principle, for me means worse standards of living for the two blocs.

    And, here again the financial system rearing its ugly head. If this intention is kept I am afraid we, the people, will be the only ones to lose in the change.

    Our worst enemy is the leviathan state, we must advocate decentralisation, the leviathan state is like Richard’s Big Brother’s eye, and with the present technologies even more dominant than it was in 1946. Modern times have, on the other hand, confirmed and belied simultaneously Orwell’s ideas. Prophecies have never been in my book.

  13. MrZhisou said

    Decentralisation is good for some things, bad for others. Whilst is is more democratic and can get more achieved in some areas, it also discourages collective approaches on those things which need to be done together.

    I´m all for empowering local government, but sometimes it´s right for the centre to keep its hand on the tiller.

  14. MrZhisou said

    What I mean to say is that there is not – and rarely is – one single answer or a one-size-fits-all solution, some issues are better local, some regional, some national, some international – some are better as collaborations, some as impositions, some as voluntary.

  15. Jose said

    Indeed, MrZhisou, you are right there, but the question is that the pyramid must have a wide base if it must keep solid for eons.

    Without the base the pèak cannot stand and we must make it be aware of this circumstance.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: