• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

When in Rome ...

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
They can do this as normal of course.



You vote where you live like normal
So a city's workforce has no rights in the city where it spends most of its day, and get no say in how it is being run.


What are your main objections to much greater power being exercised at the local level? Do you really find Switzerland to be such a terrible, 'segrigationist' place?
What does Switzerland have to do with any of this? There is no political segregation between city dwellers and rural populations in Switzerland like you claim there is. It has a central government with a parliament with powers of nationwide legislation just like any other country in Europe. The idea that it is somehow a collection of autonomous communes flies in the face of reality. In fact, Swiss history has been one of the subsequent strengthening of the central government at the expense of its federal component - and it has resulted in a more egalitarian society.

One thing that you seem completely unaware of, for example, is that certain regions of Switzerland haven't allowed for universal suffrage for most of the 20th century. It was a decision by the Swiss Supreme Court, an institution of the centralized government in Bern, that forced the canton Appenzell Innerrhoden to grant universal suffrage in 1991. Would you consider the granting of a basic human right to half of its citizens a terrible loss of autonomy on behalf of the poor sexist bigots of Appenzell? It seems to be the case, given your argument.

And yes, Switzerland is a terribly racist and bigoted place even by the standards of Central Europe. Due to the way its citizenship laws work, there are literal generations of people of foreign descent who flat out cannot get naturalized, forming a literal second class population. (Although curiously, this is rarely the fate of wealthy White people of European descent, I wonder why)
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
Conflict between incompatible morals or styles of living. It can be bound to ethnicity but it rarely is. The question is if someone from a different ethnicity is willing to adapt the culture of the place they move to.
Example: a northern culture is used to work through the day with only a short rest around noon. A southern culture is used to have a siesta in the middle of the day and work in the evening instead. Both make sense in the climate they originated. When both live together the northerners disturb the siesta of the southerners and the southerners disturb the night of the northerners.
This kind of conflict can be avoided by either segregation or adaptation.
The fact that people are living together with different morals or styles of living shows that they are not, in fact, incompatible. You also seem to think that conflict is something to be intrinsically avoided, when the intersection of different goals and approaches is one of the main ways our cultures can change and grow.

Imagine if no art was controversial, if there were no disagreements over political decisions or the best way to live in a given situation. Imagine, if you will, a culture where all political and artistic dissent is resolved by isolating the dissenters from their parent culture.
Would you actually consider that outcome a desirable state of affairs?
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
The fact that people are living together with different morals or styles of living shows that they are not, in fact, incompatible.
The fact that people are living together with different morals or styles of living shows that they are not, in fact, conflicting.
You also seem to think that conflict is something to be intrinsically avoided, when the intersection of different goals and approaches is one of the main ways our cultures can change and grow.
No. I think that some conflicts are easily solved by people agreeing to not get in each others hair. Live and let live.
Not all conflicts can be solved that way. Sometimes a unified solution is worth the conflict. You can't solve climate change by separating polluters and non polluters. You can solve conflicts like when to work and when to rest by separating day workers and night workers.
Imagine if no art was controversial, if there were no disagreements over political decisions or the best way to live in a given situation. Imagine, if you will, a culture where all political and artistic dissent is resolved by isolating the dissenters from their parent culture.
Would you actually consider that outcome a desirable state of affairs?
You're committing a black and white fallacy here as well as a straw man fallacy. It's not all or nothing, and we didn't say it was.
 
So a city's workforce has no rights in the city where it spends most of its day, and get no say in how it is being run.

They would have the same rights as anyone else.

In our current system, people have no say if they work in a place different from where they reside. If it bothers them so much, they can relocate to the same place they work.

What does Switzerland have to do with any of this? There is no political segregation between city dwellers and rural populations in Switzerland like you claim there is. It has a central government with a parliament with powers of nationwide legislation just like any other country in Europe. The idea that it is somehow a collection of autonomous communes flies in the face of reality.

What has an example of a decentralised, federal country have to do with federalised decentralisation?

You appear to have a whole load of completely mistaken assumptions that certainly aren't related to anything I've said. Devolution of power means devolution of power, not enforced segregation.

Some benefits, imo:

Smaller scale problems are easier to solve
People making decisions are parts of the community impacted by them
Reduces political alienation and increases accountability
Reduces abstract tribalism of modern national politics
Greater diversity of approaches to solving problems means we are more likely to identify working solutions
Local identities are more likely to be positive and inclusive than more abstract nationalistic, racial, etc identities
etc.

Why do you believe centralised 'one size fits all' governance is the best way to govern in an increasingly complex world?

Would you consider the granting of a basic human right to half of its citizens a terrible loss of autonomy on behalf of the poor sexist bigots of Appenzell? It seems to be the case, given your argument.

If you want to make the case that favouring decentralised government requires one to agree with all decision made by decentralised polities, shall we do all the examples of centralised governments doing bad things too?
 
It can but usually it doesn't as long as the distance is kept. The conflict emerges only when one group invades (or seemingly invades) on the others turf (a.k.a. too close contact).

A situation where rival groups are struggling for political power, and thus control over the other is a typical situation where ethnic conflict occurs.

We have seen this time and time again when countries transitioned to democracy from the break up of the Austro-Hungarian Empire pre-WW1, Yugoslavia, Maluku, Iraq, etc.

Non-democratic polities were stable and enabled people too live peacefully as they didn't fear becoming dominated. When democracy came the fear of losing out became real.
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
A situation where rival groups are struggling for political power, and thus control over the other is a typical situation where ethnic conflict occurs.

We have seen this time and time again when countries transitioned to democracy from the break up of the Austro-Hungarian Empire pre-WW1, Yugoslavia, Maluku, Iraq, etc.

Non-democratic polities were stable and enabled people too live peacefully as they didn't fear becoming dominated. When democracy came the fear of losing out became real.
The Austrian-Hungarian problems with nationalities fighting over dominance started nearly a century before the Empire's dissolution, and certainly before any semblance of democracy was established there.
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
You appear to have a whole load of completely mistaken assumptions that certainly aren't related to anything I've said. Devolution of power means devolution of power, not enforced segregation.
I genuinely thought you were argueing for some system of autonomous regions, rather than a run of the mill federal state in the manner that exists all over the world, such as in Germany, Austria, Spain, the UK, Russia, Canada, Australia, the US, and Brazil. If your suggestion is more along the latter lines than the former, then I have simply misread your argument, for which I am sorry.

Some benefits, imo:

Smaller scale problems are easier to solve
People making decisions are parts of the community impacted by them
Reduces political alienation and increases accountability
Reduces abstract tribalism of modern national politics
Greater diversity of approaches to solving problems means we are more likely to identify working solutions
Local identities are more likely to be positive and inclusive than more abstract nationalistic, racial, etc identities
etc.
1. You are begging the question with a whole lot of these supposed advantages of federalism. I have seen little evidence that federalism reduces "political alienation" or "abstract tribalism", or even that it enables a "greater diversity of approaches".

2. Are you going to ignore that this approach has drawbacks as well, such as the issue of different regions having different ideas on how far they want to implement basic human rights for foreigners or marginalized groups of people?
 
Last edited:

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
The fact that people are living together with different morals or styles of living shows that they are not, in fact, conflicting.

No. I think that some conflicts are easily solved by people agreeing to not get in each others hair. Live and let live.
Not all conflicts can be solved that way. Sometimes a unified solution is worth the conflict. You can't solve climate change by separating polluters and non polluters. You can solve conflicts like when to work and when to rest by separating day workers and night workers.

You're committing a black and white fallacy here as well as a straw man fallacy. It's not all or nothing, and we didn't say it was.
Where as you seem to be committing a black and white fallacy with regards to the existence of conflict and the supposed compatibility, or lack thereof, of different lifestyles, cultures or ethnicities. Just because people of different cultures live together does not mean that their life is without mutual conflict, or does it?
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
I genuinely thought you were argueing for some system of autonomous regions, rather than a run of the mill federal state in the manner that exists all over the world, such as in Germany, Austria, Spain, the UK, Russia, Canada, Australia, the US, and Brazil. If your suggestion is more along the latter lines than the former, then I have simply misread your argument, for which I am sorry.
It is something in between and it isn't exclusive to political federalism. It starts in the family and doesn't end on a national level. It's a general call for tolerance (in the common sense way, you don't have to take it literal). And it is a call for respect.
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
It is something in between and it isn't exclusive to political federalism. It starts in the family and doesn't end on a national level. It's a general call for tolerance (in the common sense way, you don't have to take it literal). And it is a call for respect.
Everything I've learned about tolerance, however, is that it is furthered by perceptions of normality. What I mean is that you likely have a greater ability to empathize with people with whom you are familiar (even just in terms of seeing them every day on your way to work) than with people whom you only know in the abstract or as stereotypes.

Put simply, the stranger you are, the harder a time people may have to think of you as a human being with your own human life and problems.

This is why I think the de facto segregation that is going on in many Western cities is already harming our ability to feel a connection with people who are unlike ourselves, and furthering bigotry and social friction. Any further division of people into disparate and segregated communities is only going to exacerbate that problem.
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
@Augustus
@Heyo
Here is one example where centralized policies and national standards would be superior to decentralized, locally autonomous ones: Why do American cops kill so many compared to European cops?

[...] national standards in most European countries conform to the European Convention on Human Rights, which impels its 47 signatories to permit only deadly force that is “absolutely necessary” to achieve a lawful purpose. Killings excused under America’s “reasonable belief” standards often violate Europe’s “absolute necessity” standards.

For example, the unfounded fear of Darren Wilson – the former Ferguson cop who fatally shot Michael Brown – that Brown was armed would not have likely absolved him in Europe. Nor would officers’ fears of the screwdriver that a mentally ill Dallas man Jason Harrison refused to drop.

In Europe, killing is considered unnecessary if alternatives exist. For example, national guidelines in Spain would have prescribed that Wilson incrementally pursue verbal warnings, warning shots, and shots at nonvital parts of the body before resorting to deadly force. Six shots would likely be deemed disproportionate to the threat that Brown, unarmed and wounded, allegedly posed.

In the US, only eight states require verbal warnings (when possible), while warning and leg shots are typically prohibited. In stark contrast, Finland and Norway require that police obtain permission from a superior officer, whenever possible, before shooting anyone.

Not only do centralized standards in Europe make it easier to restrict police behavior, but centralized training centers efficiently teach police officers how to avoid using deadly weapons.
 
I genuinely thought you were argueing for some system of autonomous regions, rather than a run of the mill federal state in the manner that exists all over the world, such as in Germany, Austria, Spain, the UK, Russia, Canada, Australia, the US, and Brazil. If your suggestion is more along the latter lines than the former, then I have simply misread your argument, for which I am sorry.

Decentralisation/centralisation is a sliding scale. None of those states are particularly decentralised.

Basically, if you took one of those states and then devolved most powers to local authorities (health, education, local economic policy, etc), sort of like a "Switzerland plus".

I'd also select half of the government via sortition.

1. You are begging the question with a whole lot of these supposed advantages of federalism. I have seen little evidence that federalism reduces "political alienation" or "abstract tribalism", or even that it enables a "greater diversity of approaches".

Clearly stating you are giving your personal opinion on a topic is not 'begging the question', and the countries you listed are not decentralised.

Are you going to ignore that this approach has drawbacks as well, such as the issue of different regions having different ideas on how far they want to implement basic human rights for foreigners or marginalized groups of people?

Central governments can do this too, and when they do they affect more people.

Here is one example where centralized policies and national standards would be superior to decentralized, locally autonomous ones: Why do American cops kill so many compared to European cops?

Why should we assume the ECHR is a major factor behind low police deaths in countries that have always had low numbers of police deaths?

For example, police in Britain are mostly unarmed, but this has nothing to do with the ECHR.
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
Decentralisation/centralisation is a sliding scale. None of those states are particularly decentralised.
You did not present a criterium for what you consider "decentralized" or "centralized" to begin with, so I'll take your word for it; I take it Switzerland isn't a good example of the level of decentralization you seek, after all?

Basically, if you took one of those states and then devolved most powers to local authorities (health, education, local economic policy, etc), sort of like a "Switzerland plus".
I have no idea how that is supposed to look like in practice.
In Germany, healthcare and education are handled at the level of the Bundesländer.


I'd also select half of the government via sortition.
You do that. I don't see the point, but I know that a lot of people have peculiar preferences or hangups when it comes to minutiae of governance.

I find it surprising given the open disdain for democracy you have voiced in this discussion, but you do you.


Clearly stating you are giving your personal opinion on a topic is not 'begging the question', and the countries you listed are not decentralised.
Did you not mean to infer that any of these "advantages" would actually be the result of decentralization?


Central governments can do this too, and when they do they affect more people.
Only if they are ineffective at enforcing the law. Otherwise, there are no regional variations in what human rights are granted to whom.

Why should we assume the ECHR is a major factor behind low police deaths in countries that have always had low numbers of police deaths?

For example, police in Britain are mostly unarmed, but this has nothing to do with the ECHR.
This isn't about the ECHR, it's about the existence and enforcement of national standards, a concept you have positioned yourself against in this discussion.
 
You did not present a criterium for what you consider "decentralized" or "centralized" to begin with, so I'll take your word for it; I take it Switzerland isn't a good example of the level of decentralization you seek, after all?

I said this was my view :handpointdown:

National level is for defence and foreign policy, macroeconomics, basic constitutional factors and not much else.

In Germany, healthcare and education are handled at the level of the Bundesländer.

Better than national, less good than local.

I have no idea how that is supposed to look like in practice.

You can't imagine elected officials making decision for a town/area? If you can, imagine them with more power.

Did you not mean to infer that any of these "advantages" would actually be the result of decentralization?

You seem not to understand what begging the question is.

This is effectively what you have just said [I stated my opinion and asked your opinion]:

Augustus: "I think You only live twice is the best James Bond film, what do you think?"
Tambo: 'You are begging the question!'

Only if they are ineffective at enforcing the law. Otherwise, there are no regional variations in what human rights are granted to whom.

Central governments don't guarantee human rights though.

Even in the EU Hungary and Poland are being driven in a more authoritarian manner by the central government. Many places in these countries would be more liberal if they had a greater degree of local autonomy.

This isn't about the ECHR, it's about the existence and enforcement of national standards, a concept you have positioned yourself against in this discussion.

In a decentralised system there would be some places better than average, and other places worse than average. If you don't like things where you live, at least you have greater ability to influence policy than you do at a national level.
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
I said this was my view :handpointdown:

Then Switzerland isn't decentralized enough for your tastes, and your praises for its system of government are based on ignorance.

You can't imagine elected officials making decision for a town/area? If you can, imagine them with more power.
That's a non-answer and you know it.


You seem not to understand what begging the question is.

This is effectively what you have just said [I stated my opinion and asked your opinion]:

Augustus: "I think You only live twice is the best James Bond film, what do you think?"
Tambo: 'You are begging the question!'
Your argument was more along the lines of:
Augustus: "You only live twice is clearly the best film Sergio Leone has ever directed, even better than Breakfast at Tiffany's, don't you agree?"

You were basing your opinion on claims that were either wrong or unproven, is what I'm saying.
You seem to think that the facticity of the arguments you are using as justifications for your personal opinion is irrelevant. Is this a stance you're willing to take in this discussion?
 
Last edited:
Then Switzerland isn't decentralized enough for your tastes, and your praises for its system of government are based on ignorance.

1. Something being better than most but not 'perfect' doesn't mean you can't praise it as a step in the right direction.
2. I brought it up as you seemed intent on finding something nefariously 'segregationist' about decentralisation and didn't seem to understand what it meant.
3. I've literally just told you exactly that point: it's not as decentralised as I'd like :rolleyes:

:handpointdown:

Basically, if you took one of those states and then devolved most powers to local authorities (health, education, local economic policy, etc), sort of like a "Switzerland plus".

That's a non-answer and you know it.

It was the most straightforward answer possible. What kind of answer do you actually want?

Decentralisation isn't that hard a concept to grasp.

You were basing your opinion on claims that were either wrong or unproven, is what I'm saying.
You seem to think that the facticity of the reasons you are using to justify your opinion is irrelevant. Is this a stance you're willing to take in this discussion?

Another RF example that a rudimentary knowledge of logical fallacies tends to be an impediment to thought, rather than an aid.

It is perfectly normal to say "I believe XYZ, what do you think?" That is a basic convention of everyday conversation, not a logical fallacy.

The purpose was to inform you what I think and in turn find out what you think, not to persuade you that these were true. Do you never try to establish what someone thinks before discussing an issue?

Seeing as you don't seem particularly interested in understanding what I think or trying to represent it accurately though, probably best to leave it there.
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
1. Something being better than most but not 'perfect' doesn't mean you can't praise it as a step in the right direction.
2. I brought it up as you seemed intent on finding something nefariously 'segregationist' about decentralisation and didn't seem to understand what it meant.
3. I've literally just told you exactly that point: it's not as decentralised as I'd like :rolleyes:

[...]

It was the most straightforward answer possible. What kind of answer do you actually want?

Decentralisation isn't that hard a concept to grasp.
Decentralization means a great many things to a great many people, some good and some bad, and you've been extremely circumspect about what specific things you are actually talking about.

You haven't even stated what exactly it is you like about the Swiss government, or what you think of the organizations of its Cantons or its unique form of referendum-centric legislation, its overly restrictive laws on citizenship (which are a direct result of the former two features) etc.


All I am asking of you is to provide some examples of how you think government should be decentralized, and what that would entail in practice. I'm sorry if you feel like I am putting you on the spot with this, but I was genuinely interested in how far you have actually thought about this issue.


Another RF example that a rudimentary knowledge of logical fallacies tends to be an impediment to thought, rather than an aid.

It is perfectly normal to say "I believe XYZ, what do you think?" That is a basic convention of everyday conversation, not a logical fallacy.


The purpose was to inform you what I think and in turn find out what you think, not to persuade you that these were true. Do you never try to establish what someone thinks before discussing an issue?
And my response was, "I think you're wrong about specific claims X, Y and Z." Which you have ignored in favor of this unnecessary tangent about logical fallacies.


Seeing as you don't seem particularly interested in understanding what I think or trying to represent it accurately though, probably best to leave it there.
If you can't stand the way I voice my disagreement, then it is indeed likely going to be better if we do not continue, because I strongly suspect that we would have disagreed even more the further we would have gone in this conversation.
 
Last edited:

Heyo

Veteran Member
Everything I've learned about tolerance, however, is that it is furthered by perceptions of normality. What I mean is that you likely have a greater ability to empathize with people with whom you are familiar (even just in terms of seeing them every day on your way to work) than with people whom you only know in the abstract or as stereotypes.

Put simply, the stranger you are, the harder a time people may have to think of you as a human being with your own human life and problems.
Yes, ignorance fosters prejudices and proper integration would be better for tolerance than indifference. Indifference is not tolerance.
But that has nothing to do with real conflict. You have to know each other to come to a state of conflict.
This is why I think the de facto segregation that is going on in many Western cities is already harming our ability to feel a connection with people who are unlike ourselves, and furthering bigotry and social friction. Any further division of people into disparate and segregated communities is only going to exacerbate that problem.
The de facto segregation is not based on different opinions, morals or politics, which would be cause for friction that justifies segregation. Often it isn't even based in culture or lifestyle but simply in economy.
 
Top