Libertarian Municipalism

Hey everyone,

I wanted to get a feel for what people think of the idea of direct democracy as a viable method of government in our day and age. Im pretty much just a little socialist punk looking to see if there are any other like-minded individuals here who might have thoughts on the subject of self government and/or ideas for further reading. If you do not consider yourself to be a fan of anarchist/socialist thought, please post anyways cuz its always cool to see what others have to say. As with any political discussion, I would like to remind readers that these are IDEAS/THEORIES, and attacks on theories or ideas should not be taken personally. Respect is key here.

Anyways enough with the intro and on to the fun stuff. Some interesting books I just read were:

Post-Scarcity Anarchism by Murray Bookchin - I especially liked his chapter "Listen Marxist!"; these are the ideas of anarchist thinkers such as Proudhon and Bakunin revamped for a post-industrial society. I find the thought that our present level of technology is such that we could very possibly be free (or nearly free) of onerous labour and material want to be exciting and not the least bit utopian.

Small is Beautiful by E. F. Schumacher - An interesting read if not a little outdated. Surprisingly (or not) the main thrust of this book has not been dulled by time. I liked his proposed solutions bc they seem to be practical and elegantly simple. The only turn-off for me was that its a bit reformist for my tastes (hard for a person who rejects capitalism completely [aka me] to listen to an economist).

The Politics of Social Ecology: Libertarian Municipalism by Janet Biehl and Murray Bookchin - After getting pretty engrossed in anarchism I thought this book was a great way to 'bridge the gap' between radicals like myself and more conservative minded people. The idea is that politics should be an ACTIVE part of all of our lives. Power has been taken from the public, the authors claim, and this public deserves a more transparent and accountable system of government. Their answer? Direct democracy through the open association and assemblies of neighbors.

Thats all from me for now, I hope to hear from others for future readings or thoughts/comments.

Like many theories, a direct democracy works out great on paper, but the logisitics of having every policy decision going before the public would clog the political system worse than it already is. A representative democracy allows someone to focus on one thing, policy making, just as every other job in the country is the specialization of a certain skill. This systems fosters an environment for back-door deals unfortunately, but that is where the average citizen still retains control over the entire process: if your elected official is not representing your interests you always have the option of voting for a different candidate during the next election. If having a vote isn't satisfactory, then getting more involved in the political process would be the route to go.

We started off in tribes, and that is where the first government came to be- a way to manage all assets of the tribe toward the end of ensuring their survival. As time goes on the tribe gets bigger and the technology of that tribe increases; more resources (people) are needed to manage these assets, and this continues straight through hunting and gathering, the agrerian system, the industrial revolution, and to this day in the technological revolution. These governments grow to distorted versions of their former selves when the people of that tribe stop caring so much about the process that manages them. There are some issues with our current system of government, but in all honesty the Constitution allows the people an avenue to change that system when society deems it necessary.

i've never really been popular in my life. yes i have friends and such, but never popular in the sense. just because 51% of the people see something this way, that makes it right for the other 49% to follow? not to mention the sheer ignorance of most people. people i wouldn't want watching a old dead dog to make sure the flies didn't carry him off.

"A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
-james madison

A representative government serves as a check on tyranny of the masses.

I'm a Libertarian.

HomeGrown&Smoked said:

Like many theories, a direct democracy works out great on paper, but the logisitics of having every policy decision going before the public would clog the political system worse than it already is. A representative democracy allows someone to focus on one thing, policy making, just as every other job in the country is the specialization of a certain skill. This systems fosters an environment for back-door deals unfortunately, but that is where the average citizen still retains control over the entire process: if your elected official is not representing your interests you always have the option of voting for a different candidate during the next election. If having a vote isn't satisfactory, then getting more involved in the political process would be the route to go.

We started off in tribes, and that is where the first government came to be- a way to manage all assets of the tribe toward the end of ensuring their survival. As time goes on the tribe gets bigger and the technology of that tribe increases; more resources (people) are needed to manage these assets, and this continues straight through hunting and gathering, the agrerian system, the industrial revolution, and to this day in the technological revolution. These governments grow to distorted versions of their former selves when the people of that tribe stop caring so much about the process that manages them. There are some issues with our current system of government, but in all honesty the Constitution allows the people an avenue to change that system when society deems it necessary.

Click to expand...

Hrm. First, you claim that citizens have 'control'. If by that you mean we have the chance to elect an official every so often, then yes, we have control. However, this seems to me to be entirely superficial, seeing as an elected representative is given a blank check and can (and does) do whatever they want once in office with perfect immunity. Democracy to me means more than the ability to choose my tyrant.

Second, you have put forward a rather ridiculous summary of human political history. This is a HUGE topic, and as such any attempt to generalize will lead us astray. If you like history, consider researching the following: The ecclessia of ancient Athens, the confederations of medieval Switzerland/Northern Italy, or the popular assemblies of the British colonies in America. Each offers proof that radical decentralization can be viable. And, all this before the industrial age... which brings me to my next point.

Todays society boasts an extremely high level of technological development. Am I saying that we are the end all, be all of human exist? No. But what we have today is beyond the wildest science fiction of pre-industrial times. The idea held by most modern socialists, myself included, is that this technology, if used correctly, could free up the population from a lot of work. So much work, in fact, that we would all have the time necessary to meet once or twice a month to debate local issues and make decisions for ourselves.... And if were not the end all, be all of human existence, why assume that our present political system is the end all, be all of political systems?

blazin256 said:

i've never really been popular in my life. yes i have friends and such, but never popular in the sense. just because 51% of the people see something this way, that makes it right for the other 49% to follow? not to mention the sheer ignorance of most people. people i wouldn't want watching a old dead dog to make sure the flies didn't carry him off.

"A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
-james madison

Click to expand...

Your first comment is interesting. I would imagine this to be against democracy as a whole, whether direct or representative, but it seems to me that you would like to single out direct democracy here as the 'tyranny of the majority'. This is a good point to make, and a concern that we have in common. Here is the take on it from the liberal municipalists point of view: There are three choices. (1) Simple majority, (2) 'Super' majority, or (3) Consensus.

I was once a believer in the consensus approach, after all, if everyone can come to an agreement on something then nobody can be said to be in a position of coercion. I understood the obvious problems involved here (ie: takes a long time, one man veto ect.) but believed that in any community-unit small enough to govern itself these problems would be minimized. What changed my mind was the following idea: the masking of dissent 'behind the scenes' so to speak. The belief is, that because one person can veto any given proposal, subtle tactics of coercion would be used to (a) make him vote in favor, or (b) not vote at all. With a little imagination its not hard to see what sort of sick 'democracy' this would lead to.

So we move to the idea of a 'super' majority, a majority of, say, 2/3rds. This is a cool idea, but shares many problems in common with consensus (ie: to get the sufficient amount of votes, tactics must be used to hide dissent). Also, in this scenario, the minority has very little power. After all, how could 1/3 of a population hope to change the minds of half the opposition.

What we are left with, then, is the simple majority. We all know what this is, so I will only explain the libertarian municipalists added defense to this approach. Take for example an assembly of 100 members. 51 have voted in favor of a given proposal, 49 against. This proposal would be passed, but this does not mean the debate is over (the saying, 'theyve won the battle but not the war' comes to mind). The defeated minority has the right, and the DUTY, to continue in their attack on said proposal. It is not hard to imagine that these 49 minds convince 2 (or more) of their opponents of the error of their ways. In this way, dissent is not masked in any way, and the dissenting party is given the right and ample opportunity to continue to make their point. Dissent will always, and should always, be a part of any democracy. With a simple majority, this dissent maintains its power and legitimacy.

Lastly, you put forward a quote. I love quotes. So heres a quote to counter your quote : "If you consider these worthy electors as unable to look after their own interests themselves, how is it that they know how to choose for themselves the shepherds who must guide them? And how will they be able to solve this problem of social alchemy, of producing the election of a genius from the votes of a mass of fools?" [Malatesta, Anarchy, pp. 53-4]

Winter Woman said:

A representative government serves as a check on tyranny of the masses.

I'm a Libertarian.

Click to expand...

The term 'libertarian' is likely one of the most mis-understood terms of our times (as far as politics is concerned). I actually think I saw a thread just above this one called 'the 24 kinds of libertarian' or something like that.

Oh and I wanted to throw out another book called The Sate of Exception by Giorgio Agamben. This is about the growing trend since Napoleon of states employing a constant state of emergency to transfer legislative powers into the hands of the executive. One modern example presented is Mr. Bushs 'military order' issued on Nov. 13th 2001, which authorized the 'indefinite detention' and trial by 'military commissions' (not to be confused with the military tribunals provided for by the law of war) of persons suspected of terrorist activities.

still sounds like a popularity contest. what makes our system great is that our constitution is the law of the land. its not the majority, its not the select few. but actually, your mode of thinking has nothing to worry about. we are after all spreading "democracy" through the middle east. our constitution will soon be null and void. the minority will be fucked. and liberties for all will be pissed away.

MurphMan said:

Hrm. First, you claim that citizens have 'control'. If by that you mean we have the chance to elect an official every so often, then yes, we have control. However, this seems to me to be entirely superficial, seeing as an elected representative is given a blank check and can (and does) do whatever they want once in office with perfect immunity. Democracy to me means more than the ability to choose my tyrant.

Second, you have put forward a rather ridiculous summary of human political history. This is a HUGE topic, and as such any attempt to generalize will lead us astray. If you like history, consider researching the following: The ecclessia of ancient Athens, the confederations of medieval Switzerland/Northern Italy, or the popular assemblies of the British colonies in America. Each offers proof that radical decentralization can be viable. And, all this before the industrial age... which brings me to my next point.

Todays society boasts an extremely high level of technological development. Am I saying that we are the end all, be all of human exist? No. But what we have today is beyond the wildest science fiction of pre-industrial times. The idea held by most modern socialists, myself included, is that this technology, if used correctly, could free up the population from a lot of work. So much work, in fact, that we would all have the time necessary to meet once or twice a month to debate local issues and make decisions for ourselves.... And if were not the end all, be all of human existence, why assume that our present political system is the end all, be all of political systems?

Click to expand...

As far as what I omitted from the entirety of world history- yes, there is a great deal left out. The point that I made, the one you failed to pick up on, is that government has been in existance for longer than language has been able to document it, and it has changed drastically over time to fit the number of people it governs, the technology of those peoples, and the will of the people. I don't need a kid to tell what I need to research- I have spent plenty of time doing it, and asking someone to be "more thorough" when discussing the entirety of human civilization on a forum is nothing short of childish, and appears to be an attempt to start a flame war. Again, I was simply pointing out that orgaization is what has gotten us where we are today, and I'm just wondering why you seem so anxious to dispose that success to make yourself feel better.

You mention not wanting to choose your tyrant- well, tyrants do not give up their power willingly, they will only do so under the threat of death. Just because the guy you voted for didn't get the office doesn't mean the politician that did get elected is a tyrant- it simply means he received more votes. A pure democracy would simply be mob rule- anyone that opposed the majority decision would be subject to punishment from the majority- so if you really think that would be better, who is actually more tyrannical?

You seem to be unaware of the different levels of government (city, county, state, national) and the different branches of government, how they interact, and how you can impact these different arenas. It is not up to me to explain how or why you should do this- you can do that for yourself. Suffice to say, the current system may have some flaws, but how would you weigh this against a country whose "elections" consists of someone showing they have more guns and bullets than everyone else?