
Saw it in t.p.m., thanks.




Yes, and the individual is not omitted; I just didn't fully articulate the 
principles of Fractal Federalism.  All government powers derive from the
People; each level can receive a new power from the level below through 
the amendment process, where a true consensus (say a 3/4 majority) writes 
that power into the Constitution of the level above (in the case of the 
lowest level, an amendement is passed by a 3/4 majority vote; in the case 
of higher levels, it must be passed by 3/4 of the legislatures.  We can
of course haggle about the specifics of "true consensus" when we hold our 
Constitutional Convention :-).  Once a power has been granted, it may be 
exercised by the legislature.  Powers not in the original Constitutions must 
percolate upward, starting from the individual.  The ratification process 
for the original Constitutions should involve consensus and not simply a 
plurality or majority.

Granting a "right" in a constitution is of course the same as empowering
the government at that level to restrict the activities of the governments
at the lower levels, so it operates in the same way as the amendment process 
(again, that crazy resemblance to the supposed-but-not-actual U.S. government 
structure).

This government structure is a very frustrating one for those people (read-
"liberals") who would like to have concentrated power to use the government
to force people to do "good" (a difficult-to-define word, and one that it 
is difficult to reach a consensus on).  It is also a frustrating structure 
for those who want to use the government to dictate personal behavior (read- 
"big-government conservatives").  I personally would rather see those types
of people frustrated than the incredible erosion of liberty (both civil and 
economic) that is going on now.

This is IMHO a "good" government stucture for those who see the role of
government as the protection of individual liberties, while still recognizing
that individuals need to have some influence in the type of community that
they live in.




One which maintains peace, liberty, and the opportunity for happiness for its
people, while working within the realities of human nature.  You do bring
up the point (intentional or not) that a "lasting" idea is by no means
necessarily a "successful" idea.  I believe that Fractal Federalism would
at least bring many ideas to light, and The People would have the opportunity
to democratically choose between "good" ideas and "bad" ideas.  If the
Docialists, er, I mean Democrats are right and government activism fosters a
prosperous People, they will have a plethora of local opportunities to  
check their thesis.  If Libertopia is possible, it will arise.  If a balanced
Conservative Republic is democratically received as the best level of
government activity, it will become clear to The People that it is best.





Right, and people would not rescind any freedoms (read- "empower the
government") except through the amendment process.  That is how the Federal 
Government is supposed to work now, but the Supreme Soviet, er, I mean the 
Supreme Court put a stop to that "republican government" nonsense.

In my hypothetical government, if there were a constitutional provision
empowering the government to regulate churches the government (whatever
level we are talking about) could indeed ban churches.  The constitutional
provision would be invalid if a higher level had a constitutional provision
protecting free exercise of religion.  The uppermost Constitution is still
the Supreme Law of the Land.




It is a matter of individuals being able to control their own associations
and environment, not a matter of suppression of ideas.

One dilemma of the human condition is that individuals need liberty, and
they also need to have some control over their environment.  In my
"Fractal Federalism" government, certain "rights" are protected by the 
constitutions.  Other "rights" are protected simply because the government 
has not been empowered to infringe upon them.  When a consensus is reached
that the government should have a certain power, then freedom is infringed
upon.  This cannot be avoided -- murder statutes infringe upon freedom,
but I think that the consensus of the American people is that murder statutes
are a good idea.

I am sure that many parents believe that they have a "right" to control
the environment that their children live in.  People feel that they have
a "right" to sleep peacefully at night; thus, there are noise ordinances.
There are zoning laws that keep businesses from overrunning residential
neighborhoods.  I do not view these as bad things (certainly some individual
instances are bad, but the concept is not necessarily bad), I view them
as the people in a community having some control over the type of community
that they live in.  I see the alternative as near anarchy.

Like I said in another post, if you can come up with a scenario where an 
individual can do something truly autonomously -- with absolutely zero
effect on anyone else -- then no individual or government has the right
to restrict that activity.  There are simply not very many behaviors that
fit into the category of the truly autonomous, so the whole thing becomes
an issue of one individual or group having power over another individual
or group.  I think that the "Fractal Federalism" approach is a sound, if
not ideal, approach to limiting this restrictive power.  The libertarian 
scenario degenerates to "might makes right," and the system we have right
now is one of "lawyers abusing natural rights philosophy to decide what 
powers the government should have by subverting the democratic process 
though the Supreme Court."





I think I answered this above already, but let me expand a little more
with an example.  If I stand naked in front of your house and masturbate 
in front of your children while they play, in your libertarian (small 'l')
scenario the only recourse you have is to yell at me.  "Autonomous" is
a value judgement 99.99% of the time, it is not a scientific reality with
a clear definition.  Exactly who would you empower to make that value
judgement?






Lots of people are long on complaints and short on practical solutions.
Although I am pessimistic that my idea will ever bear fruit, I am at least
trying to be long on solutions also.  I am truly interested if you have
any improvements to make on my ideas (I call them "my ideas", but they
all come from an "average guy" reading of the U.S. Constitution without
benefit of the indoctrination of Constitutional Law academia).




Sorry, the confusion was my fault.  When I said that "Fractal Federalism" 
resembles the U.S. constitution, I meant it and thought it was pretty clear.  
I should have more clearly explained that the ultimate derivation of government
power is from the CONSENSUS of the people (although not the CONSENT of every
individual; a practical observation, not a moral judgement).  It is certainly 
better than having all government power derive from nine lawyers, which is the
situation we have now.  That is why I think the Supreme Court should be
a jury court, with a different jury for each case.  

It is certainly not perfect (no philosophy of government is), but do you still 
find it a repugnant idea?  If so, what is your solution?





I think that you misunderstood the structure of the form of government I
advocate, and it was my fault for not being more clear.






The majority does not make the rules.  The majority (or possibly a 
plurality) simply elects representatives to exercise limited government 
powers; those limited government powers derive from a large consensus, 
not a simple majority.  And the Federal Government, in my scenario, still
has the power to protect freedoms.






Matt Freivald


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
LiBORGalism:
             THINKING IS IRRELEVANT. INTEGRITY IS IRRELEVANT.
          FREE SPEECH IS IRRELEVANT. PRIVATE PROPERTY IS IRRELEVANT.
                 PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY IS IRRELEVANT.
                     CONSERVATIVISM IS FUTILE.
                      YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
THESE ARE MY OPINIONS ONLY AND NOT THOSE OF MY EMPLOYER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!