The Federalism of Our Civil Society

[Anonymous]

#1225

Thoughts on deriving authority through individualism:

At our September 2017 meeting, much discussion took place over the identity of the group. Implicitly, the discussion was over authority. Whether collectivism should be used as a basis of authority.

To illustrate this, consider a potential member who felt that women should be allowed to join the armed forces. Most of us believe that only men should act in national defence. Thus the group felt a need to produce a collective authority to resist such forms of individualism.

Claims that women have a right to join the military are often based on individualism. I’d posit that such interpretations are pseudo-individualistic. Further, we can resist pseudo-individualism without collectivism, which would require that we surrender the fertile ground of true individualism. This requires that we define a federalism for ourselves.

Many claim that the US Civil War was fought over slavery. I’d submit that the issue at stake was how authority should be derived in an individualistic society. The Confederates were so named after their desire for confederalism – a form of federalism where the individual states that make up the sovereign state, had a larger degree of autonomy. This included the right to secede and the sole right to raise taxes. This form of federalism makes the central government the agent of the individual states who are the principal.

Federalism – the rights of the parts over the whole.
Agent – acts on behalf of the principal.
Principal – those who have granted their authority to an agent, who acts as their representative.

This is a highly abstract discussion which ties into ideas about representative government and it’s relation to human ethics. However, our group is in essence a civil society (see image below), simplifying the matter. Thus we need to produce a federalism suited to our purposes.

Civil society – those acting together without being acted upon.

We need to allow our members to act together without being acted upon, thus allowing individuals the rights of exclusion over the whole. For example, say a member wants to produce and sell a film. By presenting his idea to the group he effectively nominates himself as an agent willing to represent those who will grant him the authority of determination. Each member decides which projects to be a part of, which to exclude himself from and at what point.

Such an adherence to civil society will create a marketplace of ideas, and harvest a maximum of individual energies. Through civil society our efforts will produce an interdependent free enterprise, limited government and personal responsibility (see image above). An example of this is Uber. In promoting free enterprise in the transport industry, we have seen (by indirect means) the removal of government regulations and protections in the taxi industry.

Civil society allows us to supplement our core purpose of producing content and attempting to elect members to the Australian Parliament. Without it, much energy will be wasted in discussing the locale of authority and the execution of activities.

At greater scale, how we institute our representative government is of mighty importance. Representatives on the issue of national defence funding should not have agency on the separate issue of female soldiers. That issue should be decided by those who enter onto the field of battle. Our civil society can exert an influence in this greater field of challenge, and help manifest the true will of the people.

[Anonymous]

#1230

We need to allow our members to act together without being acted upon,

Again, I think you are right. If I turn up to a meeting and the group requires me to do something, this is unappealing. But if I request of my brothers their co-operation, then they may give it or not. If after 20 such requests I get nothing, I suppose the group isn’t for me.

Consider the website, I should be clear on their that each blogger’s opinions are his own and in no way represent the feelings of other members of the group. Perhaps it should be made clear that our purpose is to support other right wing men in pursuing their own goals and finding friendship in the process.

The downsides are those that feel their idea’s must be accepted. Something along the lines of “but a real conservative must…” or “We’ll if that’s your opinion then you’re not…”. Also in a system that you’ve described we must reward based on merit. If, in a contrary system, the president makes us do something then we should all be rewarded with equal merit. But under the federal system you’re suggesting their will always be those that blog twice a week and those that don’t blog at all. Clearly, all other things being equal, the former will have status within the group greater than the later. This will create class.

[Anonymous]

#1348

There is no answer to this question, only a compromise, arbitrarily set. It is the ancient question on forms of government, going back to Plato.
If we take the federalist route, we gain creativity and flexibility at the expense of cohesion, decisiveness and effectiveness.
If we take the monarchist route, we gain the reverse.

But it may well be that our decision is made for us. We are already a group comprised of traditionalists and right-liberals; Christians and atheists. No one has any real ‘carrot or stick’ to enforce decision-making. No one has any real authority except what is permitted by the group. So an authoritarian structure is not going to work.

But I foresee this will lead to a ‘left slide’ in our group, and will cause divisiveness over time. That is why, before the inaugural meeting of our group, I was extremely desirous of determining the sole uniting cause for our group. In effect, the ’cause’ would become the authority. We went with traditional Christian values. This perhaps is more of feudalism than federalism. But it is my belief that the group needs to have some final defining authority behind it or within it, inside which the members can operate freely.

[Author]

Posts