[adolph]

> So the moral authority comes from country-level democracy, and state-level, being able to rightly supersede local level.

Why stop there? Why not: So the moral authority comes from universe-level democracy, and planet-level, being able to rightly supersede national, provencial and local level.

[crazygringo]

There isn't any reason to stop there, except that we simply haven't gone beyond it yet, except for the EU to some degree.

Absolutely nothing stops a planet-level democracy, except that you've got to get all of the existing countries to democratically choose to join it first. Which is a gigantic historical undertaking that might happen someday, or might never happen at all.

But if you're asking why stop there now, in 2023, it's because a planetary democratic body simply doesn't exist. While countries do.

[adolph]

Ok, what is it about larger aggregations make them have more moral authority than smaller aggregations?

[crazygringo]

Well, the simple fact that if they don't, they literally have no reason to exist. It's not so much a moral question, so much as that this was the decided policy when the smaller units chose to join together into a larger one. It's moral because that's the decision the people made when they joined together.

There are various names for the concept over higher-over-lower power in a democracy -- supremacy, preemption, paramountcy.

If smaller units want to accomplish things together that can't override their individual sovereignty, then they sign treaties, form alliances, and groups -- like NATO or NAFTA and so forth. The thing that distinguishes a grouping that makes an actual state is precisely the fact that it can strike down the laws of lower organizational units when they conflict.

Now, nobody's claiming this power is unlimited -- that would be fascism. There are still rights that exist precisely to limit state-level power. But the general principle of supremacy/preemption/paramountcy still exists.

[adolph]

>>> So the moral authority comes from country-level democracy, and state-level, being able to rightly supersede local level.

>> Ok, what is it about larger aggregations make them have more moral authority than smaller aggregations?

> Well, the simple fact that if they don't, they literally have no reason to exist.

This is circular reasoning. You made an assertion. Either defend it or declaim it. What is the specific moral authority that you claim larger aggregations have over smaller ones?

[cloverich]

1. Many people would have no problem with not stopping there. 2. If we do want lines, we can say people decide on local matters. Which is the primary argument for why this kind of NIMBYism should not be allowed -- it is negatively impacting the surrounding area, and this deserves to be controlled by the larger group (city, state, etc). Beyond the state, and certainly the country level, it is fairly easy to argue for a line at that point under this logic, as the impact is far less direct.

[BobaFloutist]

I mean, yeah, that's the only way to tackle global issues like climate change.