| sorry for not expressing myself clearly. by not buying the argument i was referring to the idea that we can be more or less dependent on levels of government. i believe we are always 100% dependent on all levels. but in some ways we are always less dependent on local levels of government because we can move. but i have the impression we are applying different definitions to terms here, especially to what it means to be dependent. for the most part i actually agree with you. i too favor a localist/federalist approach. and where i said you can't escape the levels, i might have added: nor should you want to. because as you say, the levels need to exist. one of the problems i see in the US is that while the system is doing relatively well at the federalist approach, not enough is done to protect the weaker individuals from those with power over them. especially at the local level. so while i agree that experimentation is good, certain basic rights need to be safeguarded. another thing is fixing vs replacing HOAs. again that comes down to what fixing or replacing mean. it is important to me that organizations that govern my life in a community are actually considered government. an HOA currently only involves homeowners, but not those who rent there. that's the first thing i would fix. so HOAs become neighborhood councils. and beyond that it is just a matter of levels. so if you mean that replacing local HOAs with a community council covering a larger area is a bad idea, then i agree with you. i mean to replace it with a different democratic structure at the same level, with largely the same responsibilities but with more clear restrictions to protect individual rights and freedoms. |
interestingly, i just came across this democracy index:
https://www.democracymatrix.com/online-analysis/matrix#/char...
and it shows that "guarantee of rights" is the weakest, which fits my feelings