Raph Frank > Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 4:31 PM
> I am trying to split the decision about what level a
> particular power is exercised and the power to actually make
> the decision.
> In any case, you get back to the circular question about who
> gets to decide who gets to decide. This needs to be decided
> outside the system in order to prevent the circle.
If I have understood the principles of subsidiarity correctly, the basic power
of decision-making ("sovereignty") rests at the
lowest level. It is at that level the decision was taken to remit some
decision-making up to a higher level, for necessity or
convenience. So it is, or should be, at that lowest level that the fundamental
decisions about "who decides" are made. The people
at the lowest level gave their power up (in both senses), so they should be
able to take it back again. That would be the logical
inverse of devolution.
I am not aware of any community or hierarchy of communities that is actually
organised according to the principles of subsidiarity.
I do, however, live in a community where there is something very similar: there
is a upward hierarchy of decision-making that it is
not devolution, in that a higher level cannot impose any decision on a lower
level when that decision properly belongs to the lower
level, nor can the higher level take away the power to make those decisions.
This structure was not agreed among the participants
(who might spontaneously have embraced subsidiarity!), but was imposed by a
(benign?) dictator - the property developer who built
the blocks of flats. The owners of the 146 dwellings in this development are
bound by a Deed of Conditions that is part of the
property title. I am sovereign in all decisions affecting the inside of my
flat. The 21 owners of flats in my block are sovereign
in all decisions affecting the common areas and structure of our block. The 62
owners of flats in our building (comprising 4
blocks) are sovereign in decisions that would affect the whole building,
principally the common roof. The common areas of the whole
development (gardens, car parking bays, etc) are owned in common by all 146
proprietors and so sovereignty for decisions affecting
those common areas is vested in all 146 owners. If we wish, we can remit
upwards, but no-one can impose downwards, nor can they
take any powers away.
James
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.6.16/1652 - Release Date: 04/09/2008
18:54
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
