Mr. Long makes a lot of sense there, at least I think they would be
better off under a Swiss type confederation. Napolien forced a more
centralized constitution on SWitzerland but even now its a fairly
decent model, far better than the Nationalist system that Some EU
countries have and far better than the almost pretend federalist
system of the US. The Swiss federal government gets the least amount
of the tax money, tax evasion is not a crimnal act, taxes are
collected by the local government, immigration is a local issue for
the most part you are a citizen of the local government first the
federal government last, you can be a citizen of the local government
and not be a Swiss citizen. To change the constitution requires all
of the Cantons to agree by a majority vote of the people in each
Canton, it would be better if 75% or more of the vote but at least
all of the states must agree unlike in the
US.
The president serves a 1 year term and is appointed alone with the
other members of the Excutive Committe by both Chambers of the
Federal General Assemply, The excutives in the Committe serve as
president in rotation. Each Canton from Zurick with over 1 million to
the smallest with less than 50,000 people gets equal represenation in
one branch of the Assembly, there is even two half
cantons.
From what I understand I don't much care for their court
system because I think a proper Anglo/ jury ststem can't be beat but
in some ways it might be better than our pretend
system.
Switzerland with around 7 million people or less people than
the state of Georgia has over 20 Cantons I imagine Iraq with over 26
million could have many more but the local government or the Commune
in many ways is even more important than the
CAnton.
Of course it appears that Bush and most of the Lame Republicans
and Democrats in Congress seem to have a majority rule concept of
Democracy so neither is likely to suggest local control in Iraq
because if the Iraqis can have it then why can't Americans have it,
they don't want that, they want to keep power at the federal level.---
In [email protected], "Victor Bozzo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> - Center for a Stateless Society - http://c4ss.org -
>
> The Solution for Iraq: Toss the State Out the Window
>
> Posted By Roderick Long On October 10, 2006 @ 9:11 pm In Commentary
| 2 Comments
>
> When the United States invaded Iraq, it did so with the proclaimed
goal of delivering the Iraqi people from dictatorship and helping
them achieve a democratic society.
>
> Now the dictator is gone, but instead of democracy, Iraq has civil
war. What went wrong?
>
> Well, more things than one, perhaps. But one in particular at
least.
>
> In any country torn by violent ethnic or religious conflict, what
each faction fears most is that one of the other factions will gain
control of the central state apparatus and use it to oppress,
exploit, or crush its rivals. In such a situation, "democracy," if
understood as majority rule, offers no more security than
dictatorship; to Iraq's Sunni minority, for example, "democracy"
simply means the threat of oppression by the Shi'ite majority.
>
> Perhaps a better meaning of democracy is: the people ruling
themselves. But in that case, mere majority rule is really no more
democratic than dictatorship; whether the majority dominates the
minority or the minority dominates the majority, either way it's some
of the people ruling others of the people, not genuine self-rule.
>
> The real root of Iraq's civil strife is the shared presumption that
there must be a territorial monopoly of power - a centralised state
exercising authority over the entire geographic region known as Iraq,
and thus over all the different factions, Sunni and Shi'ite, Arab and
Kurd.
>
> As long as that presumption prevails, then given the mutual
distrust among the factions, it is only to be expected that each
faction will be desperate to ensure that it, rather than one of its
rivals, gains control of the central state. A violent power struggle
is thus only to be expected.
>
> A chief cause of Iraq's civil strife, then, is each group's need to
control the central state lest its enemies control it first.
Replacing Saddam Hussein with a majoritarian constitution, then, is
no move toward peace; it simply changes which groups get to be the
dominators and which the dominated.
>
> The obvious solution to this problem, then, is: eliminate the
central state.
>
> Some observers have suggested partitioning Iraq into three separate
states: one Shi'ite, one Sunni, and one Kurdish. While this is a move
in the right direction, it ignores the deep divisions, and potential
for relations of domination, within each of those groups as well.
Calling for three centralised states instead of one still leaves
unchallenged the presumption that any given geographical area, large
or small, must be under the aegis of some central state.
>
> It is not inevitable that every society must organise itself as a
state. There have been successful stateless societies in the past,
and may be again. The nation-state's day may well be passing, as
absolute monarchy, chattel slavery, and other institutions once
claimed to be essential to civilisation have largely passed.
>
> Market anarchists like economist Dr. Bruce Benson in his book The
Enterprise of Law: Justice Without the State have shown that
institutions for resolving disputes and keeping the peace can be, and
historically have been, successfully provided by private voluntary
means, and need not enjoy a territorial monopoly or be funded by
taxation.
>
> Let Shi'ites live under Shi'ite law, let Sunnis live under Sunni
law, let heretics and infidels live under heretic and infidel law;
multiply legal institutions according to consumer demand, and resolve
disputes among different institutions by arbitration. And thereby
free each Iraqi from the fear that some one institution not his or
her own will be the one to be imposed on everybody by state fiat.
>
> If fifty people in a room are fighting to get hold of the one gun,
in the fear that someone else will get it first and use it against
everybody else, the solution is not to take sides with one of the
contending parties, but to throw the gun out the window. In this
case, the state is the gun.
>
> The 17th-century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes said that life
without a centralised state would be a war of all against all. He was
wrong. In Iraq, at least, it's the state's presence, not its absence,
that generates a war of all against all.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
>
> Article printed from Center for a Stateless Society: http://c4ss.org
>
> URL to article: http://c4ss.org/content/14
>
>
> Click here to print.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
