[ExI] size of polities

[Lee Corbin]

Stathis writes

>> Why should whatever is true about some small school
>> in South Carolina be true of a California school in the
>> middle of Los Angeles?
> 
> They're that different? And what if one of the school wants to teach
> "creation science"? 

Horrors!  The people are free to believe what they want, 
but by God they're not going to be allowed to teach their
children what they want!

Three hundred years ago, Europe was so religiously intolerant
that those who had separate beliefs had to migrate to a new
continent. By and by a principle arose that stated that different
groups might practice their own beliefs so long as such practices 
interfered with no one else.  I still advocate that principle.

So I say that if some small group somewhere wants to teach
their children that black is white, it's none of our business and
we should butt out. Unfortunately, a certain totalitarian instinct
has arisen that claims dominion over the minds of children.
Too bad.

>> Courts that rule over very large regions containing very
>> many people tend to embrace very abstract ideals at the
>> cost of local knowledge...
> 
> ... Anyway, the general principle in a federation such
> as the US or EU is to allow local autonomy where this is reasonable,
> the federal/local balance being a matter for political discussion.

Yes, and I'm sure that there are tough cases. But is there 
really any *need* to have centrally dictated beliefs, centrally
administered criminal justice, centrally run health care, etc?
And if the fear is that any local population will make the
"wrong" choices, well, my fear is that the entire nation may
equally well make a "wrong" choice---why not allow full
local autonomy in *every* case where it's feasible?


> Indeed, some subgroups in Europe such as the Scots and the Welsh
> welcomed increased EU power in the expectation that they would have
> greater autonomy than they did previously.
> 
>> Imagining what our laws would look like with respect to,
>> say, whether honor killings can be done in public or not,
>> illustrates very well this same problem of trying for
>> "one-size-fits-all" laws.
> 
> Who is to adjudicate when there are international disputes?

That's another very tough problem!  Let's face reality:  the
sole reason that Canberra gets to say what happens in 
Perth (or Washington D.C. gets to say what happens in
South Carolina) is that in each case the former have the
men and guns to make it stick.

Now I'm not an extreme enough libertarian to think that
states can be done away with entirely;  a glance at a globe
should be enough to convince anyone that for the nonce, 
states are natural and inevitable.  But we can at least *try*
to minimize their awesome power.

Therefore, until some "tribe" conquers the whole globe, 
I'm afraid that no one is going to "adjudicate" when there
are international disputes. They'll either civilly come to an
agreement, or else who has the most power will prevail.
And it won't a rule of law, as I say, until some sovereignty
obtains all the soldiers and guns.

Lee