Possible safe paths to avoid institutional corruption.

[u/Only_Excitement6594]

This post is to ask about possible failures of this way, this method of political transparence, displayed as follows:

Without having any monopoly on violence against people, these same people would choose local governor, local governors choose province representatives, these ones then choose regional governors, regional leaders then choose presidents. Like affluents.

Politicians would be under the threat of needing constant support, in such ways that whoever holds a hierarchy might do so only with approval of the ones under them, and those with the ones under them and so on. As soon as lost support they must be given an exact month to leave the charge.

This is: inmediatly assisted democracy. If regionals fuck up, it's because of provincials, if provincials tolerate it, it's because of locals and these are downright under the mercy of their own people. No cops in between saying whatever bullshit or wanting loicense, no having to wait, no bureaucratic terms or exigences, total transparence.

Something partially tribal, partially institutional.

[u/a17c81a3]

Without monopoly of violence this would be like an elected board of experts or judges. However, no one would have to listen to them and specific subject matter experts would likely be better than these elected leaders.

So in short... what would their function be?

[u/Only_Excitement6594 → u/a17c81a3]

To listen to and record the laws voted by the assembly of citizens before applying them. When conflict between citizens arise, it's in the hands of the community itself to decide its result.

No pigs.

[u/a17c81a3 → u/Only_Excitement6594]

So they make laws, but it's up to local mob rule to enforce those laws? So again it begs the question why not have local laws and a local judge. Like a private city kinda thing. That would be the de-facto result anyway.

The central politicians serve no purpose in your system.

[u/Only_Excitement6594 → u/a17c81a3]

I see no difference between those two cases. Perfectly compatible stances, like tribes

Central politicians would be there for big purposes, to channel them and to control the abuses from the wealthy. Given the proper structures and mindsets, ofc

[u/a17c81a3 → u/Only_Excitement6594]

for big purposes, to channel them and to control the abuses

But your leaders have no power and no money. Even if people donated to them according to you they are prohibited from exerting violence.

Given the proper structures and mindsets, ofc

You sound like a socialist that believes in the benevolent perfect rulers, but you just don't like the words "monopoly on violence".

You want a state that has power, you just don't like thinking about where that power comes from.

[u/Only_Excitement6594 → u/a17c81a3]

Leaders who are aside with free people having allowed violence all of them, play cleaner than owners of cattle using their knights to terrorize workers and taxcuck them. It's mere history.

That power would need perfect consensus. Not one held by retard cops who let the Epstein list stay alive while oppresing all those below.

Loyalty to people, rather than to institutions. I am very sorry about your misinterpretations of me

[u/a17c81a3 → u/Only_Excitement6594]

Leaders who are aside with free people having allowed violence all of them

So your leaders CAN use violence? Then it is a normal government with the normal issues.

That power would need perfect consensus.

Does your manifesto mention a requirement for 90-100% unanimous voting?

I think that is the right direction.

If the state is restrained to only genuinely universal principles people can agree on that would probably work alright.

Loyalty to people, rather than to institutions

Every honest socialist wants that, but humans are selfish creatures. You can't get honest politicians just by saying in law that they should be honest. Elections clearly also don't produce perfect politicians.

That is the whole reason minarchists want to keep the government small.