APPENDIX 7 - GOVERNANCE

Larken Rose

Larken Rose is an outspoken advocate of the principles of self-ownership, non-aggression and a stateless society, and is the author of a number of books (including The Most Dangerous Superstition) and creator of numerous articles and videos.

From the synopsis of the book, The Most Dangerous Superstition, as posted on Amazon, (https://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Rose/dp/145075063X) :

When someone looks out at the world and sees all manner of suffering and injustice, stretching back for thousands of years and continuing today, he invariably blames such problems on someone else's hatred, greed, or stupidity. Rarely will someone consider the possibility that his own belief system is the cause of the pain and suffering he sees around him. But in most cases, it is. The root cause of most of society's ills--the main source of man's inhumanity to man--is neither malice nor negligence, but a mere superstition--an unquestioned assumption which has been accepted on faith by nearly everyone, of all ages, races, religions, education and income levels. If people were to recognize that one belief for what it is--an utterly irrational, self-contradictory, and horribly destructive myth--most of the violence, oppression and injustice in the world would cease. But that will happen only when people dare to honestly and objectively re-examine their belief systems. "The Most Dangerous Superstition" exposes the myth for what it is, showing how nearly everyone, as a result of one particular unquestioned assumption, is directly contributing to violence and oppression without even realizing it. If you imagine yourself to be a compassionate, peace-loving, civilized human being, you must read this book.

 

From the article, published Feb 11, 2022, on his website: (https://www.larkenrose.com/)

 

Most people have been so thoroughly trained to think that obedience is a virtue and that doing as you’re told makes you a good person, that anything contrary to that can be very difficult for them to consider. But the truth is, being a moral person often requires disobeying so-called “authorities” who use their power to exploit and dominate innocent people. As Martin Luther King, Jr. put it, “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” As Henry David Thoreau put it, “If [the law] is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then I say, break the law.” As Aleksander Solzhenitsy put it, “If a regime is immoral, its subjects are free from all obligations to it.” And as Howard Zinn put it, “The greatest danger [is] civil obedience, the submission of individual conscience to governmental authority. Such obedience led to the horrors we saw in totalitarian states. … [T]o establish justice, it may be necessary to break the law, to commit acts of civil disobedience.”

Indeed, the worst atrocities in history were first made “legal,” and were carried out in the name of “law enforcement.” This was true in Nazi Germany, in Soviet Russia, in Communist China, and under dozens of other oppressive regimes, and even in supposedly free and enlightened countries. For example, the abuse and murder of the indigenous peoples in what is now Canada and the United States was done by agents of the state, in the name of “law.” And for many decades the heinous institution of slavery was also legal—though utterly immoral—and was enforced by governments all over the world. The list of examples of legalized injustice and oppression is nearly endless.

And those who resisted such evils were always dubbed “criminals” and trouble-makers. But that shouldn’t be surprising. Of course tyrants in power will always demonize any who don’t obey them. But the truth is, every authoritarian regime in history was funded and empowered by the law-abiding taxpayers, while every move towards a more free and moral society has been achieved by those who disobeyed those in power—not by asking nicely, not by voting or petitioning, but by disobeying and resisting those who claimed the right to rule. That is how reality works. As Frederick Douglass, a former slave, put it:

“If there is no struggle there is no progress. … Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”

And the opposite is also true, in that the power of tyrants, dictators and oppressors always comes from the compliance and obedience of the masses. Large scale evil has almost always been enabled and funded by basically decent people who were just paying their taxes, following the rules and obeying the law. To show just how true this is, here is an explanation of the point that was written well over four hundred years ago by a man named Étienne de La Boétie.

“[T]he more tyrants pillage, the more they crave, the more they ruin and destroy; the more one yields to them, and obeys them, by that much do they become mightier and more formidable, the readier to annihilate and destroy. But if not one thing is yielded to them, if, without any violence they are simply not obeyed, they become naked and undone and as nothing. … All this havoc, this misfortune, this ruin, descends upon you not from alien foes, but from the one enemy whom you yourselves render as powerful as he is. … He who thus domineers over you has only two eyes, only two hands, only one body … he has indeed nothing more than the power that you confer upon him to destroy you. Where has he acquired enough eyes to spy upon you, if you do not provide them yourselves? How can he have so many arms to beat you with, if he does not borrow them from you? The feet that trample down your cities, where does he get them if they are not your own? How does he have any power over you except through you? How would he dare assail you if he had no cooperation from you? What could he do to you if you yourselves did not connive with the thief who plunders you, if you were not accomplices of the murderer who kills you, if you were not traitors to yourselves? … [Y]ou can deliver yourselves if you try, not by taking action, but merely by willing to be free. Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.”

If any of this has caught your attention and your interest, below are links to more videos, articles and other resources on the topic. But first allow me to introduce myself. My name is Larken Rose, and I am the author of several books, including The Most Dangerous Superstition, and I want to end here by including an excerpt from that here. (If you want the full version, see below.)

 

( excerpt from “The Most Dangerous Superstition” )

How many millions have gazed upon the brutal horrors of history, with its countless examples of man's inhumanity to man, and wondered aloud how such things could happen? The truth is, most people wouldn't want to know how it happens, because they themselves are religiously attached to the very belief that makes it possible. The vast majority of suffering and injustice in the world, today and spanning back thousands of years, can be directly attributed to a single idea. It is not greed or hatred, or any of the other emotions or ideas that are usually blamed for the evils of society. Instead, most of the violence, theft, assault and murder in the world is the result of a mere superstition—a belief which, though almost universally held, runs contrary to all evidence and reason (though, of course, those who hold the belief do not see it that way).

The “punch line” of this book is easy to express, albeit difficult for most people to accept, or even to calmly and rationally contemplate: The belief in "authority," which includes all belief in "government," is irrational and self-contradictory; it is contrary to civilization and morality, and constitutes the most dangerous, destructive superstition that has ever existed. Rather than being a force for order and justice, the belief in "authority" is the arch-enemy of humanity.

Of course, nearly everyone is raised to believe the exact opposite: that obedience to "authority" is a virtue (at least in most cases), that respecting and complying with the "laws" of "government" is what makes us civilized, and that disrespect for "author- ity" leads only to chaos and violence. In fact, people have been so thoroughly trained to associate obedience with "being good" that attacking the concept of "authority" will sound, to most people, like suggesting that there is no such thing as right and wrong, no need to abide by any standards of behavior, no need to have any morals at all. That is not what is being advocated here—quite the opposite.

Indeed, the reason the myth of "authority" needs to be demolished is precisely because there is such a thing as right and wrong, it does matter how people treat each other, and people should always strive to live moral lives. Despite the constant authoritarian propaganda claiming otherwise, having respect for "authority" and having respect for humanity are mutually exclusive and diametrically opposed. The reason to have no respect for the myth of "authority" is so that we can have respect for humanity and justice.

There is a harsh contrast between what we are taught is the purpose of "authority" (to create a peaceful, civilized society) and the real-world results of "authority" in action. Flip through any history book and you will see that most of the injustice and destruction that has occurred throughout the world was not the result of people "breaking the law," but rather the result of people obeying and enforcing the "laws" of various "governments." The evils that have been committed in spite of "authority" are trivial compared to the evils that have been committed in the name of "authority."

Nevertheless, children are still taught that peace and justice come from authoritarian control and that, despite the flagrant evils committed by authoritarian regimes around the world throughout history, they are still morally obligated to respect and obey the current "government" of their own country. They are taught that "doing as you're told" is synonymous with being a good person, and that "playing by the rules" is synonymous with doing the right thing. On the contrary, being a moral person requires taking on the personal responsibility of judging right from wrong and following one's own conscience, the opposite of respecting and obeying "authority."

The reason it is so important that people understand this fact is that the primary danger posed by the myth of "authority" is to be found not in the minds of the controllers in "government" but in the minds of those being controlled. One nasty individual who loves to dominate others is a trivial threat to humanity unless a lot of other people view such domination as legitimate because it is achieved via the "laws" of "government." The twisted mind of Adolf Hitler, by itself, posed little or no threat to humanity. It was the millions of people who viewed Hitler as "authority," and thus felt obligated to obey his commands and carry out his orders, who actually caused the damage done by the Third Reich. In other words, the problem is not that evil people believe in "authority"; the problem is that basically good people believe in "authority," and as a result, end up advocating and even committing acts of aggression, injustice and oppression, even murder. The average statist (one who believes in "government"), while lamenting all the ways in which "authority" has been used as a tool for evil, even in his own country, will still insist that it is possible for "government" to be a force for good, and will still imagine that "authority" can and must provide the path to peace and justice.

People falsely assume that many of the useful and legitimate things that benefit human society require the existence of "government." It is good, for example, for people to organize for mutual defense, to work together to achieve common goals, to find ways to cooperate and get along peacefully, to come up with agreements and plans that better allow human beings to exist and thrive in a mutually beneficial and nonviolent state of civilization. But that is not what "government" is. Despite the fact that "governments" always claim to be acting on behalf of the people and the common good, the truth is that "government," by its very nature, is always in direct opposition to the interests of mankind. "Authority" is not a noble idea that sometimes goes wrong, nor is it a basically valid concept that is sometimes corrupted. From top to bottom, from start to finish, the very concept of "authority" itself is anti- human and horribly destructive.

Of course, most people will find such an assertion hard to swallow. Isn't government an essential part of human society? Isn't it the mechanism by which civilization is made possible, because it forces us imperfect humans to behave in an orderly, peaceful manner? Isn't the enacting of common rules and laws what allows us to get along, to settle disputes in a civilized manner, and to trade and otherwise interact in a fair, nonviolent way? Haven't we always heard that if not for the "rule of law" and a common respect for "authority," we would be no better than a bunch of stupid, violent beasts, living in a state of perpetual conflict and chaos?

Yes, we have been told that. And no, none of it is true. But trying to disentangle our minds from age-old lies, trying to distill the truth out of a jungle of deeply entrenched falsehoods, can be exceedingly difficult, not to mention uncomfortable.

 

The Grand Jury Belongs to The People — Antonin Scalia (1992)
 

Article in the State of the Nation, posted April 21, 2016. https://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=36330

NEW YORK IS “GROUND ZERO” – Major grassroots movement in 48 States, Constituting Common Law Grand Juries.

In a stunning six to three, 1992 Decision that went unnoticed, until now, Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority said: In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L.Ed.2d 352 (1992), Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, confirmed that the American grand jury is neither part of the judicial, executive nor legislative branches of government, but instead belongs to the people. It is in effect a fourth branch of government “governed” and administered to directly by and on behalf of the American people, and its authority emanates from the Bill of Rights, the acts of the Grand Jury is the consent of the people.

“The grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It ” ‘is a constitutional fixture in its own right. In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people”.

— Justice Antonin Scalia

 

“Thus, citizens have the unbridled right to empanel their own grand juries and present “True Bills” of indictment to a court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding. Our Founding Fathers presciently thereby created a “buffer” the people may rely upon for justice, when public officials, including judges, criminally violate the law.”

— Justice Antonin Scalia

 

“The grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside, we think it clear that, as a general matter at least, no such “supervisory” judicial authority exists. The “common law” of the Fifth Amendment demands a traditional functioning grand jury.” 

— Justice Antonin Scalia

 

“Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. The grand jury’s functional independence from the judicial branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing, and in the manner in which that power is exercised.”

— Justice Antonin Scalia

 

“The grand jury ‘can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not.’ It need not identify the offender it suspects, or even “the precise nature of the offense” it is investigating.  The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation, nor does the prosecutor require leave of court to seek a grand jury indictment. And in its day-to-day functioning, the grand jury generally operates without the interference of a presiding judge. It swears in its own witnesses and deliberates in total secrecy.”

— Justice Antonin Scalia

 

“Recognizing this tradition of independence, we have said the 5th Amendment’s constitutional guarantee presupposes an investigative body ‘acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge” 

— Justice Antonin Scalia

 

“Given the grand jury’s operational separateness from its constituting court, it should come as no surprise that we have been reluctant to invoke the judicial supervisory power as a basis for prescribing modes of grand jury procedure. Over the years, we have received many requests to exercise supervision over the grand jury’s evidence-taking process, but we have refused them all. “it would run counter to the whole history of the grand jury institution” to permit an indictment to be challenged “on the ground that there was incompetent or inadequate evidence before the grand jury.”

— Justice Antonin Scalia

 

The Case that generated this opinion was : United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L.Ed.2d 352 (1992).  See http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/504/36

 

The Right of the Jury 

Excerpt of Lysander Spooner’s work, “An Essay on the Trial by Jury”.    https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/lysander-spooner-an-essay-on-the-trial-by-jury#toc1

 

CHAPTER I.: THE RIGHT OF JURIES TO JUDGE OF THE JUSTICE OF LAWS.

 

SECTION I. 

For more than six hundred years—that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215—there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws. 

 

Unless such be the right and duty of jurors, it is plain that, instead of juries being a “palladium of liberty”—a barrier against the tyranny and oppression of the government—they are really mere tools in its hands, for carrying into execution any injustice and oppression it may desire to have executed. 

 

But for their right to judge of the law, and the justice of the law, juries would be no protection to an accused person, even as to matters of fact; for, if the government can dictate to a jury any law whatever, in a criminal case, it can certainly dictate to them the laws of evidence. That is, it can dictate what evidence is admissible, and what inadmissible, and also what force or weight is to be given to the evidence admitted. And if the government can thus dictate to a jury the laws of evidence, it can not only make it necessary for them to convict on a partial exhibition of the evidence rightfully pertaining to the case, but it can even require them to convict on any evidence whatever that it pleases to offer them. 

 

That the rights and duties of jurors must necessarily be such as are here claimed for them, will be evident when it is considered what the trial by jury is, and what is its object. 

 

“ The trial by jury, ” then, is a “ trial by the country ”— that is, by the people—as distinguished from a trial by the government.

 

It was anciently called “trial per pais ”—that is “trial by the country.” And now, in every criminal trial, the jury are told that the accused “has, for trial, put himself upon the country; which country you (the jury) are.” 

 

The object of this trial “ by the country, ” or by the people, in preference to a trial by the government, is to guard against every species of oppression by the government. In order to effect this end, it is indispensable that the people, or “ the country, ” judge of and determine their own liberties against the government; instead of the government’s judging of and determining its own powers over the people. 

 

How is it possible that juries can do anything to protect the liberties of the people against the government, if they are not allowed to determine what those liberties are? Any government, that is its own judge of, and determines authoritatively for the people, what are its own powers over the people, is an absolute government of course. It has all the powers that it chooses to exercise. There is no other—or at least no more accurate—definition of a despotism than this. 

 

On the other hand, any people, that judge of, and determine authoritatively for the government, what are their own liberties against the government, of course retain all the liberties they wish to enjoy. And this is freedom. At least, it is freedom to them; because, although it may be theoretically imperfect, it, nevertheless, corresponds to their highest notions of freedom. 

 

To secure this right of the people to judge of their own liberties against the government, the jurors are taken, (or must be, to make them lawful jurors,) from the body of the people, by lot, or by some process that precludes any previous knowledge, choice, or selection of them, on the part of the government. This is done to prevent the government’s constituting a jury of its own partisans or friends; in other words, to prevent the government’s packing a jury, with a view to maintain its own laws, and accomplish its own purposes. 

 

It is supposed that, if twelve men be taken, by lot, from the mass of the people, without the possibility of any previous knowledge, choice, or selection of them, on the part of the government, the jury will be a fair epitome of “the country” at large, and not merely of the party or faction that sustain the measures of the government; that substantially all classes of opinions, prevailing among the people, will be represented in the jury; and especially that the opponents of the government, (if the government have any opponents,) will be represented there, as well as its friends; that the classes, who are oppressed by the laws of the government, (if any are thus oppressed,) will have their representatives in the jury, as well as those classes, who take sides with the oppressor—that is, with the government. 

 

It is fairly presumable that such a tribunal will agree to no conviction except such as substantially the whole country would agree to, if they were present, taking part in the trial. A trial by such a tribunal is, therefore, in effect, “a trial by the country.” In its results it probably comes as near to a trial by the whole country, as any trial that it is practicable to have, without too great inconvenience and expense. And as unanimity is required for a conviction, it follows that no one can be convicted, except for the violation of such laws as substantially the whole country wish to have maintained. 

 

The government can enforce none of its laws, (by punishing offenders, through the verdicts of juries,) except such as substantially the whole people wish to have enforced. The government, therefore, consistently with the trial by jury, can exercise no powers over the people, (or, what is the same thing, over the accused person, who represents the rights of the people,) except such as substantially the whole people of the country consent that it may exercise. In such a trial, therefore, “the country,” or the people, judge of and determine their own liberties against the government, instead of the government’s judging of and determining its own powers over the people. 

 

But all this “trial by the country” would be no trial at all “by the country,” but only a trial by the government, if the government could either declare who may, and who may not, be jurors, or could dictate to the jury anything whatever, either of law or evidence, that is of the essence of the trial. 

 

If the government may decide who may, and who may not, be jurors, it will of course select only its partisans, and those friendly to its measures. It may not only prescribe who may, and who may not, be eligible to be drawn as jurors; but it may also question each person drawn as a juror, as to his sentiments in regard to the particular law involved in each trial, before suffering him to be sworn on the panel; and exclude him if he be found unfavorable to the maintenance of such a law. 

 

So, also, if the government may dictate to the jury what laws they are to enforce, it is no longer a “trial by the country,” but a trial by the government; because the jury then try the accused, not by any standard of their own—not by their own judgments of their rightful liberties—but by a standard dictated to them by the government. And the standard, thus dictated by the government, becomes the measure of the people’s liberties. If the government dictate the standard of trial, it of course dictates the results of the trial. And such a trial is no trial by the country, but only a trial by the government; and in it the government determines what are its own powers over the people, instead of the people’s determining what are their own liberties against the government. In short, if the jury have no right to judge of the justice of a law of the government, they plainly can do nothing to protect the people against the oppressions of the government; for there are no oppressions which the government may not authorize by law.

 

 

Restorative Justice  

From the website of the National Association for Community and Restorative Justice https://www.nacrj.org/ :

WE ENVISION

a safe and equitable world where restorative interactions transform individuals, relationships, communities and systems through the prevention, repair and deep healing of harm.

WE ADVANCE

community and restorative justice as a social movement by serving people and organizations committed to building community and repairing harm.

WE PROVIDE

guidance and support to establish high quality practices with fidelity to restorative principles.

WE ARE

the National Association of Community and Restorative Justice, and we want to be IN COMMUNITY WITH YOU.

 

Restorative Justice Organizations:

• National Association of Community and Restorative Justice: https://www.nacrj.org/

 

• Restorative Justice Exchange: https://restorativejustice.org/

 

• Equal Justice USA ejusa.org.

 

Impact Stories:

 

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2023/09/16/north-carolina-murder-restorative-justice-donald-fields

See also: 

https://why-me.org/ambassadors/  and

https://restorativejustice.org/stories/

 

Ward Republic  

Fixing the System by Adrian Kuzminsky includes numerous populist ideas including the Ward Republic and is well worth reading.  Here is what Amazon says about the book: https://www.amazon.com/Fixing-System-History-Populism-Ancient/dp/0826429602

 

In the current climate of dissatisfaction with "democratic" Western political and economic systems, this is a timely book that demonstrates a true political Third Way.

 

Populism is distinguished from other political movements by its insistence on two things conspicuously missing from modern systems of political economy: genuine democracy based on local citizen assemblies, and the widespread distribution among the population of privately-owned economic capital. Fixing the System offers a comprehensive historical account of populism, revealing the consistent and distinct history of populism since ancient times. Adrian Kuzminski demonstrates that populism is a tradition of practice as well as thought, ranging from ancient city states to the frontier communities of colonial america-all places where widely distributed private property and democratic decision-making combined to foster material prosperity and cultural innovation.

 

In calling for a wide distribution of both property and democracy, populism opposes the political and economic system found today in the united states and other Western countries, where property remains highly concentrated in private hands and where representatives chosen in impersonal mass elections frustrate democracy by serving private monied interests rather than the public good. As Kuzminski demonstrates, as one of very few systematic alternatives to today's political and economic system, populism, offers a pragmatic program for fundamental social change that deserves wide and serious consideration. Populism is a genuine "third way" in politics, a middle path between the extremes of corporate anarchy and collective authoritarianism. As America takes stock of her current situation and looks toward the future in the 2008 election year, Fixing the System offers a trenchant and timely study of this deep-rooted movement.

In the current climate of dissatisfaction with "democratic" Western political and economic systems, this is a timely book that demonstrates a true political Third Way.

 

Populism is distinguished from other political movements by its insistence on two things conspicuously missing from modern systems of political economy: genuine democracy based on local citizen assemblies, and the widespread distribution among the population of privately-owned economic capital. Fixing the System offers a comprehensive historical account of populism, revealing the consistent and distinct history of populism since ancient times. Adrian Kuzminski demonstrates that populism is a tradition of practice as well as thought, ranging from ancient city states to the frontier communities of colonial america-all places where widely distributed private property and democratic decision-making combined to foster material prosperity and cultural innovation.

 

In calling for a wide distribution of both property and democracy, populism opposes the political and economic system found today in the united states and other Western countries, where property remains highly concentrated in private hands and where representatives chosen in impersonal mass elections frustrate democracy by serving private monied interests rather than the public good. As Kuzminski demonstrates, as one of very few systematic alternatives to today's political and economic system, populism, offers a pragmatic program for fundamental social change that deserves wide and serious consideration. Populism is a genuine "third way" in politics, a middle path between the extremes of corporate anarchy and collective authoritarianism. As America takes stock of her current situation and looks toward the future in the 2008 election year, Fixing the System offers a trenchant and timely study of this deep-rooted movement.

 

Below is the entry from Wikipedia, which is well done: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_republic

 

Ward republic is a concept promoted by Thomas Jefferson to place most of the functions of government in the ward, a small subdivision of a county. Jefferson thought of this concept as his favorite: "The article nearest my heart," wrote Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval in 1816, "is the division of counties into wards".[1] His proposal was that such wards consist of no more people than can all know one another and personally perform the functions of government for one another. Although his proposal was not generally adopted, there have been partial implementations of the idea in small townships, school districts, voting precincts, and neighborhood associations.

History

The concept was inspired by the traditional practice in England and other feudal European countries to organize people below the county level into what were called "hundreds", that is, a geographic group of a few hundred individuals and their families. That concept goes back to a similar practice among the ancient Hebrews of organizing themselves for military purposes, and form a militia unit for each such group.[2] Although intended for feudal administration and defense, hundreds also tended to cooperate in performing other functions of government.

Jefferson presented the idea in a letter to Samuel Kercheval in July, 1816. "The true foundation of republican government," Jefferson wrote, "is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property, and in their management".[3] Kercheval, of Winchester, Virginia, had been trying to organize a convention to write a new state constitution, and sought the support of Jefferson, who had been trying since 1776 to get Virginia to adopt a new constitution.

In that letter Jefferson outlined the need for "ward republics," small units of local government, within Virginia's existing counties, which he thought were too large for direct participation of all the voters. He proposed to divide the counties into "wards of such size as that every citizen can attend, when called on, and act in person … will relieve the county administration of nearly all its business, will have it better done, and by making every citizen an acting member of the government, and in the offices nearest and most interesting to him, will attach him by his strongest feelings to the independence of his country, and its republican constitution".[4]

Jefferson proposed that such ward republics, among their other functions, should select jurors, so that these units of local government would act as a restraint on the judicial as well as the legislative and executive branches of government.

One of the functions to be performed by such wards was public education. Jefferson's 1779 Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge was never passed in the form he proposed. Virginia did not set up a system of mandatory common schools until well into the nineteenth century. However, the concepts it contained persisted and he continued to campaign for public education as the safeguard of republican citizenship.[5]

Jefferson's Bill proposed that each county would be divided into "hundreds … so as that they may contain a convenient number of children to make up a school, and be of such convenient size that all the children within each hundred may daily attend the school to be established therein". Jefferson's deliberate use of the term "hundreds" echoes the Anglo-Saxon term for such a political subdivision. He and many of his contemporaries believed that English and American liberties were rooted in Anglo-Saxon political life. These "hundreds" are the origins of Jefferson's later conception of "ward republics," political units so small that "every citizen, can attend, when called on, and act in person".[3] The school system was envisioned as tiered, from primary to secondary to college, so that the ward republics were to be the smallest, most intimate parts of political life and the basis for state republics and the national republic.[6]

Modern practices

The term "ward" or "precinct" continues to be used for subdivisions of counties or municipalities, but usually only as voting districts to send representatives to county government, or for the administration of county or municipal functions. Most of those subdivisions contain too many people to fit Jefferson's vision. The closest would be voting precincts, which in most states tend to consist of about 3,000 people. There are also small townships and neighborhood associations that realize that concept for at least some people.

Jefferson envisioned a society of small landholders, continuing the system set up by John Locke for the colonies that became North and South Carolina.[7] However, the adoption of the fee simple model of land titles encouraged large landholdings that would make it more difficult to establish ward republics everywhere.[8]

The ward republic model has continued to be advocated by reformers, especially some Libertarians, who argue that the trend toward government centralization presents a threat to rights and liberty, discourages civic virtue, and encourages dependency.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is organized into wards at the most local level. These wards typically include roughly 100 families.

References

1. "Jefferson on Politics & Government: Separation of Powers, Fed/State". famguardian.org.

2. William Anderson (1964). Man's Quest for Political Knowledge: The Study and Teaching of Politics. U of Minnesota Press. ISBN 9781452910741. Retrieved 2012-08-22.:

3. Jefferson, Thomas (1999). Political Writings. Appleby, Joyce; Ball, Terence. New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 212. ISBN 0511040253. OCLC 56352087.

4. Political Writings, p. 213

5. Bryan-Paul Frost, Jeffrey Sikkenga (2003). History of American Political Thought. Lexington Books. p. 143. ISBN 9780739106242. Retrieved 2012-08-22.

6. Frank Shuffelton (Winter 2003). "Thomas Jefferson and the People's Government". The Jefferson Legacy Foundation. p. 79. Retrieved 2012-08-22.

7. George E. Connor; Christopher W. Hammons, eds. (2008). The Constitutionalism of American States. University of Missouri Press. p. 344. ISBN 9780826217646. Retrieved 2012-08-22. John Locke land grants in the Carolinas.

8. Will Hoyt (14 June 2012). "The Flaw in Jefferson's Idea of Ward Republics". 

 

Sociocracy  - Section needs work

Sociocracy for All, or SoFa as it is known, offers training and videos, books, and a community of practice.  It is a wonderful resource for learning self-governance.  There is an article about it by Ted Rau in the Appendix.  Its website is (https://www.sociocracyforall.org/)

 

Many Voices One Song and Collective Power are two very worthwhile books, available from SoFA.

 

About Sociocracy for All

Sociocracy For All (SoFA) is a nonprofit that helps organizations, communities, workplaces and collectives to learn how to organize in a decentralized way and make their decisions with equity, efficiency, empowerment, trust and transparency using sociocracy.

Our aim is to promote sociocracy locally and globally as a sustainable way of governance. We do this by innovating by making decisions together and sharing what we learn!

Sociocracy is a governance system, just like democracy or corporate governance methods. It’s best suited for organizations that desirewant to self-govern based on the values of equality.

Some people refer to sociocracy as Dynamic Self-Governance or simply Dynamic Governance.

History of sociocracy UTOPIA GOVERNANCE?

What we call sociocracy now was first developed as the Sociocratic Circle Method by Gerard Endenburg in the Netherlands in the 1980ies. Its origins are in:

• Natural systems: complex organizations work as decentralized, nested systems that are semi-autonomous. That means they are both autonomous and dependent on each other, like, for example, the respiratory and the nervous system.
  Sociocracy builds on a set of simple rules. For example, a simple rule defines how to create a circle. The same rule then allows any circles to form a sub-circle, and the sub-circles to form sub-sub-circles and so on.

• Decision-making builds on decision-making by the Quakers that have a strong commitment to inclusion and egalitarian values.

• Cybernetics: sociocracy uses feedback loops to learn about the impact of actions.