Hypothetical Situation:
A country has 2 or 3 political parties, about equal in control. In a divarchy, they are all given governmental powers, including separate militaries, police, fire depts, banks, economies etc within said country. An inter-party council manages inter-party issues (i.e: infrastructure, invading nations). A citizen may choose which party they'd like to be under, thus making the parties compete in efficiency for the most members.
What are the Pro's and Con's for such a organization of rule?
We have competing governments...it's called war. lol
Democracy is nothing more than replacing bullets with ballots
If Pro is the opposite of Con. What is the opposite of Progress?
TelfordUS: To Sirmonty: Say you're enrolled in the Democratic Healthcare system and there are no Democrat hospitals around. You present your forms to a Republican hospital, they take care of you as the Democrats would, and the dems pay the repubs back for their services. This goes for all government branches of service; they are exchangable so you are secure in any part of the country.
To Sirmonty:
Say you're enrolled in the Democratic Healthcare system and there are no Democrat hospitals around. You present your forms to a Republican hospital, they take care of you as the Democrats would, and the dems pay the repubs back for their services. This goes for all government branches of service; they are exchangable so you are secure in any part of the country.
Why don't I just skip the middle man and pay for that service directly? Why introduce that bureaucratic element into the equation?
Impossible. How does it come about?
Cam Nedland: Sounds like panarchy to me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panarchy
Sounds like panarchy to me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panarchy
A panarchy lets a person choose any government. A divarchy limits the person to the governments within the country. This way, the parties wouldn't have to support somebody halfway across the world.
sirmonty: Why don't I just skip the middle man and pay for that service directly? Why introduce that bureaucratic element into the equation?
You can pay for it directly, depending on what party you're under (or if you're not under a party at all). One party may provide universal healthcare, another might not. However, if you're not under a party, your only choice would be private healthcare, which could be better in some cases.
TelfordUS: Cam Nedland: Sounds like panarchy to me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panarchy A panarchy lets a person choose any government. A divarchy limits the person to the governments within the country. This way, the parties wouldn't have to support somebody halfway across the world.
I see. Sounds better than any current governmental situation, but still not optimal.
Periodically the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
Thomas Jefferson
scineram: Impossible. How does it come about?
Step 1: Overthrow current government
Step 2: Parties make their own governments, people choose which party they want to join, and therefore which government they're under
Step 3: Start businesses and enterprises (type of business or how big the business is depends on the laws of your government)
???
profit!
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap