[EM] Geographical districts

[Raph Frank]

On 9/5/08, James Gilmour <jgilmour at globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> With all due respect, what I was writing about was not subsidiarity.  Nor has subsidiarity (senu stricto) anything to do with the
>  proposal for how the EU and its Member States should deal with issues, despite the abuse of the term "subsidiarity" in this context.
>  The EU proposals are all about devolution, i.e. handing down. (Never forget: "Power devolved is power retained.")  Subsidiarity, on
>  the other hand, is about building decision-making structures from the bottom up, i.e. a lower (smaller, more local) group
>  voluntarily giving power to a higher (larger, more widespread) group only because the required decision can be made only at that
>  higher level or because the decision will be better made at that higher level.

Erm, that *is* what the EU is about.  The EU member countries are
giving up some of their power (the so-called 'pooled' sovereignty), so
that decisions on those issues can be handled at the EU level.

I did say in theory, because, it isn't really followed.  The EU wants
as much power as it can get its hands on irrespective of the optimal
level of making decisions.

In any case, it can only take new powers if all countries agree.

However, the EU doesn't mandate that members actually implement
subsidiarity in their own countries.

> If the larger assembly is deciding if power should be DELEGATED, it is devolution that is
> in operation, not subsidiarity.

I guess it depends on how you want do define the term.  I don't think
subsidiarity is determined by actual power, it is determined by where
the decisions are made.

>From wiki

"Subsidiarity is an organizing principle that matters ought to be
handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent
authority."

For example, if the UK Parliament passed a bill setting up the
structure you recommend for schools.  Then there would be
subsidiarity, even though Parliament would retain the power to reverse
its decisions and take direct rule again.

If Parliament decides the levels that each type of decision is made,
then you would expect that they would assign more powers to larger
councils than is optimal (i.e. decide more centrally than is optimal).

OTOH, if all powers are given to the individual school boards, then
you would expect that  powers would decided at smaller councils than
is optimal.

Generally, political bodies will keep powers to themselves, if at all
reasonable.

>  > In the US, the federal government decides to a certain extent
>  > what power the States should have.
> This is devolution, not subsidiarity.  It may have started out as subsidiarity, i.e. the States agreed to give certain powers to the
>  federal centre, but that's not how it is today.

I would say that the federal government is still somewhat restricted,
but certainly not as restricted as it was.  It has large authority,
but not unlimited.

Btw, on the schools issue, how would you decide who can vote.  Would
voters get to vote for the nearest school?  Alternatively, only
parents with children in the school might be allowed to vote (or maybe
parents who have expressed an interest in sending their children to
that school).

Where should the decision on the question "Should parents be allowed
to send their children to any school that they want to?" be made?

Also, what is optimal for "Should we use subsidiarity to make decisions?".