Of course, neighborhoods do not exist in a vacuum - neighborhoods would want to work together to share resources and to collaborate to achieve greater goals, so confederations of neighborhoods could be formed. Each neighborhood could select one or more delegates to attend confederation meetings and speak on the behalf of the neighborhood, but not make decisions on behalf of them. Instead, each delegate would attend the confederation meeting, and meet with their neighborhood to bring them news of what was discussed at the delegation meeting. Then, in the neighborhood meetings, each neighborhood would come to their own decisions around what should happen at the confederation level, and a delegate - not necessarily the same person as before - would take those decisions, questions, concerns and discussion points back to the confederation, where either a consensus would be reached, or further discussion - which could again, be brought back to the neighborhood to share. In fact, rotating the role of delegate would be a really good idea, so that multiple people can get a better idea of the issues in the wider community and understanding of how the bottom-up power structure functions.
This sounds like a really good idea, but let me point something out: For the sake of efficiency, it would quickly make sense for most neighbourhoods to give their delegate a mandate of the type “We want something like this, but you can make minor changes to points X, Y, and Z in order to reach an agreement with the others”. For example: We want the new road to be a gravel road that’s about 2 m wide, but you can decide the exact quality of gravel, and whether the road is 1.5 m or 2.5 m in the meeting with the others. Whether we have light posts every 40 or 80 meters isn’t so important, as long as the road is well lit (just make sure the lights are strong enough if they’re widely spaced).
Further, once we get to scaling this up from the neighbourhood level to a scale of hundreds of thousands or millions of people, we’re going to get progressively more details and specialist tasks that need ironing out: Should there be import tariffs on any goods? If so, which? What should the tax be? Should it be progressive? If so, how should it scale? What should be the standard bridge-height on a highway (very useful to standardise if you want any kind of long-haul transport)? How many students should there be per teacher in classrooms at different grade levels, and what kind of education should we require from those teachers? etc. etc. etc. This absolutely massive number of questions that need answering, will in practice demand that your delegate receives some kind of mandate to make decisions within the limits of what you’ve decided.
The larger the society in question, the wider those limits will need to be in order for the society to be able to reach any kind of consensus within a reasonable time frame. If every detail needs to go neighbourhood meeting (O(100 people) => neighbourhood confederation (O(10 000) people) => community meeting (O(100 000) people) => national meeting (O(1 000 000) people) and back for every iteration, the kids are going to be grown before you’ve decided whether a 5th grade teacher needs minimum high-school level or university level mathematics in order to teach science classes, or even before you’ve decided on whether this should be something you coordinate at the national level or not for that matter.
Once you start giving your delegates a mandate to make decisions within some pre-determined limits… you’ve reinvented representative democracy.
I think that’s pretty reductionist to the argument I was making. I was arguing (with a long list of concrete examples) for why I think the system you’re outlining will either inevitably revert to representative democracy over time, or be incapable of working at a large (millions of people) scale. I’m not saying that none of what you said has merit, or that the form of representative democracy we work with today is the optimal system.
I think both of us (and anyone that has worked in a system where groups send delegates to super-groups to represent them) is familiar with the concept that our group decides on boundaries for what we think are acceptable decisions, and then gives our delegate a mandate to come to an agreement within those boundaries. The simple reason is that negotiations take extremely long if every iteration needs to go up and down the entire decision chain, so the negotiators (delegates) need some kind of flexibility to come to an agreement. I provided plenty of examples of situations where this is applicable.
To be honest, it seems a bit to me like you might have a slightly narrow view on what “representative democracy” entails. I would argue that once you have a delegate representing your interests with any kind of leeway to make decisions (that is, they’re actually a delegate, not just a messenger), you’re working with representative democracy. You can have a wide range of ways to decide who the delegate should be, how broad their mandate should be, and how long they function for. However, if the delegate has any kind of mandate outside of being a messenger, I think it stands that you’re electing (choosing one person from a group by consensus is a form of election) a representative to represent your interests, and thus have a representative democracy.
I’m the first to admit that power can corrupt, and that any representative democracy should have solid mechanisms in place to prevent the emergence of a “ruler class” (which most representative democracies today have in some form or other). Doing stuff like limiting the duration and number of terms is of course one option. At the end of the day, it largely boils down to a tradeoff between efficient management vs. direct involvement of everyone affected. Like you said, the most efficient decision making system is probably a dictatorship, but at that point we’ve tipped over into the opposite ditch (no involvement from the people affected).
For the record, I’m not the person downvoting you :)