Sovereign power and compromise

Imagine any locale with the ability to produce energy locally, sustainably, with natural resources available to meet local needs.

A community in such a position might find certain local resoures lacking, and neighbors willing to trade resources for mutual benefit. If things are good, there may be the OPTION of expanding local production of energy or any resource for export, and allowing local wealth to be expanded.

If it is possible to evaluate production on the grounds of sustainability, there will be a limit on production, possibly estimatable, and if considered, would put a limit on exports and potential gains in short term wealth and prosperity.

As well, such a local can look at its population, how much local consumption takes up from the local resources. Population can be evaluated both on the "cost" (of consumption) and the "benefit" of extra labor capacity.

Anyway, for any locale, basically depending solely on local resources means diminished culture, having to do without things that they could otherwise have through trading.

On the other side, a locale may find local natural resources limited and focus more on buying resources from other places, and creating "value added" products to be sold again for a profit. That approach allows the potential of great profits, at the risk of their export products becoming less valuable, perhaps as others copy their techniques or underprice them. Ideally a community should see export income as a bonus to their wealth, but not depend on it.

If something new is to be produced, some level of investment and development must occur. If this investment takes too long, there's an incentive to speed things up by borrowing money from a neighbor, developing the resource or product, and when successfully exported, pay back the loan and interest. It's a risky deal for both lender and borrower, depending on the terms. A lender might ask for colateral, like land, to protect the investment, and a borrower who is willing to take the risk might agree because it promises quicker wealth if successful.

A powerful neighbor will tend to grow in power by providing access to wealth and resources for development, and skim off the cream of successes. Smaller locales, without strong bargaining skills or leverage, will take what terms they can get, if it promises wealth.

A powerful locale may also attract immigrants who will see greater opportunity, and a powerful locale may support immigration because poorer imported people will expect less and work hard.

A powerful locale might look at their wealth and power as a something to generate new wealth and power, or it might look forward and see their wealth and power is not sustainable, and a future time may come where wealth and power is not as easy. They might prepare for a future which does not depend as much on expanding wealth and power.

Such a conservative wealthy locale would have to look more seriously at population, which may not be sustainable in a future when imported wealth dries up and local resources must be used to meet local needs. If people see opportunity here rather than where they come from, a smarter approach would be to help neighboring locales make more opportunity, and also set some limits on local population that can be supported under harder times.

Even so, some advantages may not be sharable. One locale might have a great river to provide hydropower, but only so much land to grow food. If local population exceeds the potential for local food, should population be limited? What could be done to limit population growth?

AND even if a local population finds plenty of resources, and relative wealth and posperity, and controls its populations, what should it do with neighbors who have too many people to meet their own needs with anything like a similar standard of living?

Perhaps the neighboring populations have shorter lifespans, and people die of simple things that could be handled with knowledge. Should the "reasoned community" share its well-being on exporting antibiotics or better sanitation or food production systems that can grow more food with care, even if can be abused and decrease the future fertility and potential for the land?

I wonder such things, imagining I am in the "reasoned community" looking down at the "suffering masses" and THINK I have something to offer for my knowledge and experience. I might even find benefit, since if my neighbors prosper more, they can share their own resources in trade and improve my community.

I can imagine two seemingly honorable sides (1) The conservative side that hoards and protects resources for defending my future (2) The benefits of trade to everyone's short term gain.

The conservative ideally gets ahead and shares only what can be safely shared, but the conservative might still be the monkey in the tree looking out for preditors. Our species evolved by boldness, taking risks, and exploiting opportunties without our grasp, using communal protection to average out the failures and shortfalls.

I guess my main point is that there is such thing as "sovereign" power of every community to govern its own destiny. This power is limited by the benevolence of neighbors who may be more powerful, as well as local cleverness to protect its own resources.

All trade agreements are advanced by those who benefit the greatest from trade, and this "greed" will tend to encourage people to surrender part of their community's sovereign powers in exchange for immediate advantage. In "good times" such agreements will tend to benefit every (via trickle down economics or whatever) but will always benefit some more than others. Those on top will tend to unfairly wield power, even unintentially, making the weaker side take greater risks, and the weaker sides must agree to any terms, because it promises something better.

It would be nice to believe in benevolent power, and it can exist, in "economic aid", in sharing knowledge, in open borders to development, but even benevolent power can fail to help in the long term problems. When it comes down to it, even the best intentions can go astray, and power corrupting decisions.

I just have to wonder how it all works out. I'm confident our successes has encouraged too much local responsibility being abdicated, and that the consequences are good and bad, good for increased affluence, and bad because centralized power and local knowledge are separated.

I have to wonder how our excesses will be "cured", and since I don't see them cured through benevolent centralized power, it must come through locales reasserting their independence, setting limits on their dependence upon external resources for local needs. And as scary as it seems, the poor must lead. The poorest must assert first, what power they can find, and not accept the easy road of development through imported resources.

It's a fun thought because the truth of it exists at many levels, from individuals to families to towns to cities to states to nations. We must all strive to stand on our own and hold our independence, at least as a goal, accept sometimes a slower path is better, even when seemingly benevolent forces are offering aid.

It's one of those "divergent problems" with no right solutions. The only thing to realize is neither side can win - complete surrender or complete sovereign power, and both perspectives are needed.