> The purpose of their corruption is precisely so that they don't have to live with the consequences of their actions.
If they're local, they live there, so they can't avoid the consequences. The law of unintended consequences applies to corrupt officials just like it applies to everybody else. The reason corrupt officials in our current system can avoid those consequences is that they don't have to live in the places they govern. That's true even of many so-called "local" officials: mayors and city council members often don't live in the cities they govern.
> Not if the local people with power disallow it.
How are they going to prevent people from leaving? If the only resources they can draw on are local, their power will be too limited.
Basically, your picture of "local" seems to be the way "local" works in our current society, which allows localities that are politically favored by higher level governments to draw on resources from those governments. But that's not actaully local; it's the higher level, non-local governments using the lower-level governments as political tools.
consequences applies to corrupt officials just like it applies to everybody else
But consequences may not apply to everyone else. What if local bosses make a law that firearms holders have to turn in their firearms? What if local bosses make a law that blacks have to be slaves? What are the consequences that the local bosses are living with? (Assuming no interference by non local authorities.)
How are they going to prevent people from leaving? If the only resources they can draw on are local
Local bosses make law that it's illegal for anyone other than his henchmen and women to have firearms. Local bosses also make law that leaving town is illegal. Local bosses also orders searches of homes to confiscate firearms. Finally, local bosses authorize deadly force to deal with law breakers.
In this scenario, no outside help is necessary for the local bosses. (I suppose the factory they buy their guns from might be from outside the locality, but that's about it.) Heck, the bosses might even have the support of many of the pearl clutching local citizens. Some of whom might even, gasp, sell me out to the local bosses.
This example is contrived, but has happened often enough in human history for me to want to know how the local citizens can leave before I would concede to living under such a system. There has never been an example of such a system in modern history where non-local powers were not involved in liberating the local citizenry. So if you can outline a credible method for the unarmed citizenry to exercise the freedom to move away, I'd certainly be interested in hearing it.
> What if local bosses make a law that firearms holders have to turn in their firearms?
How are they going to enforce such a law? (Same question for your other examples.)
> (Assuming no interference by non local authorities.)
You must be joking. Without support from non-local authorities, local bosses would simply be laughed at if they tried such things. Where you see such things going on in localities, it's because of support from non-local authorities.
> This example is contrived, but has happened often enough in human history
Please give specific examples. I'm not aware of any case where local bosses got away with such things without any support from a non-local, higher-level government.
> if you can outline a credible method for the unarmed citizenry...
In the historically default situation, the citizenry is not unarmed. Having large numbers of citizens unarmed is a recent and historically aberrant situation, and requires a huge level of support from higher level governments to even make possible. Local authorities in a society where higher level governments do not exist or do not provide such huge support for disarming citizens simply won't have unarmed citizens to play with.
If they're local, they live there, so they can't avoid the consequences. The law of unintended consequences applies to corrupt officials just like it applies to everybody else. The reason corrupt officials in our current system can avoid those consequences is that they don't have to live in the places they govern. That's true even of many so-called "local" officials: mayors and city council members often don't live in the cities they govern.
> Not if the local people with power disallow it.
How are they going to prevent people from leaving? If the only resources they can draw on are local, their power will be too limited.
Basically, your picture of "local" seems to be the way "local" works in our current society, which allows localities that are politically favored by higher level governments to draw on resources from those governments. But that's not actaully local; it's the higher level, non-local governments using the lower-level governments as political tools.