What applies today.
Fedlex and Aargau’s official collection define the real baseline. Political proposals are not presented as current law.
Evidence trail · Version 1.3
I separate current law, research, political standards and my own normative choices here. Where a source supports only part of an argument, the limitation is stated explicitly.
01 · Reading rule
Fedlex and Aargau’s official collection define the real baseline. Political proposals are not presented as current law.
Comparative work provides mechanisms, risks and criteria, but no automatic political endorsement.
Fundamental and human rights constrain every local majority, transition strategy and emergency power.
The dossiers remain political discussion drafts. Sources support partial assumptions; they do not prove a complete ideology.
02 · Bibliography
Legal baseline for fundamental rights, political rights, the rule of law, subsidiarity and municipal autonomy. It describes the present starting point, not the Deluist target model.
Open original source ↗Existing Swiss legal form for collective self-help. It provides an immediately usable transition path but does not by itself amount to wider economic democracy.
Open original source ↗Cantonal baseline for fundamental rights, popular rights, municipalities and public responsibilities.
Open original source ↗Governs present municipal bodies, competences, supervision and finance. The roadmap distinguishes measures possible within this framework from reforms requiring legal change.
Open original source ↗Procedures for cantonal and municipal elections, votes and municipal assemblies.
Open original source ↗International reference for voluntary membership, democratic member control, autonomy, education and cooperation among cooperatives.
Open original source ↗Internationally agreed framework for supportive cooperative policy without state capture or legal discrimination.
Open original source ↗Empirical and institutional reference for polycentric governance and self-governed commons. It also cautions against universal one-size-fits-all solutions.
Open original source ↗Minimum standards and evaluation criteria for representative deliberation: purpose, representation, learning, independence, impact and public evaluation.
Open original source ↗Comparative practice source on the opportunities, limits and procedural questions of participatory budgeting.
Open original source ↗Non-negotiable human-rights framework for political participation, expression, assembly, association and equal protection of the law.
Open original source ↗Human-rights reference for work, social security, health, education and participation in cultural life.
Open original source ↗Local primary source for Aarau’s CHF 50,000 participatory-budget pilot. It grounds the model calculation but does not endorse its proposed scale.
Open original source ↗Official reference for the city’s budgeted turnover. The practice calculation uses it only as a denominator and claims no political endorsement.
Open original source ↗Legal framework for transformations and asset transfers. Relevant to an employee buyout, but no substitute for case-specific tax and legal review.
Open original source ↗Practical baseline for valuation, financing and process risks in business succession. It does not advocate Deluist ownership policy.
Open original source ↗A classic challenge to the assumption that informal groups become egalitarian without formal structures. It supports transparent mandates and accountability over romanticised structurelessness.
Open original source ↗A strong challenge to central planning: relevant knowledge is distributed, local and often tacit. Deluism must show that federation handles this problem rather than merely renaming it.
Open original source ↗03 · Claim → evidence
Legal basis: Code of Obligations, Articles 828–926. Democratic quality: ICA and ILO R193.
Legal and human-rights baseline: Federal Constitution, Aargau Constitution and ICCPR.
Comparative frame: OECD guidelines and World Bank practice on participatory budgeting.
Ostrom’s research supports neither state centralism nor market monism and warns against one universal institution.
04 · Criticism that changes the draft
Objection: Informal networks can govern less transparently than formal bodies.
Consequence: Every working group needs a public mandate, rotation, minutes and recallable responsibility. “Flat” is not evidence of quality.
Read Freeman ↗Objection: Prices and local experience contain distributed knowledge a planning council cannot completely collect.
Consequence: Provision goals must remain narrow; local units choose means, report shortages and may justify deviations. Whether this is enough remains open.
Read Hayek ↗Objection: A CHF 50,000 participatory budget says little about billion-franc budgets, crises or distributional conflict.
Consequence: The practice calculation is labelled as a scenario, includes stop rules and may scale only after public evaluation.
Examine the Aarau pilot ↗05 · Challenge
A reference shows where an argument comes from; it does not settle the argument. Compare the proposed institutions with the objections and the limits identified for each source.