3 ms·
It's a big leap to go from proposing more regionally-appropriate subdivisions of government to a single global government. I understand what you're trying to sa
by __derek__ 10y ago
It's a big leap to go from proposing more regionally-appropriate subdivisions of government to a single global government. I understand what you're trying to say, but there is no meaningful competition here. Boston is the region's center of gravity, and neither Providence nor Manchester threaten that. Meaningful competition comes in at the inter-regional level (e.g., Boston vs. New York).
- Retric 10y agoBostion is not a single entity, it's an interconnected network of many types of entity's and local governments etc. Each of those local governments both compete with and help each other.
- __derek__ 10y agoYes, the point was that the status quo is strange. See the GP.
- colechristensen 10y agoWhy can't meaningful competition happen at every level from between nations to between neighbors? Sure, you can propose I merge my family with the family next door as a more "regionally-appropriate subdivision", but how can you justify it (or justify against it)? It can make a lot of sense for different sections of the same metropolis to compete for residents, businesses, etc. The dynamics of which competition is healthy and constructive and which competition is unhealthy and destructive is an interesting problem, and it isn't settled by personal opinions of "common sense".
- __derek__ 10y agoOh, absolutely. I don't mean to suggest that that sort of local experimentation* isn't valuable: as you say, removing the ability for variation reduces policy to guesswork. It seems to me that that's more possible in a situation with a clearer idea of success (i.e. a stronger regional economy) than is possible with states that have competing priorities. * In re-reading, I think my bias is to call that local variation experimentation rather than competition. I'm a technocrat at heart.