3 ms·

Most of these interactions actually seem rather benign. Politicians routinely attend company events, and I don't think there's a general problem with a photo-op

Most of these interactions actually seem rather benign. Politicians routinely attend company events, and I don't think there's a general problem with a photo-op wearing some company gear. What's really surprising, however, is the sort of decisions a US governor (or maybe just Arizona) is apparently involved in. In my small European country, a license to operate some new and potentially dangerous technology is a matter for some executive agency, which would routinely involve at least one expert on the technology and a lawyer. Now, obviously, that agency is part of the executive branch and theoretically below the Governor in a hierarchy. But in practice it's very similar to the federal US Government: the US President actually can't directly order some low-level bureaucrats at the FDA/SEC/etc to do anything. Such an order has to go through all the levels of that hierarchy. And if anyone refuses, their firing also has to follow that path. Individual decisions are almost completely independent from top leadership. A series of questionable decisions will probably get you reassigned to the mail room, but even then past decisions would usually remain in force. That system does not only strengthen the role of subject matter experts in the process and reduce the appearance of arbitrary favouritism. It's also in the best interest of politicians: to put your signature under an order allowing an individual safety-critical project without following some sort of established process is almost certain to end your career the first time one of those projects goes south. Less relevant nitpicks: - What exactly did Arizona stand to gain from a few hundred autonomous cars with minimum-wage drivers behind the wheel? It's not like Uber was going to move their software engineering to Tuscon, was it? - Getting free use of Uber's offices in San Francisco is obviously bribery if it was for personal or campaign staff. Although I guess it's technically legal in the US if properly reported.

purple-again 9y ago
One of the main points of the federation model was that it should be able to scale. Local regions rule themselves in nearly all things (the governor is the president of Alabama) and the regions people are only required to comply with a small number of issues that effect everyone (like national defense). Of course we all know how that ended up. The federal powers increased steadily until we got where we are. This is one of the reasons you see so much anger against the coasts and cities.
- IAmEveryone 9y ago
  I didn't mean that the federal agencies should necessarily have a role here. I would think that many US states also have agencies charged with administrating the law, something like a "Arizona Roadway Authority" or whatever. My comment was trying to explain how even within a single hierarchy like a state's executive, which a Governor at the top and traffic engineers somewhere below, it's peculiar to see someone jump so many levels of that hierarchy to assume control of a rather low-level decision.
- Steltek 9y ago
  With some exceptions, Federal powers increased because we couldn't agree that human beings are not property, among other basic rights issues. The touchstone moments were not simple disagreements on policy, it was the pot boiling over into extreme violence. Even the Federal model requires some basic level setting for it to function. There's either a rebalancing or the whole thing falls apart. Regardless, GP's points are notable just a local level. States have different weights assigned to executive and legislative. It appears that Arizona leans heavily towards a strong executive branch although I have to wonder if any laws were broken here. People expect corruption in US politics at this point but this incident has some staying power in the news.
  - bm1362 9y ago
    More so federal funding has bent states into the shape that the federal government wants them to be. Funding with strings and the interstate commerce clause subdued the States’ power realistically.

purple-again 9y ago

One of the main points of the federation model was that it should be able to scale. Local regions rule themselves in nearly all things (the governor is the president of Alabama) and the regions people are only required to comply with a small number of issues that effect everyone (like national defense). Of course we all know how that ended up. The federal powers increased steadily until we got where we are. This is one of the reasons you see so much anger against the coasts and cities.

IAmEveryone 9y ago
I didn't mean that the federal agencies should necessarily have a role here. I would think that many US states also have agencies charged with administrating the law, something like a "Arizona Roadway Authority" or whatever. My comment was trying to explain how even within a single hierarchy like a state's executive, which a Governor at the top and traffic engineers somewhere below, it's peculiar to see someone jump so many levels of that hierarchy to assume control of a rather low-level decision.
Steltek 9y ago
With some exceptions, Federal powers increased because we couldn't agree that human beings are not property, among other basic rights issues. The touchstone moments were not simple disagreements on policy, it was the pot boiling over into extreme violence. Even the Federal model requires some basic level setting for it to function. There's either a rebalancing or the whole thing falls apart. Regardless, GP's points are notable just a local level. States have different weights assigned to executive and legislative. It appears that Arizona leans heavily towards a strong executive branch although I have to wonder if any laws were broken here. People expect corruption in US politics at this point but this incident has some staying power in the news.
- bm1362 9y ago
  More so federal funding has bent states into the shape that the federal government wants them to be. Funding with strings and the interstate commerce clause subdued the States’ power realistically.