4 ms·

I feel like the problem with that idea is right there in the first sentence of the wikipedia article - should be dealt with at the most immediate (or local) lev

I feel like the problem with that idea is right there in the first sentence of the wikipedia article - should be dealt with at the most immediate (or local) level that is consistent with their resolution. Who decides what level that is? It never seems to be very straightforward, and a lot of important things end up having consequences that go way beyond what the folks arguing for the most granular level of local control will admit (see - housing, transit, climate change). Recreational pot sales is probably a pretty small issue in the scheme of things and will likely sort itself out eventually since there's money to be made. But the idea that local control is fundamentally a good thing seems pretty suspect to me based on how many examples there are of it going so badly.

wpietri 8y ago
No principle is universally applicable or produces perfect results. So I think, "If applied naively it sometimes has problems," is not a useful criticism of a principle. The examples you raise seem to be ones where you're saying that local control is not consistent with resolution of the issue. So it seems like you're agreeing with the principle, not contradicting it. Climate change and transit offer pretty clear examples where people have decided local control isn't sufficient, so they're resolving it at higher levels. See, e.g., the Paris accords, BART, and the various state and federal highway systems. Housing is clearly more complicated, but it seems like the principle is often being applied there too. Most control is local, but where that doesn't work, we see attempts to resolve it at higher levels. E.g., California's recent battle over the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act and Prop 10. Do you have an alternative principle in mind? If we don't start with the assumption that local control should be preferred, then what do you suggest instead? Historically it was the divine right of kings, which I'm not a fan of. And giving all power to the UN or the national government unless they decide otherwise also doesn't seem great.

wpietri 8y ago

No principle is universally applicable or produces perfect results. So I think, "If applied naively it sometimes has problems," is not a useful criticism of a principle. The examples you raise seem to be ones where you're saying that local control is not consistent with resolution of the issue. So it seems like you're agreeing with the principle, not contradicting it. Climate change and transit offer pretty clear examples where people have decided local control isn't sufficient, so they're resolving it at higher levels. See, e.g., the Paris accords, BART, and the various state and federal highway systems. Housing is clearly more complicated, but it seems like the principle is often being applied there too. Most control is local, but where that doesn't work, we see attempts to resolve it at higher levels. E.g., California's recent battle over the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act and Prop 10. Do you have an alternative principle in mind? If we don't start with the assumption that local control should be preferred, then what do you suggest instead? Historically it was the divine right of kings, which I'm not a fan of. And giving all power to the UN or the national government unless they decide otherwise also doesn't seem great.