3 ms·

I am to understand what you are saying is that it’s not the idea that government should be involved in everything, it’s that the government needs to be larger a

I am to understand what you are saying is that it’s not the idea that government should be involved in everything, it’s that the government needs to be larger and more centralized?

thebradbain 8y ago
Moreso the idea that, whenever trying to do something new (e.g. building a high speed rail), the layers of bureaucracy get in the way of themselves. There's too many governments that are more often opposed to each other than in agreement. The state's individuals overwhelmingly approved the HSR in referendum in 2007(!), yet local governments and counties tripped over themselves trying to sue the state and delay and kill this project. I would argue that, in extraordinary circumstances, the state's power should be able to override local powers: something like, this is a state-level project, so your local jurisdiction is limited. The case here is local powers holding the rest of the state hostage. California's government is great at maintaining the status quo, but trying to get local municipalities to implement a change in unison (building more housing, etc.) is like pulling teeth. That leads to cost overruns, delays, and the general sort of inefficiency we associate with government.
ummonk 8y ago
More specifically that institutions of government with larger jurisdiction should have more capability and institutions with smaller jurisdiction should have less capability. It isn’t about the amount of power that government as a whole has, but the distribution of it. It is better to centralize power in a central institution to maximize efficiency and enable anti-corruption watchdogs to concentrate their attention.
- SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
  >More specifically that institutions of government with larger jurisdiction should have more capability and institutions with smaller jurisdiction should have less capability. But not overhead and bureaucracy?

I am to understand what you are saying is that it’s not the idea that government should be involved in everything, it’s that the government needs to be larger and more centralized?

thebradbain 8y ago

Moreso the idea that, whenever trying to do something new (e.g. building a high speed rail), the layers of bureaucracy get in the way of themselves. There's too many governments that are more often opposed to each other than in agreement. The state's individuals overwhelmingly approved the HSR in referendum in 2007(!), yet local governments and counties tripped over themselves trying to sue the state and delay and kill this project. I would argue that, in extraordinary circumstances, the state's power should be able to override local powers: something like, this is a state-level project, so your local jurisdiction is limited. The case here is local powers holding the rest of the state hostage. California's government is great at maintaining the status quo, but trying to get local municipalities to implement a change in unison (building more housing, etc.) is like pulling teeth. That leads to cost overruns, delays, and the general sort of inefficiency we associate with government.

ummonk 8y ago

More specifically that institutions of government with larger jurisdiction should have more capability and institutions with smaller jurisdiction should have less capability. It isn’t about the amount of power that government as a whole has, but the distribution of it. It is better to centralize power in a central institution to maximize efficiency and enable anti-corruption watchdogs to concentrate their attention.

SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
>More specifically that institutions of government with larger jurisdiction should have more capability and institutions with smaller jurisdiction should have less capability. But not overhead and bureaucracy?