4 ms·

The US takes localism to extremes in order to preserve historic fiefdoms and injustices. The stated desire is to prevent government abuse of powers by keeping

The US takes localism to extremes in order to preserve historic fiefdoms and injustices. The stated desire is to prevent government abuse of powers by keeping the governments small and limiting the powers of the larger ones, but if you look at actions rather than words, it's less about restricting government and more about preserving existing power structures. Reconstruction is one of the most egregious examples.

rjkennedy98 6y ago
Yeah because our federal government is some grand example of honesty and good governance.
- eropple 6y ago
  By comparison: yes, for the most part, the federal government is such an example. It's by no means perfect but, yeah, for the most part it works pretty well and relatively honestly. Always room for improvement--but the critical difference is that, when it is not, there are ways to expose the need for improvement and to push change that will not, full stop, ever even start at local and even state levels. And even were it not: the unquestioned (and, tbh, often profoundly racist when not merely corrupt) localized governmental structures in question are still wrong, so attempting to sandbag criticism of them by pointing at the federal government, regardless of its status, smells a mite bit fishy.
  - mulmen 6y ago
    The federal government may do its current job well but that doesn't imply it can do a better job at local governance than... local government. I'm thankful that no Kentucky voters are able to make decisions about my city, for example. There are real benefits to small local government. Yes, there are also problems but that doesn't mean the system is wrong fundamentally. This sword cuts both ways.
    - bsanr2 6y ago
      Again, this is a canard. Local government in some areas have been shown to make bad decisions that trample on explicit and enumerated rights (rather than the arbitrary or vague "rights" that are conjured to impede reform). Speaking broadly, and particularly of the late 20th century, when the federal government has stepped in to unilaterally overrule state and local government, it has been on the right side of history. There are, of course, a number of infamous exceptions, but the fact that I would likely be unable to converse with you w/o the federal gov't's historic interventions speaks loudly to their efficacy in suh matters.
      - ultrarunner 6y ago
        The hierarchy is a confounding factor. I imagine you could cite the opposite situation happening if the hierarchy was flat. However, e.g., no local government stepped in to end US-sanctioned torture chiefly because the hierarchy doesn't allow it, not because local governments were all pro-torture. It seems clear throughout the arc of history that people generally want the right things— when it's important to speak out people have historically done so. Their membership in any particular governmental body isn't the impetus, but rather probably confers a varying degree of disadvantage because of perverse incentives to their continued hold of power. That local government also tramples rights is more an argument for checks and balances than a reversal of federalism.
        bsanr2 6y ago
        Local gov't trades reach and power for proximity and savvy. This manifests as fairly equal amounts of influence from each level of the "hierarchy". I think it's funny that you would use torture as your example, considering that several municipalities (most infamously Chicago and its PD) have been caught torturing suspects and have been placed under federal watch if not control in order to curb their abuses. What's important about federal oversight is that it is accountability. The ultimate fact is that few institutions, let alone local ones with limited budgets and moral hazards/incestuous conflicts of interest galore, are capable of effectively policing themselves.
      - 6y ago
  - BurningFrog 6y ago
    Say what you will about Minneapolis city government, at least it never invaded any foreign lands and killed hundreds of thousands of people.
    - NationalPark 6y ago
      Well, except at the beginning.
    - kbenson 6y ago
      Well, Tulsa may not have invaded foreign lands, or killed hundreds of thousands of people, but scaled to the size of the locale...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - debacle 6y ago
    It is likely that you can compare the federal government to specific muni/state governments favorably, but against the sum of muni/state governments, it's a wash.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > It's by no means perfect but, yeah, for the most part it works pretty well and relatively honestly. Its current primary function appears to be taking in tax dollars from regular middle class people and transferring them to corporate campaign donors and special interest groups, or whatever the people in swing districts want to the detriment of everybody else. That this may not legally be corruption doesn't mean that it's doing something good or that we wouldn't be better off on net if it would simply stop doing that. > Always room for improvement--but the critical difference is that, when it is not, there... ...is nowhere to hide because whatever harm or corruption is implemented at the national level can't be avoided by moving to another neighborhood or another city. > And even were it not: the unquestioned (and, tbh, often profoundly racist when not merely corrupt) localized governmental structures in question are still wrong, so attempting to sandbag criticism of them by pointing at the federal government, regardless of its status, smells a mite bit fishy. When something is wrong and someone proposes as a solution something that not only doesn't remove the problem but actually makes it worse, they're not saying that the problem isn't a problem, they're saying that the "solution" isn't a solution.
    - nickff 6y ago
      If you look at the federal budget, most of it goes to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. So by the numbers, the federal government's primary function is to take money from working people, and transfer it to the states and the retired.
      - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        Transferring money "to the states" while requiring them to not only spend it in a specific way but add even more money to that pot first if they want to get it at all is in reality transferring money from the states. And given that Florida is disproportionately retirees and a major swing state, all you're doing is proving the point.
ArkVark 6y ago
I would argue that whatever the USA is doing is working. The USA has substantially lower taxes and higher salaries, including for the poorest, than the rest of the Western world. The USA policeforce seems focused on policing, whereas Police Forces in countries like the UK spend time monitoring online behavior whilst ignoring child grooming gangs. Its also interesting that in the original article, the examples listed are mundane traffic offenses, and the only serious abuse is entirely fictional - from the Sorpranos.
- Talanes 6y ago
  "The USA policeforce seems focused on policing" In my experience, they seem mostly focused on figuring out how much time they can get paid for standing around chatting. Others experiences vary, but I don't know many people who would put "policing" high on the list of things US Police focus on.

rjkennedy98 6y ago

Yeah because our federal government is some grand example of honesty and good governance.

eropple 6y ago
By comparison: yes, for the most part, the federal government is such an example. It's by no means perfect but, yeah, for the most part it works pretty well and relatively honestly. Always room for improvement--but the critical difference is that, when it is not, there are ways to expose the need for improvement and to push change that will not, full stop, ever even start at local and even state levels. And even were it not: the unquestioned (and, tbh, often profoundly racist when not merely corrupt) localized governmental structures in question are still wrong, so attempting to sandbag criticism of them by pointing at the federal government, regardless of its status, smells a mite bit fishy.
- mulmen 6y ago
  The federal government may do its current job well but that doesn't imply it can do a better job at local governance than... local government. I'm thankful that no Kentucky voters are able to make decisions about my city, for example. There are real benefits to small local government. Yes, there are also problems but that doesn't mean the system is wrong fundamentally. This sword cuts both ways.
  - bsanr2 6y ago
    Again, this is a canard. Local government in some areas have been shown to make bad decisions that trample on explicit and enumerated rights (rather than the arbitrary or vague "rights" that are conjured to impede reform). Speaking broadly, and particularly of the late 20th century, when the federal government has stepped in to unilaterally overrule state and local government, it has been on the right side of history. There are, of course, a number of infamous exceptions, but the fact that I would likely be unable to converse with you w/o the federal gov't's historic interventions speaks loudly to their efficacy in suh matters.
    - ultrarunner 6y ago
      The hierarchy is a confounding factor. I imagine you could cite the opposite situation happening if the hierarchy was flat. However, e.g., no local government stepped in to end US-sanctioned torture chiefly because the hierarchy doesn't allow it, not because local governments were all pro-torture. It seems clear throughout the arc of history that people generally want the right things— when it's important to speak out people have historically done so. Their membership in any particular governmental body isn't the impetus, but rather probably confers a varying degree of disadvantage because of perverse incentives to their continued hold of power. That local government also tramples rights is more an argument for checks and balances than a reversal of federalism.
      - bsanr2 6y ago
        Local gov't trades reach and power for proximity and savvy. This manifests as fairly equal amounts of influence from each level of the "hierarchy". I think it's funny that you would use torture as your example, considering that several municipalities (most infamously Chicago and its PD) have been caught torturing suspects and have been placed under federal watch if not control in order to curb their abuses. What's important about federal oversight is that it is accountability. The ultimate fact is that few institutions, let alone local ones with limited budgets and moral hazards/incestuous conflicts of interest galore, are capable of effectively policing themselves.
    - 6y ago
- BurningFrog 6y ago
  Say what you will about Minneapolis city government, at least it never invaded any foreign lands and killed hundreds of thousands of people.
  - NationalPark 6y ago
    Well, except at the beginning.
  - kbenson 6y ago
    Well, Tulsa may not have invaded foreign lands, or killed hundreds of thousands of people, but scaled to the size of the locale...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- debacle 6y ago
  It is likely that you can compare the federal government to specific muni/state governments favorably, but against the sum of muni/state governments, it's a wash.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > It's by no means perfect but, yeah, for the most part it works pretty well and relatively honestly. Its current primary function appears to be taking in tax dollars from regular middle class people and transferring them to corporate campaign donors and special interest groups, or whatever the people in swing districts want to the detriment of everybody else. That this may not legally be corruption doesn't mean that it's doing something good or that we wouldn't be better off on net if it would simply stop doing that. > Always room for improvement--but the critical difference is that, when it is not, there... ...is nowhere to hide because whatever harm or corruption is implemented at the national level can't be avoided by moving to another neighborhood or another city. > And even were it not: the unquestioned (and, tbh, often profoundly racist when not merely corrupt) localized governmental structures in question are still wrong, so attempting to sandbag criticism of them by pointing at the federal government, regardless of its status, smells a mite bit fishy. When something is wrong and someone proposes as a solution something that not only doesn't remove the problem but actually makes it worse, they're not saying that the problem isn't a problem, they're saying that the "solution" isn't a solution.
  - nickff 6y ago
    If you look at the federal budget, most of it goes to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. So by the numbers, the federal government's primary function is to take money from working people, and transfer it to the states and the retired.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      Transferring money "to the states" while requiring them to not only spend it in a specific way but add even more money to that pot first if they want to get it at all is in reality transferring money from the states. And given that Florida is disproportionately retirees and a major swing state, all you're doing is proving the point.

ArkVark 6y ago

I would argue that whatever the USA is doing is working. The USA has substantially lower taxes and higher salaries, including for the poorest, than the rest of the Western world. The USA policeforce seems focused on policing, whereas Police Forces in countries like the UK spend time monitoring online behavior whilst ignoring child grooming gangs. Its also interesting that in the original article, the examples listed are mundane traffic offenses, and the only serious abuse is entirely fictional - from the Sorpranos.

Talanes 6y ago
"The USA policeforce seems focused on policing" In my experience, they seem mostly focused on figuring out how much time they can get paid for standing around chatting. Others experiences vary, but I don't know many people who would put "policing" high on the list of things US Police focus on.