4 ms·
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 ar
by 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 agoThe 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 agoLocal 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.
- mulmen 6y agoSure but my point is just that we still need local government and there are real benefits to small government. I agree there are also benefits to federal oversight but I don't believe that more federal power or control would continue to be beneficial. The balance is important and I prefer as much power concentrated as close to me where I have a chance to influence it.
- bsanr2 6y agoWell, that's a preference, not an argument. I would prefer not to be held captive by the cultural inertia of former slaveholding and/or union-busting local government, and appreciate the assistance of far-flung compatriots in ridding us of their residual insults to individual and collective dignity.
- mulmen 6y agoYeah I disagree that you can effect real change on a national level without first proving the ideas on a smaller scale. Local governments can be progressive as well as oppressive. I don't pretend to know what people halfway across the country know. I don't want specific input into their lives.