3 ms·

You need to change the incentives of the federal government (specifically the congress) to be in more in favor of localism. In 1900, senators were (at least par

You need to change the incentives of the federal government (specifically the congress) to be in more in favor of localism. In 1900, senators were (at least partially) still appointed by state legislators and the local political parties held far greater control over their nomination process. Those mechanisms had their own issues with corruption and were replaced by more democratic processes, but they made members of congress far more beholden to local interests (particularly state and local elites.) In turn, you saw a lot more distrust of large national institutions and legislation to limit them. Almost all banks used to be local, for example, because of legislation strictly limiting branching. So to answer the question of "who deals with the titans" the answer is "the federal government, but they do so because they are beholden to state and local governments/institutions/elites." I'm not sure I see a path from where we are to making federal representatives more responsible to state institutions (my repeal the 17th amendment campaign never having gained much traction), but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
You'll have to forgive me. I live in a small population state (NM). I trust my local politicians far less than I trust the 3 or 4 we send to DC. When I lived in a larger population state (PA) the situation wasn't much different. The distrust of large national institutions is, IMO, a result of more than a century (or two!) worth of campaigning by the capital class to try to limit the belief in the virtues of the federal government. I consider the mere existence of this campaign (both overt and covert) to be another piece of evidence that the capital class regard the power of a strong federal government as a threat to their wealth and power. I also find it notable that I never hear anyone arguing for a stronger state government, but not odd because it fits with the general theme: rich people should be left alone to do whatever they want with the assets they control. I've said many times here on HN that back in the 1960s there was widespread interest in a part of what was then called "operations research" that focused on how to improve the behavior of large human organizations whether they were governments or private. Sadly, that interest faded, and now we just accept private organizational malfunction without saying much, and government organizational malfunction by repeating conservative, "small government" tropes.
- Brybry 5y ago
  I have to agree. While I do think for most government local institutions are better... the federal government has done more for freedom and prevention of abuse than my state certainly has. Living in the south it's very apparent that a weak federal government was a bad thing. Civil rights have to be mandated top down, history is the proof. And I believe there is still sufficient party interest and government design to protect "state's rights". Most federal programs are state/municipality implemented. Sure, the feds might stick rules to how money can be used, in order to prevent abuse, but that's a good thing.
  - landemva 5y ago
    ' ... federal government has done more for freedom and prevention of abuse than my state certainly has. ' Maybe reframe that to be federal constitution and courts.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

You'll have to forgive me. I live in a small population state (NM). I trust my local politicians far less than I trust the 3 or 4 we send to DC. When I lived in a larger population state (PA) the situation wasn't much different. The distrust of large national institutions is, IMO, a result of more than a century (or two!) worth of campaigning by the capital class to try to limit the belief in the virtues of the federal government. I consider the mere existence of this campaign (both overt and covert) to be another piece of evidence that the capital class regard the power of a strong federal government as a threat to their wealth and power. I also find it notable that I never hear anyone arguing for a stronger state government, but not odd because it fits with the general theme: rich people should be left alone to do whatever they want with the assets they control. I've said many times here on HN that back in the 1960s there was widespread interest in a part of what was then called "operations research" that focused on how to improve the behavior of large human organizations whether they were governments or private. Sadly, that interest faded, and now we just accept private organizational malfunction without saying much, and government organizational malfunction by repeating conservative, "small government" tropes.

Brybry 5y ago
I have to agree. While I do think for most government local institutions are better... the federal government has done more for freedom and prevention of abuse than my state certainly has. Living in the south it's very apparent that a weak federal government was a bad thing. Civil rights have to be mandated top down, history is the proof. And I believe there is still sufficient party interest and government design to protect "state's rights". Most federal programs are state/municipality implemented. Sure, the feds might stick rules to how money can be used, in order to prevent abuse, but that's a good thing.
- landemva 5y ago
  ' ... federal government has done more for freedom and prevention of abuse than my state certainly has. ' Maybe reframe that to be federal constitution and courts.