8 ms·

But is there any way to exploit this effect? I am a big believer in federalism and even further devolution of power to smaller polities. It's a good tradeoff of

But is there any way to exploit this effect? I am a big believer in federalism and even further devolution of power to smaller polities. It's a good tradeoff of liberty vs. society: If you don't like the way your city is run, it's a lot easier to move to the next town over than it is to leave the country. As a result, despite being a pretty laissez faire guy, I'm much more tolerant of, say, San Francisco banning plastic shopping bags than if the EPA were to do so. It also has the pleasant result of giving voters much more direct control over the way the government that affects them most is run. Their vote really does matter; it is, in many ways, a "bet" on which policies will provide the best outcomes for them.

crusso 13y ago
it is, in many ways, a "bet" on which policies will provide the best outcomes for them Which is why many people shy away from it. Voters don't want to be responsible for their votes and their actions. More and more we see the populace wanting to hand over control of their lives to someone else. They live vicariously through celebrities and movies while eagerly voting to redistribute wealth via the Nanny State. Occupy Wall Street was right in tune with this no-repercussions thinking. Capitalism was squarely in the OWS crosshairs since Capitalism is the best way we have of keeping track of good and bad decisions. The forecast is for more of the same. The TEA Party was the last gasp of a desire of a minor segment of society that wanted to reduce the size of government and increase individual Liberty. They've pretty much been shouted down by the thought leaders with the biggest megaphones in our society.
- scotch_drinker 13y ago
  The juxtaposition of this comment on an article about how bullshit levels go way down when bullshitters are financially responsible for their statements practically blows my irony meter up. Capitalism was squarely in the OWS crosshairs since Capitalism is the best way we have of keeping track of good and bad decisions. Sigh. OWS was protesting the fact that the government handed over billions of dollars to Wall Street banks while middle America got shafted. Either you don't know what capitalism is or you're just spouting talking points. Or possibly both. OWS and the Tea Party were the opposite sides of the same ideological coin. They went about it different ways but they were both concerned with fairness and ending governmental oligarchy.
  - gottasayit 13y ago
    The OWS Manifesto completely contradicts your contention. http://www.peoplesassemblies.org/2012/05/may-12th-globalmay-statement/ http://www.peoplesassemblies.org/2012/05/may-12th-globalmay-...
    - scotch_drinker 13y ago
      That manifesto completely contradicts itself mostly. I'm not sure which of my contentions (that OWS was protesting against the huge bailouts or that they are of the same ideological bent as the Tea Party) you're referring to but there are enough points in the linked manifesto to support either including : We are living in a world controlled by forces incapable of giving freedom and dignity to the world´s population (if, indeed, they ever were). A world where we are told ‘there is no alternative’ to the loss of rights achieved through the long, hard struggles of our ancestors. Yes, point 1 is clearly socialist in nature but point 2 is clearly democratic in nature. This is the inherent problem of trying to singularly define a movement that is made up grassroots organizations, each with their own agenda. But the theme behind all of them is the social and economic inequality that resulted from the bailouts. The societal themes that brought both OWS and the Tea Party to life were the same. How they went about addressing them may have been different but the underlying hopes were very similar.
  - acheron 13y ago
    If OWS were protesting the government handing over billions of dollars, it would have been called "Occupy the Capitol Building".
    - scotch_drinker 13y ago
      Depends on who you think is in charge, the government or Wall Street.
- jbooth 13y ago
  I disagree, I think that MY tribal group is totally right no matter what and YOUR tribal group is totally wrong no matter what. I'm gonna namedrop the concept of 'austrian economics' while I'm at it in order to prove that I'm a detached, rational analyst of the situation.
  - crusso 13y ago
    You completely missed the point of the article. All positions aren't equivalent and equally chosen when consequences are on the line. I was drawing a connection between the economic system of Capitalism and consequences vs the Nanny State of big government which avoids consequences.
    - jbooth 13y ago
      Yes, you imputed nothing but noble motives and plans to your tribal group, while for the other tribal group, you set them up with not only a bad plan but explicitly bad motives! Then brought in some keywords about capitalism (they're trying to destroy it!), the Nanny State (that's what they want!). Frankly, I'm surprised you restrained yourself from accusing them of supporting Josef Stalin. From here, the conversation goes into nutpicking, you'll find some dreadlocked retard who actually says he opposes all corporations while his parents' investment account pays his college tuition. I'll respond with the "keep government away from my medicare" lady. And so on. Meanwhile, no common sense reform happens in Washington.
      - crusso 13y ago
        you set them up with not only a bad plan but explicitly bad motives They aren't my plan or motives, so don't blame me for them. I simply labeled them. I think you're more offended that I'm daring to point them out than anything, which is a shame because you should be offended by the people pushing low accountability agendas. Meanwhile, no common sense reform happens in Washington You're hardly demonstrating how Washington can do things any better when you spew a bunch of vitriol against me that had zero justification to support the low accountability agendas that are actually in the context of the article this whole thread is based upon. Then you threw in some hyperbole that wasn't even close to being in my original post, referencing Stalin and Austrian Economics.
rayiner 13y ago
The problem of federalism is that a lot of polities will be shitty and the rest of the country won't stand for it. Segregation would still probably be legal in many parts of the country if the federal government hadn't put the states in their place in the 1960's and 1970's. Also, how do you reconcile glorification of federalism with the fact that the level of corruption and general terribleness in the big state governments is far worse than that of the federal government, despite the federal government being much larger and more extensive? Would you really rather devolve power from the federal government to California, Illinois, New York, Texas, or Florida? Ohio, Georgia, Massachusetts? Sure, as you say you can move, and that's a fair point, but the only states that are arguably well-run are the ones that are also insignificant in terms of population and GDP (or have economies based on unsustainable things like federal spending (Virginia), oil resources (the Dakotas), etc).
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- twoodfin 13y ago
  Both really good points. First, I'd mention that lots of polities are pretty shitty right now in a variety of ways, and yet (mostly) continue to be left to their own devices. True injustice gets the citizenry's gander up to be sure (and rightfully so!), but there doesn't seem to be much agitation for the Federal government to dictate to failing cities like Detroit or to crummy school districts in Kansas where they don't teach science when they don't like what it says. As to corruption: I agree that state governments are more corrupt, but I still like the tradeoff. In a hypothetical world where state and local governments had more power (read: more money directly under their control), I'd hope that the media and the voters would pay closer attention. Probably a dream, but even so, just because a system is less corrupt doesn't mean it's making better decisions. A bureaucrat in Washington can have great intentions, but if he screws up badly, it's the whole country that suffers the consequences. Most importantly, there's no way to explore the counterfactual of a nation without that bad decision having been made. Obviously states and localities never provide perfect "controls" in the laboratory of democracy, but watching the future of, say, Texas vs. California will provide us with some good notions about the practical effects of very different views of the role of government. I'm not really arguing for a wholesale devolution of power. I have no problem with the Feds continuing to build highways and run the FDA. But the extent to which state governments (mostly voluntarily!) are becoming addicted to a range of "free" Federal aid and its associated strings is a bothersome development.

crusso 13y ago

it is, in many ways, a "bet" on which policies will provide the best outcomes for them Which is why many people shy away from it. Voters don't want to be responsible for their votes and their actions. More and more we see the populace wanting to hand over control of their lives to someone else. They live vicariously through celebrities and movies while eagerly voting to redistribute wealth via the Nanny State. Occupy Wall Street was right in tune with this no-repercussions thinking. Capitalism was squarely in the OWS crosshairs since Capitalism is the best way we have of keeping track of good and bad decisions. The forecast is for more of the same. The TEA Party was the last gasp of a desire of a minor segment of society that wanted to reduce the size of government and increase individual Liberty. They've pretty much been shouted down by the thought leaders with the biggest megaphones in our society.

scotch_drinker 13y ago
The juxtaposition of this comment on an article about how bullshit levels go way down when bullshitters are financially responsible for their statements practically blows my irony meter up. Capitalism was squarely in the OWS crosshairs since Capitalism is the best way we have of keeping track of good and bad decisions. Sigh. OWS was protesting the fact that the government handed over billions of dollars to Wall Street banks while middle America got shafted. Either you don't know what capitalism is or you're just spouting talking points. Or possibly both. OWS and the Tea Party were the opposite sides of the same ideological coin. They went about it different ways but they were both concerned with fairness and ending governmental oligarchy.
- gottasayit 13y ago
  The OWS Manifesto completely contradicts your contention. http://www.peoplesassemblies.org/2012/05/may-12th-globalmay-statement/ http://www.peoplesassemblies.org/2012/05/may-12th-globalmay-...
  - scotch_drinker 13y ago
    That manifesto completely contradicts itself mostly. I'm not sure which of my contentions (that OWS was protesting against the huge bailouts or that they are of the same ideological bent as the Tea Party) you're referring to but there are enough points in the linked manifesto to support either including : We are living in a world controlled by forces incapable of giving freedom and dignity to the world´s population (if, indeed, they ever were). A world where we are told ‘there is no alternative’ to the loss of rights achieved through the long, hard struggles of our ancestors. Yes, point 1 is clearly socialist in nature but point 2 is clearly democratic in nature. This is the inherent problem of trying to singularly define a movement that is made up grassroots organizations, each with their own agenda. But the theme behind all of them is the social and economic inequality that resulted from the bailouts. The societal themes that brought both OWS and the Tea Party to life were the same. How they went about addressing them may have been different but the underlying hopes were very similar.
- acheron 13y ago
  If OWS were protesting the government handing over billions of dollars, it would have been called "Occupy the Capitol Building".
  - scotch_drinker 13y ago
    Depends on who you think is in charge, the government or Wall Street.
jbooth 13y ago
I disagree, I think that MY tribal group is totally right no matter what and YOUR tribal group is totally wrong no matter what. I'm gonna namedrop the concept of 'austrian economics' while I'm at it in order to prove that I'm a detached, rational analyst of the situation.
- crusso 13y ago
  You completely missed the point of the article. All positions aren't equivalent and equally chosen when consequences are on the line. I was drawing a connection between the economic system of Capitalism and consequences vs the Nanny State of big government which avoids consequences.
  - jbooth 13y ago
    Yes, you imputed nothing but noble motives and plans to your tribal group, while for the other tribal group, you set them up with not only a bad plan but explicitly bad motives! Then brought in some keywords about capitalism (they're trying to destroy it!), the Nanny State (that's what they want!). Frankly, I'm surprised you restrained yourself from accusing them of supporting Josef Stalin. From here, the conversation goes into nutpicking, you'll find some dreadlocked retard who actually says he opposes all corporations while his parents' investment account pays his college tuition. I'll respond with the "keep government away from my medicare" lady. And so on. Meanwhile, no common sense reform happens in Washington.
    - crusso 13y ago
      you set them up with not only a bad plan but explicitly bad motives They aren't my plan or motives, so don't blame me for them. I simply labeled them. I think you're more offended that I'm daring to point them out than anything, which is a shame because you should be offended by the people pushing low accountability agendas. Meanwhile, no common sense reform happens in Washington You're hardly demonstrating how Washington can do things any better when you spew a bunch of vitriol against me that had zero justification to support the low accountability agendas that are actually in the context of the article this whole thread is based upon. Then you threw in some hyperbole that wasn't even close to being in my original post, referencing Stalin and Austrian Economics.

rayiner 13y ago

The problem of federalism is that a lot of polities will be shitty and the rest of the country won't stand for it. Segregation would still probably be legal in many parts of the country if the federal government hadn't put the states in their place in the 1960's and 1970's. Also, how do you reconcile glorification of federalism with the fact that the level of corruption and general terribleness in the big state governments is far worse than that of the federal government, despite the federal government being much larger and more extensive? Would you really rather devolve power from the federal government to California, Illinois, New York, Texas, or Florida? Ohio, Georgia, Massachusetts? Sure, as you say you can move, and that's a fair point, but the only states that are arguably well-run are the ones that are also insignificant in terms of population and GDP (or have economies based on unsustainable things like federal spending (Virginia), oil resources (the Dakotas), etc).

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
twoodfin 13y ago
Both really good points. First, I'd mention that lots of polities are pretty shitty right now in a variety of ways, and yet (mostly) continue to be left to their own devices. True injustice gets the citizenry's gander up to be sure (and rightfully so!), but there doesn't seem to be much agitation for the Federal government to dictate to failing cities like Detroit or to crummy school districts in Kansas where they don't teach science when they don't like what it says. As to corruption: I agree that state governments are more corrupt, but I still like the tradeoff. In a hypothetical world where state and local governments had more power (read: more money directly under their control), I'd hope that the media and the voters would pay closer attention. Probably a dream, but even so, just because a system is less corrupt doesn't mean it's making better decisions. A bureaucrat in Washington can have great intentions, but if he screws up badly, it's the whole country that suffers the consequences. Most importantly, there's no way to explore the counterfactual of a nation without that bad decision having been made. Obviously states and localities never provide perfect "controls" in the laboratory of democracy, but watching the future of, say, Texas vs. California will provide us with some good notions about the practical effects of very different views of the role of government. I'm not really arguing for a wholesale devolution of power. I have no problem with the Feds continuing to build highways and run the FDA. But the extent to which state governments (mostly voluntarily!) are becoming addicted to a range of "free" Federal aid and its associated strings is a bothersome development.