dagblog - Comments for "Little Republics - Why local is generally better"

Some good also comes from

moat — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 23:57:05 +0000

In reply to …there are areas where the

Some good also comes from interfering. Regulation of bad practices is inherently an intervention. The quality of the people doing that work makes a big difference. In that sense, the Federal government is itself a collection of localities.

Well said, Richard. We

Michael Maiello — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 19:26:37 +0000

In reply to What Minneapolis dumps into

Well said, Richard. We should be able to identify moments of connection without getting too absurd about it.

Interesting. My sister lives

MrSmith1 — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 19:04:57 +0000

In reply to Little Republics - Why local is generally better

Interesting. My sister lives in New Jersey, and they seem to have the opposite problem. There, every municipality or incorporated village has it's own school districts, fire departments, police departments, sanitation departments, etc. Each little fiefdom has it's own town officials making their own rules, where less than a mile away, some other set of officials is doing something completely different. Therefore, property taxes are skyrocketing because each little town has to raise enough money to support doing everything from scratch in terms of buying equipment and supplies, negotiating with unions, paying salaries, etc. To me, it seems like common sense for some of the small towns to merge in order to cut costs and eliminate redundancies. The local municipalities need to become more centralized in order to work more efficiently. But the theory of a more centralized government, even when it's on the small, local level, seems to go against the grain of many Republicans, so it will probably never happen.

What Minneapolis dumps into

Richard Day — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 18:43:49 +0000

In reply to I'm all for as much local

What Minneapolis dumps into the Mississippi, ends up in the gulf and affects the drinking water of citizens in the states in between. The Mississippi is therefore a good target for Federal regulation.

The same would go for the Great Lakes and the surrounding states which in turn affects our borders with Canada.

The problem really lies in interstate commerce. I will never forget finding myself in a Florida grocery store and immediately grabbing some oranges. I got home and the oranges came from California.

It is like a man sneezes in NYC and I catch a cold in Minnesota.

And it does no good, no good whatsoever to chant the Fedral Govment all the time.

The ring of that has always been racial to me.

But Federalism must be examined in every context.

I'm all for as much local

Michael Maiello — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 15:13:05 +0000

In reply to Little Republics - Why local is generally better

I'm all for as much local control as possible. It's hard to imagine that our federal representatives, removed as they are from their constituents, are truly accountable the way the mayor of a city or town might be.

Obviously state's rights arguments have been abused and misused in some heinous cases and we have to insist on a uniform human rights experience for all Americans. I also think that some give and take between local and federal standards and expectations on education make sense. If we're going to have a shared experience there are some things that all Americans from Alaskans to New Yorkers need to know about.

But overall I'd like to see the Federal government pull back so communities can decide how they want to live. I think, for example, this worked well with gambling. Some places tolerate it, some don't. If you like gambling there are a few places where you can visit or move to in order to indulge yourself. Seems like we can and should allow that with tons of other consensual crimes. On the other hand, stuff like freedom of speech has to be inviolable everywhere. It's a matter of knowing what's important.

I think you're absolutely right about the arrogance and assumptions of technocrats. They tend to be correct on paper but not always in practice as people will sometimes refuse to go along with their plans. That said, I'm all for solving problems from the bottom up whenever possible. One example -- governments from the Feds on down are spending money on obesity awareness programs. I bet they'd get a lot more bang for their buck by just identifying at risk people and offering them subsidized gym memberships. Instead of speaking from on high, why not offer people a solution?

…there are areas where the

Atheist — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 14:44:13 +0000

In reply to Not just the Federal

…there are areas where the Federal Government works very well and local not so much and areas where the Federal Government is horrible and the local government works much, much better.

I agree completely (that is, if you substitute "well" for "very well" - I'm not sure of anywhere I'd say any government works "very well"). It sometimes seems that those areas where the Federal Government works well is left to the local areas to do the job, and those areas where the Federal Government is horrible is where they're interfering, but I know that's just a case of cynicism combined with selective perception.

Not just the Federal

cmaukonen — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 14:30:13 +0000

In reply to Little Republics - Why local is generally better

Not just the Federal government saying "one size fits all"

I hate that because it nearly always means it fits nobody. But as a comment to both Resistance and Atheist, there are areas where the Federal Government works very well and local not so much and areas where the Federal Government is horrible and the local government works much, much better. The key is to find them and use them. The right tool for the right job, as they say. But the "when all you have is a hammer, every problem is a nail" approach just does not get it.

The reality is that usually

cmaukonen — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 14:22:14 +0000

In reply to This is huge, messy topic and

The reality is that usually most of this money which is directed directly to households in terms of direct benefits -- medical services, food, housing, etc -- which would have been spent on the same goods and services (in many instances at a higher cost), were spent on salaries and benefits for local workers involved in administrating those programs. So if one had just handed out the money there would have been a lot of people immediately put out work, who then also need their 33K too.

And this is one of the biggest problems I have seen. Not only is this money going to administation instead of the people, but far too often these same administrators apply their trade in a cold, ridged and unresponsive manner. Being mostly concerned with following some rule or guideline set up by some bureaucrat in Washington who has little or know knowlege of the local people or their problems. Is it any wonder there is some much resentment of goverment ?

The takeover of the liberal

Atheist — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 13:45:47 +0000

In reply to Little Republics - Why local is generally better

The takeover of the liberal movement by a grad school elite that sees itself as far brighter than much of the country, of superior virtue, and which believes that as long as you can manage something you can make it work.

Ouch. This hits a little too close to home, especially because there's some truth to that. I would disagree about the "superior virtue" part (I think appearances to that degree are actually explainable by the "brighter" part), but the first part definitely holds true, and the latter part hold true far more than it should, no doubt. I remember seeing this on one professor's door: "In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is." It's something many of us would do well to remember. That said, this also holds true with respect to the ideal of states' rights being the perfect means for creating 50 different tests, running in parallel. It sounds good in theory, but in practice…

Just to be clear, I'm not against states' rights. In fact, I'm for them, but in a qualified way. (Not that I'm suggesting you're for them in an unqualified way.) One feature in practice that causes problems is that when laws that affect the majority of us every day (as opposed to the Federal Boating Act) differ from state-to-state, it can cause confusion for those of us who regularly travel from state to state - something that's probably also more common for those with a higher degree of formal education.

On many points I agree, I

Resistance — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 11:30:39 +0000

In reply to Little Republics - Why local is generally better

On many points I agree, I have also seen what a JOINT EFFORT by the Federal government, the States and private parties, coming together for the good of the Nation.

Not just the Federal government saying "one size fits all"

Take boating for example making the waterways safe for everyone is good, making PFD's MANDATORY for young children. I couldn't imagine to many things worse than having to go search for the little ones. It would have to be the most heartbreaking and all because they didn't have a proper life vest on.

Listening to a drunk boater say "why don't you mind your own business, thats whats wrong with America, to many regulations" then when he's done ranting you read him his rights and tell the drunk, how he just killed a family

Making sure the manufacturers comply with sound regulations "capacity plates" so the occupants don't capsize.

Could you believe a manufacturer, in order to save a few bucks, would leave them off, if not forced to comply?

A cooperative effort to see what works and doesn't. (National) ad campaigns work

Could you imagine the States so scrapped for cash, not putting out bouys? Boater beware?

The bankers and purchasers of boats want a uniform system.

Some guy sells you a boat in Florida for a hundred grand, and it was stolen from ( insert State) Who you going call?

With so many different interest groups fighting for funding, I wonder how much clout boaters would have? NADA