Re:Bringing back the Somali shilling
by whatshisface on Thursday May 25, 2017 @08:05AM
(#14416783)
You're making the strange assumption that the federal government will always be be more in line with your own political views than your state government. After all, at the end of the day a hard-right state is less bad for liberals than a hard-right country, because only in the first case can they try to find a job in California.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Bringing back the Somali shilling
by lostcolony on Thursday May 25, 2017 @09:01AM
(#14417004)
Yes, he's assuming the government will not be terrible to live under. But saying "at least with local government, terrible governments will be localized" is a copout. Can we have non-terrible governments? If so, it makes sense to try and ensure everyone has one.
To me this is like telling "Government will be right for everyone this time, if we tweak the parameters right". Applying rules of Empiricism to large scale governing will just make things worse as long as people have very different world views.
Besides, locality has inherent advantages such as familiarity, cultural similarity and accountability. So at least some local governments will be probably suitable for your liking.
Re:Bringing back the Somali shilling
by thanksgiving on Saturday May 27, 2017 @05:26PM
(#14432044)
I've lived in a small, rural town in Texas and a big city in New Jersey. While the dynamics of local power are very different, I never felt like anybody in power was accountable to me (I am a nobody).
The power of two or three wealthy families is readily visible almost like a movie in a small town. The power structure in a bigger city from what I can gather is a little bit more complex since there are more players. However, I don't think "the powers that be" in a local level are any more accountable to the governed in a localized setting than in a national setting.
I mean think about the last HOA you lived in and tell me you felt the power structure there was "fair".