[gspencley]

> But the design clearly is not fit for where our society is or the direction it is moving, people have much more affiliation with the national entity than with the state entity

For better or worse.

I would argue that government serves you much better the closer it is to you. A municipal government is going to be a lot more responsive to people who live in that city vs the State / Provincial level, who have a much broader constituency. And the State / Provincial level is going to be a lot more responsive to its constituency than the Federal level.

Politics is the direct result of the philosophy of a culture. The more culturally people identify as "American" instead of "Californian", "Texan", "Virginian" etc. the more you're going to see the scope of the federal level expand, because that's what "the people" are asking for.

The problem with democracy is that people don't always vote or act in accordance with their objective best interests.

And not to go off on a tangent, but the cultural attitude towards democracy itself is indicative of my point. Culturally people tend to equate democracy with "freedom" even though democracy is but a tool. A perfectly appropriate tool for certain things (should we spend the city budget on a new sporting stadium or upgrades to our roads?). But there are other matters that should never, under any circumstance, be put to a vote (ex: what groups of people have rights).

[PaulDavisThe1st]

> I would argue that government serves you much better the closer it is to you.

This works very well for the local wealth crowd. It is much easier to capture city or county government than it is state, and much easier to capture state government than federal. In fact, one of the reasons that we need a more powerful federal government than we did 200 years ago is precisely that local non-governmental power (read: rich folk) has grown in scale that often even state government cannot control it adequately.

There's no inherent reason federal government cannot be just as responsive as more local ones, other than an entire political philosophy and party that is committed to the idea that this is not just impossible but morally wrong.

[gspencley]

> This works very well for the local wealth crowd

It works well for everyone. The problem with government that is for and by the people, is that wealthy people are people too.

You're effectively saying that because you're worried about the "local wealth crowd" "capturing" government, you would prefer to make change in government more difficult and representation farther removed for everyone.

It's not clear how that would make it easier for the "non local wealth crowd" to affect change while it makes it harder for the "wealth crowd" ? Although maybe "local" is the key word here? I mean, that would imply that you're OK with global mega-corps capturing the federal level as long as they are not local companies. But I think I'd be straw-manning you to assume that's your position, and I'm not trying to strawman you. I'm just illustrating the logical conclusion of your idea if I take it at face value.

For what it's worth, I'm not a fan of protectionist economic policies. But if I were, I might offer that "local wealth" at least provides value at the local level (jobs, economic growth etc.) whereas global mega-corps have interests outside of the country.

In any case, it's not at all clear how making it less difficult for the "local wealth crowd" makes it easier for the "non local wealth crowd." As I see it, you just make government farther removed for everyone. Disadvantaging both groups equally. But if you're ideologically driven by a hatred of wealth and of capitalism, then maybe that's well understood and we are all sacrificial lambs on offer.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

> The problem with government that is for and by the people, is that wealthy people are people too.

No, this is not a problem with government for and by the people. It is, however, a problem in a system in which economic power (read: wealth) translates (often almost literally) into political power for individuals. Rich people deserve a vote just like everyone else - but nothing more.

> you would prefer to make change in government more difficult and representation farther removed for everyone.

You say "farther removed" - I say "larger, less dependent on local influence, and with more power". As I said, there is an entire political philosophy and party that insists that responsive federal level government is not possible; as I implied, I simply don't agree with this. Of course, if that philosophy/party has significant political power, then federal government will be less responsive, but that's not inherent.

Yes, mega-corp capture of the largest governmental structures is absolutely a major problem, and one we don't have a good solution to at present. But the existence of that problem doesn't justify a reversion to a system in which local capture becomes easier and more consequential.

Do we need to be careful to not have the federal level squash deserved local variation? Yes, absolutely. But we also do not have to give in to the self-interested claim that federal government cannot serve the interests of the people well, either.

[potato3732842]

>Yes, mega-corp capture of the largest governmental structures is absolutely a major problem, and one we don't have a good solution to at present. But the existence of that problem doesn't justify a reversion to a system in which local capture becomes easier and more consequential.

It boggles the mind that you can say this with a straight face. What do you think vesting more power at the federal level will do if not cause moneyed interests to work harder to capture it?

[whimsicalism]

I think people are far too cynical. A highly visible federal government is in many ways more defensible from monied interests than many many small scale decisionmakers.

[potato3732842]

What do we have if not a highly visible federal government? And yet here we are talking about a hemp ban snuck into a funding bill at the behest of other industries.

[wara23arish]

Isn’t the problem the same with both systems but one just scales a lot better and is more dangerous?

Im intrigued by why you believe federal level should override local variations. It seems so counter intuitive.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

I haven't argued for the federal level to override local variations, in fact I specifically said that it's an important problem to figure out how to avoid this.

The first problem is that city/county/state governments in general have completely inadequate power to confront national or trans-national corporations. The second problem is that some things (e.g. health insurance) really do work better when handled at the largest possible scale.

There are clearly things, like running the municipal rec center, where local government is better positioned than any federal government agency probably ever could be (though I stress "probably"). But there are lots of things where the opposite is true.