The Zimmerman Trial

[PLATO]

What is the difference between surveillance your community appoints directly (or, closer to directly) in a neighborhood watch and surveillance you appoint indirectly by having your community's proxies in Washington draw up orders?

You and your neighbors have a right to know what is going on in your neighborhood. Senator Butinski doesn't.

[Sava]

You and your neighbors have a right to know what is going on in your neighborhood. Senator Butinski doesn't.

What if Senator Butinski lives in my neighborhood?

[Koyaanisqatsi]

What right do I have to know what goes on next door if it's not hurting me? (I'm not speculating on what might happen in the future.)

[The Mad Monk]

Got Hemlock

[Felch]

What is the difference between surveillance your community appoints directly (or, closer to directly) in a neighborhood watch and surveillance you appoint indirectly by having your community's proxies in Washington draw up orders?

Subsidiarity

[PLATO]

What if Senator Butinski lives in my neighborhood?

Then for your neighborhood only.

[Sava]

Then for your neighborhood only.

But isn't our planet just one big happy neighborhood?

OHMY GOD ONE GOVERNMENT ILLUMINATI BILDERBURGER

BUY GOLLDD

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Subsidiarity

Always struck me as one of those "we've established what you are, now we're just haggling on price" propositions.

[DinoDoc]

Yes, Zimmerman's life has been completely ruined.

I'd say Martin came out a little worse due to the idiocy of both.

[Felch]

Always struck me as one of those "we've established what you are, now we're just haggling on price" propositions.

No, it's a totally different way of looking at the world. Instead of assuming that one solution is best for everybody, you allow the diversity of thought and imagination show through. When you keep as much authority localized as possible you can form more focused strategies to solve problems.

[kentonio]

What is the difference between surveillance your community appoints directly (or, closer to directly) in a neighborhood watch and surveillance you appoint indirectly by having your community's proxies in Washington draw up orders?

It's worth remembering that our colonial friends have never gotten over the idea that the federal government is actually a new incarnation of King George and his royal court. Huge swathes of America would spit at the idea of the federal government feeding starving children, not because they don't like feeding starving children, but just because the govmint are doing it so it must be inherently wrong.

No, it's a totally different way of looking at the world. Instead of assuming that one solution is best for everybody, you allow the diversity of thought and imagination show through. When you keep as much authority localized as possible you can form more focused strategies to solve problems.

While ensuring massive inefficiency, replication of services, the construction of local government empires and the proliferation of cronyism and nepotism. The simple truth is that you don't need a thousand different groups running every service a thousand different ways. If you promote and reward creativity and efficiency within a large organization, innovations will spread and improve the service for everyone.

There are of course advantages to both localized and centralized services, but you can usually have a blend of the two. Insisting that everything is better done locally though, is just short sighted.

[SlowwHand]

Not really.

[kentonio]

A Texan doesn't believe in centralized government? Whodathunkit..

[Felch]

While ensuring massive inefficiency, replication of services, the construction of local government empires and the proliferation of cronyism and nepotism.

Because large centralized governments are known for their efficiency and lack of cronyism and nepotism?

[kentonio]

Because large centralized governments are known for their efficiency and lack of cronyism and nepotism?

Absolutely, the savings from things like large scale procurement, group administration, wide scale coverage of services etc are mind-numbingly huge. The problem is that because the budgets are so vast, money lost to inefficiency appears equally massive. People freak out because a national service wastes millions of dollars (and rightly so, they should) but don't consider that many times more that would be lost through inefficiency and waste if that service was being carried out locally in thousands of different places.

If you believe in the capitalist system then this should be a no brainer. Who is more efficient, Walmart or a local mom & pop store?

As for cronyism and nepotism, huge organizations are absolutely far less prone to it than small local ones. Washington at its very worst is nothing compared to some of the state governments. If the same party is always going to be in control of that state, then it especially becomes a massive issue.