States Are So Passé

[BjornP]

Increased centralization always results in inefficiency in governance, as well as in business. Worse, it also results in... I'd call it "statistical dehumanization", but there might be a better, pre-existing word. The meeting between state and citizen should not only ever occur in the exchange of paper forms, where the state gets to know their citizens only through answers in boxes the state put on the paper for the citizen to check.

the discrete analysis of factor-forms against the stark backdrop of indicators strongly suggests that the subject is not a factor but an indicator, yet the under-studied field of opinion variance leads us to conclude that the indication is not equivocal

That's all I can make of that.

I can boil it down to:

More centralized government is more indifferent government.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I can boil it down to:

More centralized government is more indifferent government.

Do you think eliminating states makes for more or less centralized government?

[Okeefenokee]

More centralized government is more indifferent government.

That doesn't seem to make sense. Wouldn't you expect more centralized government to be more responsive?

[BjornP]

Well, logically, while US states are one guarentee against too much centralization, as long as you had someguarentee of being able to make local decisions at the local, "close-to-the-citizen" level, then - simply looking at the centralization/de-centralization part of it... doesn't really matter if you had states or not. Still, I can't find any logical reason why eliminating states would result in less centralization, since as it is and barring the invention of new de-centralization guarentees, it seems that states remain the best check against too much centralization. At least when we're discussing centralization from federal to state-level. Can't rule out that some states themselves are horribly top-down managed towards their counties or municipalities.

At the cultural level, I'd venture to guess that, like most other countries, mass radio and TV communication, and now the internet, did more to erase regional, cultural and linguistic differences for the US than attempts at political centralization over the last century or so.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I sort of assumed that, in this thought experiment, if we were at the point where we were actually eliminating states from how our government is structured, it meant everybody had pretty much figured out that 'self government' meant (if it meant anything) protecting local control of laws governing said locals.

But you are right, there is no reason to assume that.

[BjornP]

More centralized government is more indifferent government.

That doesn't seem to make sense. Wouldn't you expect more centralized government to be more responsive?

Not at the local level. And it is, after all, at that level that most citizens meet their government. And vice versa. Consider an application for welfare benefits. Which person is best suited to determine if the applicant genuinely meets the criteria? A Washington DC, or even state official, who just responds to the boxes checked in the forms and who determines if you get the benefits based on replying to the correct boxes, only? Or a local case worker, who can determine if there are either mitigating circumstances for why an applicant should recieve benefits, or for that matter has personal insights into the applicant as a someone who would be better off being offered a less expensive course in how to make a monthly budget? One leads to government waste, another leads to better social investments in your fellow citizens.

And if your counter-argument just now is: "Well, the Washington DC, or state official, he could be the one sending out the case worker."... well, then why not just as well have him placed closer to the "field", so to speak? In which case, that's de-centralization. Delegating power. Nevermind that in the case of emergency, autonomy and de-centralization is win. Think of an army that becomes paralyzed with inaction if central command is wiped out. Not the sort of army you'd want, right? Probably not the sort of government you'd want, either.

[TheOneX]

I can boil it down to:

More centralized government is more indifferent government.

Do you think eliminating states makes for more or less centralized government?

The answer is more centralized, and the reason is funding. The majority of local municipal governments simply would not be able to bring in enough tax dollars to do what the states do. Of course the big cities would, but a small town in the middle of Mississippi would not be able to replace a state government which would lead to the national government needing to get involved. Then you also have all that space inbetween cities which would be even less able to fund themselves. The US is simply too big, too spread out, and too diverse to get rid of states. If we got rid of states a lot of the infrastructure they have built up within their states would start to decay as many local governments simply could not afford the upkeep of that infrastructure on their own.

Getting rid of states, and not having the federal government pick up the slack would result in major economic issues for the US.

[Okeefenokee]

More centralized government is more indifferent government.

That doesn't seem to make sense. Wouldn't you expect more centralized government to be more responsive?

I said the opposite of what I meant. I meant to say more localized government would be more responsive. Duh, we were probably in agreement.

[BjornP]

Okee

Yeah we probably are. While I couldn't recall what you might have said in the past on the DCF regarding centralization/de-centralization, it felt odd to see you reply with that. I figured, well... other people have changed their minds and perhaps I just got the guy's opinions wrong.