Comment by Barrin92 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Barrin92 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Localism is rarely the answer. The housing crisis is the primary example of this. The US has one endemic problem, which is local interests successfully lobbying federal government and putting the interests of the few ahead of the interests of society at large.

It's local homeowner associations, the tendency to litigate everything, the inability for large actors like government or business to purchase and develop land. The one person who symbolizes the reason why modern America can't build for me is Erin Brockovich. A person without any formal training in the legal field suing an entire project into the ground, although as it turns out there's actually no scientific evidence for any of the claims, yet she's celebrated as the little guy who stuck it to the man.

Devolving power to the states may only weaken the federal government whose resources and knowledge are needed to provide large scale infrastructure. The deficit here isn't in the billions, its in the trillions.

I'm not in principal opposed to experimenting with local democracy or whatever but it needs to happen on the back of a federal government with sufficient capacity and competence and power to act quickly.

For the "states as laboratories" thing to work you actually need a mechanism to ensure that the things that work actually get adopted. I don't see this happening in the US. There's way too many inmates running their own asylums.

Perhaps the interstate highway system is a federal issue, but a metro subway or bus system isn't. Seattle's mass transportation system has no impact on Miami's; I doubt either has an impact on Portland's.

What resources and knowledge does the federal government have that the states don't? If the federal government has such knowledge, it should probably publish the papers, so that state and municipal experts can determine how to apply it to their region.

If the federal government lowers taxes, the states can raise theirs, and accomplish whatever objectives they need to. It's a many-billion dollar state issue in many states, which looks like a trillion dollar federal issue when you add up all the states, but there doesn't seem to be any economy of scale which makes the federal government better suited to solving the issue than any given state.

> What resources and knowledge does the federal government have that the states don't?

The problem is democracy. Local governments are more democratic in the sense of being directly responsive to community interests, especially since the 1960s-era reforms. But more democracy is not always better, especially when the community makes contradictory demands. Often you end up trading away administrative efficiency.

So what does the federal government have to offer? A dispassionate, distant, and non-responsive administrative apparatus. At least in the current political context. Whether it could be effectively utilized is another question as there are also other pathologies at play, such as ideological sentiments that the federal government shouldn't be involved, period.

"More democracy is not always better" is an interesting statement. I'd agree that democracy can be inefficient, but in a relatively small community contradictory demands supported by roughly equal numbers of participants is a textbook case of democracy working - you don't change things if half doesn't want it.

That federal government shouldn't be involved is also not only ideological sentiment. Current opinion is that smaller problems are better visible closely, and can be solved locally - as they are smaller - and levels of bureaucracy add significant friction.

There is a position that good democracies are local ones. Some have to delegate for common problems to higher levels, but more remote levels become less democratic - as they are more detached from people. There are counterarguments, some of them are countered in a vague "good" prefix.

People probably aren't going to renounce their US citizenship due to higher taxes, but they will move states if taxes in one are significantly lower. This is one of the problems with trying to implement something like universal healthcare on a state by state basis, you need to increase your revenue in order to do so, and the people you most need to tax (the rich) are also the most able to jump ship.

I'd love it if someone could point out if I'm wrong here.

Not everybody moves to the lowest-tax states. There are plenty of people in New York and California, despite the lower taxes in Florida and Texas. People balance costs and benefits, and effective mass transit is definitely an advantage.

Can't publish employee quality/motivation. By nature of the game, the Federal level generally has more quality expertise available to it,(larger talent pool, more prestige) more funding to explore different issues, and the ability to focus that funding on limited areas of focus.

These are levers generally unavailable at the lower levels of govt, especially not for the smaller states.

>Seattle's mass transportation system has no impact on Miami's

This is only true if you look at it in the absolute shallowest way. Seattle's increased output due to its subway system helps the entire country.

95% (to pull a number out of my rear end) of the use of interstates in a city are for private vehicles belonging to city residents. I-5 in Seattle doesn't "help" Miami either.

You can apply this thinking to the entire world, then. We ought to all be a part of one global country, and London's increased output helps us all!

If only cooperation and decision-making were so simple.

>95%...of the use of interstates in a city are for private vehicles belonging to city residents

This is probably nowhere close to true. People living in cities have less reason to use it. Interstates near and through cities benefit the broader region economically through commuters.

But the bulk of the miles of the interstate system are the boring stretches through Wyoming or wherever, and those stretches tie the nation together economically. Half of all big truck miles are on the Interstate, according to some totally random website I found.

> Between 1952 and 1966, PG&E used hexavalent chromium in a cooling tower system to fight corrosion. The waste water was discharged to unlined ponds at the site, and some percolated into the groundwater, affecting an area near the plant approximately 2 by 1 mile (3.2 by 1.6 km).

~https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Brockovich

Are you trolling?

Erin Brockovich isn't the problem. Dumping waste is the problem.

That kind of "building" just isn't helpful.

> Localism is rarely the answer. The housing crisis is the primary example of this.

I think you could argue that the housing crisis is caused in large part by the fact that states cannot limit immigration from other states. Which would suggest that, perhaps, localism would be a solution to the housing crisis.

How is restricting freedom of movement within the United States, greatly harming individual rights and damaging the economy of the country a solution to the housing crisis? You've found the one thing that's actually worse than the status quo

Reply on news.ycombinator.com