The stated desire is to prevent government abuse of powers by keeping the governments small and limiting the powers of the larger ones, but if you look at actions rather than words, it's less about restricting government and more about preserving existing power structures.
Reconstruction is one of the most egregious examples.
And even were it not: the unquestioned (and, tbh, often profoundly racist when not merely corrupt) localized governmental structures in question are still wrong, so attempting to sandbag criticism of them by pointing at the federal government, regardless of its status, smells a mite bit fishy.
Its current primary function appears to be taking in tax dollars from regular middle class people and transferring them to corporate campaign donors and special interest groups, or whatever the people in swing districts want to the detriment of everybody else. That this may not legally be corruption doesn't mean that it's doing something good or that we wouldn't be better off on net if it would simply stop doing that.
> Always room for improvement--but the critical difference is that, when it is not, there...
...is nowhere to hide because whatever harm or corruption is implemented at the national level can't be avoided by moving to another neighborhood or another city.
> And even were it not: the unquestioned (and, tbh, often profoundly racist when not merely corrupt) localized governmental structures in question are still wrong, so attempting to sandbag criticism of them by pointing at the federal government, regardless of its status, smells a mite bit fishy.
When something is wrong and someone proposes as a solution something that not only doesn't remove the problem but actually makes it worse, they're not saying that the problem isn't a problem, they're saying that the "solution" isn't a solution.
And given that Florida is disproportionately retirees and a major swing state, all you're doing is proving the point.
There are real benefits to small local government. Yes, there are also problems but that doesn't mean the system is wrong fundamentally. This sword cuts both ways.
Speaking broadly, and particularly of the late 20th century, when the federal government has stepped in to unilaterally overrule state and local government, it has been on the right side of history. There are, of course, a number of infamous exceptions, but the fact that I would likely be unable to converse with you w/o the federal gov't's historic interventions speaks loudly to their efficacy in suh matters.
That local government also tramples rights is more an argument for checks and balances than a reversal of federalism.
I think it's funny that you would use torture as your example, considering that several municipalities (most infamously Chicago and its PD) have been caught torturing suspects and have been placed under federal watch if not control in order to curb their abuses.
What's important about federal oversight is that it is accountability. The ultimate fact is that few institutions, let alone local ones with limited budgets and moral hazards/incestuous conflicts of interest galore, are capable of effectively policing themselves.
The USA has substantially lower taxes and higher salaries, including for the poorest, than the rest of the Western world.
The USA policeforce seems focused on policing, whereas Police Forces in countries like the UK spend time monitoring online behavior whilst ignoring child grooming gangs.
Its also interesting that in the original article, the examples listed are mundane traffic offenses, and the only serious abuse is entirely fictional - from the Sorpranos.
In my experience, they seem mostly focused on figuring out how much time they can get paid for standing around chatting. Others experiences vary, but I don't know many people who would put "policing" high on the list of things US Police focus on.