Thread: Is there a difference between local and non-local government?

government is still government.
some governments may differ in the amount of accountability that's possible, or the amount of resources they command, or their jurisdiction...
but government is still government. It still tells people what to do. It still charges taxes.
So, is there a difference?

Well I think its pretty clear that state governments set standards, laws, and values on a regional basis while the fed sets those same variables over the whole of the states.

So the only difference would be based on the region and the standards, laws, and values.

Originally Posted by johnflesh

Well I think its pretty clear that state governments set standards, laws, and values on a regional basis while the fed sets those same variables over the whole of the states.

So the only difference would be based on the region and the standards, laws, and values.

I mean, state governments are just as likely to screw someone over as national governments.
The only difference between local governments and the others is that local governments need to live among those they effect.

It depends on what you are looking at as an aspect of gov't--each level is an embodiment of civil authority within its jurisdiction so in that sense they're all the same but each differs in the efficacy it can perform a task, so replacing my county gov't with a state one expecting my county functions to operate effectively wouldn't be prudent, nor would putting my county gov't in charge of relations with foreign powers. It does make sense in many localities to consolidate services and functions where the modern age has effectively stretched local capacities/capabilities to serve larger areas.

Municipal (local) Government regulates utilities!

Federal Government regulates your local schools!

Blasphemy!

Ideally a lot of government should occur at a local level - for reasons of accountability, as has been mentioned, but also because ideally people are governed by their own kind, since someone who feels a blood bond is more trustworthy. I am sorry to say that this is impossible in a multi-racial situation (is it heresy to say something negative about this?) - and therefore you get governed by people who are more likely to be interested in profiteering than improving life for those they are supposed to represent.

Originally Posted by Anti-Globalist

Ideally a lot of government should occur at a local level - for reasons of accountability, as has been mentioned, but also because ideally people are governed by their own kind, since someone who feels a blood bond is more trustworthy. I am sorry to say that this is impossible in a multi-racial situation (is it heresy to say something negative about this?) - and therefore you get governed by people who are more likely to be interested in profiteering than improving life for those they are supposed to represent.

what about areas that are heterogenous and multicultural in their nature?

how does local government respond to an influx of immigrants?

Originally Posted by The_Bear

what about areas that are heterogenous and multicultural in their nature?

how does local government respond to an influx of immigrants?

If the area becomes or heterogenous/multicultural then the advantages of local government simply disappear with the government's assumed tribal loyalty to the people, and it might as well be ruled from further away.


Interestingly, the word King itself comes from the word kin - since the King was of his people.

Of course there is.

You see your local school board director at the local grocery store, and can rag on him for bad policy.

You've never seen the head of the NEA, if for no other reason he hides behind the tinted windows of his limo.

The difference? Funding, mostly.