Is it time to break up Washington, DC?

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,583
    113
    Gtown-ish
    It's a nice thought, but history shows us something else. For that matter, so does modem day.

    How would we know?

    So keeping with this example, on the one people were dying from dangerous working conditions. So the fix was to create a regulatory body with broad authority to create safety rules. Maybe not so bad at first, but at some point they need to start justifying their existence, and, you know, when all you have is a regulatory hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Not to mention, power corrupts, and the more power regulatory bodies have the more companies want to have unprotected sex with them and make unwieldy regulatory offspring which helps cronies.

    Maybe there was/is some other way to fix the original problem. Something less crony than creating massive bureaucracies of unelected law makers, attractive to people with money and influence.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,583
    113
    Gtown-ish
    Artificial Intelligence (assuming its programming can overcome the inherently biased nature of its programmers)?

    I wouldn't trust artificial intelligence to create regulations. The only thing trustworthy is human nature's self interest. You figure out how to leverage that to make the right thing be the self-interested thing and people will rather do that.
     

    Twangbanger

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Oct 9, 2010
    7,098
    113
    I do like this style of out-box thinking. But I'm not sure this solves anything. I think there was a time when a distributed Federal Government might have had a positive effect, but today, I'm just not sure physical geography is that great of a barrier to the quote-unquote "harms" we wish to redress.

    For example: can you imagine the ATF being headquartered in Massachusetts? The EPA in California? SEC in New York? What are the benefits, vs. the potential harms? These power-centers are not going to wind up in "Red" spots on the map. They're going to wind up in dense, glowing "Blue" spots...the "laboratories" of liberalism.

    And they're going to fight to keep it there. For example, what effect has distributing Military Contracts all over the country had on decreasing the largesse of the military-industrial complex? It just gives every god-d@mn legislator in the country something to fight about keeping in their district. "You keep EPA in your district...I keep GSA in mine." You can imagine the sausage-making deals that would occur.

    You seem to view the Federal Government as a sort of critical-mass "reactor core," in which breaking it up and distributing it slows down the reaction.

    I view it as a cancer...and breaking it up just spreads it all over the body.

    Just not sure that physical geography, in itself, is the key variable we need to be concerned about here.
     
    Last edited:

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    I do like this style of out-box thinking. But I'm not sure this solves anything. I think there was a time when a distributed Federal Government might have had a positive effect, but today, I'm just not sure physical geography is that great of a barrier to the quote-unquote "harms" we wish to redress.

    For example: can you imagine the ATF being headquartered in Massachusetts? The EPA in California? SEC in New York? What are the benefits, vs. the potential harms? These power-centers are not going to wind up in "Red" spots on the map. They're going to wind up in dense, glowing "Blue" spots...the "laboratories" of liberalism.

    And they're going to fight to keep it there. For example, what effect has distributing Military Contracts all over the country had on decreasing the largesse of the military-industrial complex? It just gives every god-d@mn legislator in the country something to fight about keeping in their district. "You keep EPA in your district...I keep GSA in mine." You can imagine the sausage-making deals that would occur.

    You seem to view the Federal Government as a sort of critical-mass "reactor core," in which breaking it up and distributing it slows down the reaction.

    I view it as a cancer...and breaking it up just spreads it all over the body.

    Just not sure that physical geography, in itself, is the key variable we need to be concerned about here.

    Especially given the massive amounts of money involved, election dynamic, and the entailing Constitutional questions.
     

    BugI02

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 4, 2013
    32,136
    149
    Columbus, OH
    I wouldn't trust artificial intelligence to create regulations. The only thing trustworthy is human nature's self interest. You figure out how to leverage that to make the right thing be the self-interested thing and people will rather do that.

    You indicated a desire for a system more immune to cronyism and the other excesses of politics as it is currently. If you could engineer AI to give absolutely unbiased answers as to what is right or what is a best solution and people believed that the results were in fact unbiased and immune to backroom dealing you might be able to get somewhere

    Something like an oracle, but without the pronouncements being obscure and difficult to interpret. You lament officials cannot be experts at everything, but Watson potentially could be. The rub would be getting people to accept its pronouncements when it went against their self-interest. Same as it ever was
     

    GodFearinGunTotin

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    50,892
    113
    Mitchell
    Instead of moving, say, the department of energy, how about just eliminate it? The problem isn’t that the federal government is to concentrated. It’s that it’s too big and powerful. The heft the government has grown to is a result of becoming several regulatory bodies. At most they should just enforce laws enacted by representatives.

    I jave no problem with havin the national seat of power in a capital city. I do have a problem with giving it too much power. There shouldn’t be 4 branches of government. Just three.
    Agreed. The root problem is size and the power not the location. Relocating and disbursing the problem will probably be more likely to hide it and allow it to corrupt further than fix it.
     

    BugI02

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 4, 2013
    32,136
    149
    Columbus, OH
    Especially given the massive amounts of money involved, election dynamic, and the entailing Constitutional questions.

    Article I Section 4
    The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

    Article I Section 8

    To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings ...

    Not seeing any constitutional issues, with or without tails, limiting the ability of congress to severely curtail legislative time spent in DC or move administration or division headquarters to any location they wish. Not advocating moving the House, Senate or White House out of DC; just minimizing the length of time we need to keep our hands on our wallets

    I was expecting this to be done by legislation, not [STRIKE]Obama-style[/STRIKE] presidential fiat
     

    Mikey1911

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 14, 2014
    2,785
    113
    Newburgh
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...the-fbi/0c3e3d32-0cb2-4d0a-bd2a-ae459a929bfa/

    Well, here’s an example of moving governmental facilities out of the Beltway—arranged by Hillary’s “mentor” Robert C. Byrd and reported on (in 1991) by that paragon of the “Free Press”, The Washington Post.

    Nothing new under the sun—whenever a Congresscritter can get themselves re-elected a sufficient number of times, they begin to believe in their own infallibility and that they have the eternal right to arrange to transfer federal tax revenues to their own state to ensure their next re-election.
     

    Phase2

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 9, 2011
    7,014
    27
    I do like this style of out-box thinking. But I'm not sure this solves anything. I think there was a time when a distributed Federal Government might have had a positive effect, but today, I'm just not sure physical geography is that great of a barrier to the quote-unquote "harms" we wish to redress.

    For example: can you imagine the ATF being headquartered in Massachusetts? The EPA in California? SEC in New York? What are the benefits, vs. the potential harms? These power-centers are not going to wind up in "Red" spots on the map. They're going to wind up in dense, glowing "Blue" spots...the "laboratories" of liberalism.

    And they're going to fight to keep it there. For example, what effect has distributing Military Contracts all over the country had on decreasing the largesse of the military-industrial complex? It just gives every god-d@mn legislator in the country something to fight about keeping in their district. "You keep EPA in your district...I keep GSA in mine." You can imagine the sausage-making deals that would occur.

    You seem to view the Federal Government as a sort of critical-mass "reactor core," in which breaking it up and distributing it slows down the reaction.

    I view it as a cancer...and breaking it up just spreads it all over the body.

    Just not sure that physical geography, in itself, is the key variable we need to be concerned about here.

    Oh, I don't consider distributing federal government agencies and departments to be a panacea. There is no reason you can't use multiple tools to fix a problem. You can still work to reduce their power, make congress stay in their districts more and other solutions while also redistributing those groups. My point is that there would be multiple benefits from breaking up DC.
    • Cost reductions.
    • Giving people better access and more influence over those who are impacting them.
    • More equitable distribution of economic benefits and employment that we are being forcefully taxed to support.
    • Greater diversity in viewpoints from regional hires and being exposed to different communities. You claim that agencies would go to intensely liberal/blue areas. No doubt some would, but they are 100% located in such an area now. I don't see your examples following the rule that agencies should generally be moved to areas where they have the greatest impact, but I'll concede that those choices are possible.
    1984 described the power of the surveillance state and redefining terminology as a way to control thought (thoughtcrimes). Animal Farm was an allegory on the evils of Communism such as the "othering" of various groups to rule by maintaining divisions while at the same time mouthing nice-sounding platitudes such as "All animals are equal". Both shine a disturbing mirror on things we see happening in the US. Unfortunately, I see Hunger Games providing a similar warning, with Washington draining resources from the rest of the country and enriching themselves while looking down on those they are taxing and controlling. There is no valid reason that an area based entirely on non-productive government should be the richest area in the country.

    I understand your analogy about spreading a cancer, but I see it as more like diluting a poison.
     
    Last edited:

    Leadeye

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 19, 2009
    36,861
    113
    .
    It's the richest area of the country because government is pay to play. The croupiers in this game are the law/lobby firms in the belt way that control access to everything from your representatives to the regulators of the bureaucracy. Working for the government then working as a consultant/go between for the regulated is very lucrative.

    Always follow the money
     

    Twangbanger

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Oct 9, 2010
    7,098
    113
    ...1984 described the power of the surveillance state and redefining terminology as a way to control thought (thoughtcrimes). Animal Farm was an allegory on the evils of Communism such as the "othering" of various groups to rule by maintaining divisions while at the same time mouthing nice-sounding platitudes such as "All animals are equal". Both shine a disturbing mirror on things we see happening in the US. Unfortunately, I see Hunger Games providing a similar warning, with Washington draining resources from the rest of the country and enriching themselves while looking down on those they are taxing and controlling. There is no valid reason that an area based entirely on non-productive government should be the richest area in the country...

    To liven this thread back up...do you have an example in mind, of a specific offensive rule that has been adopted by a Federal executive agency...an alternative location where that agency could have been placed...and the different outcome it would have had on the rule in question? Just to put some meat to this idea?
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    It's the richest area of the country because government is pay to play. The croupiers in this game are the law/lobby firms in the belt way that control access to everything from your representatives to the regulators of the bureaucracy. Working for the government then working as a consultant/go between for the regulated is very lucrative.

    Always follow the money

    I think you'd have that issue regardless of where govt offices were. If you place the DoD in Fargo, ND... I'd expect you see massive wealth flow into that city, and a "Who's Who" of buildings owned by defense contractors, as well as pretty significant spike in tech and manuf businesses throughout ND.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,583
    113
    Gtown-ish
    I think you'd have that issue regardless of where govt offices were. If you place the DoD in Fargo, ND... I'd expect you see massive wealth flow into that city, and a "Who's Who" of buildings owned by defense contractors, as well as pretty significant spike in tech and manuf businesses throughout ND.

    I think this is right. Rather than wealth flowing to one city it would flow to all the cities government lives. Dispersed chunks of big government still adds up to big government. Scattering government doesn't shrink it. Only shrinking it shrinks it.
     

    Twangbanger

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Oct 9, 2010
    7,098
    113
    I think this is right. Rather than wealth flowing to one city it would flow to all the cities government lives. Dispersed chunks of big government still adds up to big government. Scattering government doesn't shrink it. Only shrinking it shrinks it.

    And I agree, but to be fair, I really don't think he's talking about shrinking it. (Or maybe I'm diminishing that aspect, because I don't really believe any cost will ever be saved by anything the government does). I think he's making the case that Federal government will render different results, when the decisions are made in different geographic places.

    I just would like to know the mechanism, or see an example, of how that's supposed to work. For discussion. Because if you can't make a cogent case for how that happens...then what's this really about?

    Near as I can tell, i
    t seems to be based on the idea that the local, low-level talent the agencies employ - the kind of civil service small-fry who aren't routinely cleared out every time the White House changes hands - are somehow key players in the policies produced. And, that you'll get different policy, when these small-fry get pulled from a different local geographic pool.

    Which is interesting...but I would like him to "show his work" in how he gets there.

    Does the Federal Government render sh!tty policies because it's in D.C.? Or does it render sh!tty policies because it's Federal? I'm voting Federal. I think being Federal confers upon it an inherent sh!ttiness which is portable, and will carry with it everywhere it goes, like the interior design of a Post Office. But I'm willing to be shown otherwise. (Key word is, "shown," not just "asserted.")
     
    Last edited:

    BugI02

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 4, 2013
    32,136
    149
    Columbus, OH
    I'm visualizing effects similar to what might happen if you made George Will live in Bozeman or Billings. If the Ivy-league, educated palate, haute cuisine set was forced to really live among the folks they usually do not deign to notice, perhaps they would have a bit more compassion for the ordinary man. Certainly if their Soiree Set social bubble collided repeatedly and often with the other 97% of the world it might lose some structural integrity

    An added benefit would be if the self-styled DC elite just couldn't bring themselves to live among the unwashed, perhaps deserving but less pedigreed individuals would have a shot at the agency jobs. Do you think if Buffett purchases a corporation and moves its executive staff to Omaha that there would be no effect on corporate culture?

    It's all wishful thinking, though. We'll have to bring out the pitchforks and torches to really drain the swamp, and as the siren song of free **** reaches ever more minds willing to rationalize getting said free stuff (see: Any Netflix Neutrality thread) inevitably the mob will no longer be up to the task.


     

    Leadeye

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 19, 2009
    36,861
    113
    .
    I think we would all agree that state and local governments are more responsible to the people is a general perception. Perhaps this comes from them just being physically closer or maybe because it's makeup is perceived as local. You could call that clannish or tribal, but I think locality makes a difference.

    There was a recent article in the local paper about president Trump's feud with intelligence agencies. Many members of these dc based organizations supported his opponent with public statements and written articles which understandably irritated him. A popular part of his campaign was anti dc so you have to ask to what degree these people were defending their culture and livelihood. How many others in this same situation see this aspect of his direction as a threat and are taking actions to stop it?

    Bug is right though, it would take a Ukraine style revolt to change anything or years of hammering through the political process.
     

    Phase2

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 9, 2011
    7,014
    27
    HeyTwangbanger. I owe you a full response, but I'm rebuilding my PC right now. Can't do this on my phone. Should be OK tomorrow.
     
    Top Bottom